According to your own examples anyone who can grasp that "fire burns things down" (i.e. anyone not suffering from serious mental retardation) has Ni.
Ne is the context-switching function par excellence.
Your post just reads like another INTJ fantasy of illusory superiority. An area where your type does seem to excel.
No shit. I think I just found out that my Si is stuck in a box, can't use, or even grasp, contextual data, and is hiding its ability to memorize long lists.
And this is why we often end up saying, "I dunno, just a hunch," when asked how we arrive at whatever conclusion.
I'm limited to using analogies to explain what's going on. All it takes is one person to take something literally - or personally - and then instead of trying to explain my idea, I'm stuck trying to explain the explanation of my idea.
There are no superpowers, here. I don't need to know exactly "how others think" to realize that how I think is very different. Of course most people understand "cause and effect". INTJs understand concrete definitions, too. INTJs think
in terms of cause and effect: the world model is built from verbs, not nouns.
A large part of what I'm trying to explain is that, as I understand it, Ni intuition isn't "just a hunch" or even "something rising from the unconscious." It's a way of looking at the world that is always there, a perspective that appears to be very uncommon. It isn't superpowers, or supersmarts. It's more like an
idiot savant kind of ability, one which has probably not been all that useful for most of the history of humanity, though perhaps more useful now with the advent of computers.
In a nutshell, I'm trying to describe Ni in a way that doesn't handwave about gut feelings or hunches or harnessing the unconscious mind, and point out fairly concrete properties that distinguish from the other functions.
Here's another, more esoteric analogy. In higher level programming languages, there is a style of programming called "object oriented programming." Programs written in such a style are still "just programs" that get turned into machine code: the important distinction is how the code is
organized. For OOP, that organization is into "objects", and objects have properties and methods - they have things and can do things. This makes it easy to organize programs, because you can just take an "object" and "use it" whether by reading its properties or calling its methods. I would analogize this to Si: there are "things" that are classified and categorized in a concrete way. One has libraries of these things to be pulled out and used as needed.
An alternative (and much less popular) style of programming is "functional programming." In a functional programming language, "functions" are the primary entities. Even what you might think of as a variable is a "function" that takes no arguments and returns a value. Because of this, instead of building programs with objects, one builds programs with functions. One can take functions and easily build new functions from them, layering them in different ways. I would analogize functional programming with Ni.
In general, object oriented programming is much more useful than functional programming. It's easy to share objects, and often programming objects correspond to "real" objects in the real world. (E.g., telling a printer to print a document.) Functional programming is more useful in very specific ways, such as processing data, working with mathematical equations, parallel processing (everything is immutable), and pretty much anything where what you're doing in real life is more easily mapped to a functional kind of thinking. It's this functional (cause and effect - function takes argument and delivers result) kind of thinking that I ascribe to Ni.
Note that any truly practical functional programming style will occasionally need to employ objects (talk with interfaces to make things happen in the real world). And of course, any object oriented programming style has to have
some objects with methods (functions) in order to get anything done at all. So neither style is at all ignorant of the other, but they are organized very differently, and the pieces of code fit together very differently.
And that is how I see the differences between Si and Ni.