First, I think your Ne is constantly on overcharge or something. That's probably where most of that comes from. And yes, Fi would likely be better than Ti at problems involving human elements. And three, my Ti is perfectly capable of dealing with "fuzziness". In fact, that's kinda it's job. To sort out fuzziness. Possibly it could be that you are more likely to go with whatever answer Ne spits out, and your ENTP coworkers take more time to get a Ti model. If they went with Ne more, possibly they could be just as fast as you.
imo
Thus they are constrained by Ti? Perhaps in these examples I do use Ne like mad, however is that because it isn't bound by Ti logical rules? It gets to jump the track to the fastest Fi tinted solution, which seems to be correct most of the time.
I know these examples/this question seems pretty specific but I am really digging at a more core question-a T/F question. It sort of came up on the Nfs understanding NTs thread. I dont mean to attack or be obnoxious or knock Ti in anyway, I just would like to try and understand more clearly.
It seems like the "superior/correct" answer for a problem to a thinker is one that is logical, precise, well defined and has well discrete steps that link each component of the solution together.
If I provide a solution based upon how I feel, my values, my gut responses, the answer is deemed questionable by a thinker, since I cannot call out those individual, discrete logical components that went into the solution. This troubles me a little.
I think there are certain types of problems NeTi or TiNe is ideal for addressing. They are clean, crisp, well defined, precise and logical.
However there are whole hosts of other types of problems where being a feeler I think gives you an advantage over being a thinker, even if we cannot explicitly call out the logical, discrete steps from one aspect of the solution to another. These in this thread are a nice place to start as they are pretty clean problems that are starting down the path of getting muddier.
So perhaps even if not "logical" by a thinkers standards, the answer is still superior to one proposed by a thinker?