I'm afraid I have to disagree with you a bit, here, SW. xNTPs tend to think more in terms of a single coherent system, and are very good at laying out all the rules of that single coherent system, given time. However, I do not find that Ne can be described as an "ability to translate ... ideas into palatable terms." In general, I find Ne-driven communication to be valuable, but very much unfocused. With Ti, it tends to randomly state "true things", without explicitly relating one idea to another. [CAVEAT: this is a tendency; individual skill plays a huge role.]
Maybe this has something to do with you actually being an NTJ. In my experience NTJs are great at describing the concrete applications of systems that can be described literally and explicitly in TeSe terms. I'll give you that you guys are, in that regard, exceptionally precise.
But when it comes to trying to explain
ideas; by that I mean, the Ni-driven insights about perspective which have not yet made their way into empirical proof or a consistent system of application, and thus not yet expressible in Te terms. I guess I don't really "get" the Ni perspective, because often asking for clarification of this sort of thing gets rebuffed, because, I am told by many NTJs, that putting the idea into words would ruin its significance.
I know you don't really believe in Ne vs. Ni, but I think you could interpret this situation in terms of the dichotomy between the two. Ni is typically described as notably having more difficulty with outward expression of its ideas than Ne, and I think we can attribute this, at least partially, to Ne's ability to recognize contextual similarities between very disparate contexts. (Yes, something Ne does better than Ni, imo! Imagine that.)
As for Ti stating true things with no apparent relationship to each other, that's largely a result of Ne's assumption you'll intuitively grasp the relationship between them as easily as it does. There usually is some kind of relationship there; we just don't always remember to explain why. This is especially a problem with ENTPs; I find that clearly delineating the seemingly bizarre jumps in trains of thought (there is a pattern, I promise!) is a skill that's worth placing more emphasis on Ti development for, especially for ENTPs.
I will not argue that INTJs are particularly good at it either. Though Te gives them a certain edge with respect to explaining how a particular thing "works," the Ni source is highly abstract and it takes a good deal of effort from Te to turn it into coherent output. Personally, I would describe my coherence as Te-driven, but I suspect it might not be a property of MBTI type or Jungian functions at all, but simply a trained skill.
That's possible, I guess, but I think you can probably describe it pretty well as a Te tendency. But as I was saying above, NTJs seem often unable to communicate the significance of their intuitive ideas until they can be put into Te terms, which can take a lot of time, or depending on how weird the idea might be, possibly never happen at all. Honestly it sounds like we're each just criticizing the other's situational dependency on Thinking, since as N doms we both value iNtuition more highly.
The classic ENTP/INTJ debate. I have this with my brother like every month.
I would say that xNTPs have a natural tendency to be good at creating and writing about a coherent logical system of whatever kind. As long as the matter at hand can be explained by such a system, it is clear communication. xNTJs on the other hand, tend to be good at analyzing systems in terms of how they work -- a functional approach if you will -- in the problem-solving way to which I alluded before. Thus xNTJs will tend to be good at explaining how a system or entity works or applies to the real world.
True--we need a Ti grasp to express ideas clearly in the same way you need a Te one. The difference being NTJs tend to end up better at application and NTPs better at theoretical explanation, once each has had time to apply Thinking to those raw intuitions.
The clarity of either presentation is dependent upon skill and practice. The ability of others to comprehend the presentation will partly depend upon one's own inclination to understand things in terms of a comprehensive system or in terms of a functional approach.
Of course, you're correct that learned skill plays a big part in this. These are just some trends I've noticed between types that seem supported by the general differentiations between Ne and Ni, which I think are pretty evident in observing NTPs vs. NTJs. Some are skilled in both application and theoretical explanation, but I think their different approaches to construction of systems tend to lead each more naturally in one direction than the other.
And I'll be an architecture student in the fall.
