Personally, I think you're leaving out an important data point when you're directly comparing INTPs and INTJs: INTPs are Ji-dom and INTJs are Pi-dom. I think if you fail to take that difference into consideration, you'll end up misinterpreting how the judging function is integrated into the whole function stack--how it's being used. I think a better comparison would be Ti-dom to Te-dom. That would eliminate the influences of Ji-dom vs Pi-dom and maybe highlight a purer difference between Ti and Te.
This is speculation on my part. I'm a Pi-dom. I've sat here at the computer reading this forum for years now--observing, taking in what people write. Yes, sometimes I throw out judgments, and sometimes I get very attached to those judgments, but as long as I keep observing to see whether my judgement holds water in the real world, and then keep comparing and refining my inner concepts, then I might come up with something that appears to be insightful.
To address your bolded, if I'm interpreting you correctly, I think that what you're saying goes back to what I wrote about Pi-dom vs Ji-dom. I think you're seeing that difference: that Ni perceives first, and you're comparing it to your own process of Ti evaluating first, rather than seeing a difference between my Ni and your Ne. Again, speculation. Personally, I think successfully isolating and comparing an internal and external function is going to prove to be difficult without some sort of base knowledge which is missing at this point.
The INTP vs INTJ example was given to me by someone (an INTJ, in fact), and I threw it in because it was an INTJ who was questioning what I was saying.
So it was a general description of how Ni works vs how Ti works, and yes, the understanding was that both in that case are the ego's main perspective. "hammer in the stakes" conveys a rational assessment (judging) of the situation, while the Ni exmple of "cutting a hole in the side" is to try to gather more information. In fact, what you're doing, is exactly what the person was describing to me regarding Ni: "looking for what's been
left out".
But I don't see any real dispute; I was just covering one aspect of a Ti vs Ni difference.
Yes, of course, anyone can compare things. We all have perceiving and judging functions in our stacks. That is too general, too big-picture. Processes are processes. Pi is Pi, Ji is Ji, etc. So, to tease out the differences, to see what Ni is, I think you can look at Si to see the same general big-picture process, which should take away some of the mystery. Then, the difference will be in the details: what data does Ni focus on? And there's the difficulty. We all have a function stack to help us deal with the world, so I can focus on the more concrete data with my inferior Se, which makes it difficult to say where the demarcation is between abstract and concrete, since we all can perceive both types of data and our perceptions are influenced by all sorts of things like culture and family, so we most likely have different levels of function development within one type.
When I talk about "anyone can do", I'm not talking necessarily about the functions in "the stack". When we see immediate concret data (associated with "Se"), you do not have to necesarily access the "inferior" (And for me, it would be the "7th" function, which is the shadow of the tertiary). To remember something; I don't have to "use" the tertiary (and for you, it would be the shadow of the inferior). That's why I say the "stack" is about the "ego-states" that
focus on the respective data for each type.
But outside the ego states, we can all either take data directly, or compare things. So when I speak of "comparing" or not, typologically (i.e. Inquiring vs Realizing); I'm referring to the ego states, and in saying "anyone can do it", was only clarifying that yes, it may "sound" too general, but
has to be taken in the context of the differentiated type stack (via the ego states).
So Se obviously takes emergent concrete data as is.
Ni takes directly from impressions from the unconscious, like the sense that something's been "left out".
Si compares it to what has been taken in before.
Ne compares external objects (patterns, etc.) according to a "big picture".
That was all I was pointing out.