Um... to quote from that post that I already linked you to (and I know it's longish, but you really ought to read the whooooole thing)...
As I'm always pointing out, the modern function descriptions you'll find in Thomson, Berens, Nardi, etc. differ in many ways (large and small) from Jung's original concepts, and appear to be a set of descriptions more or less jerry-rigged to match up reasonably well with the MBTI types they purportedly correspond with. (As one dramatic example, and as described at length in
this post, the description of "Si" you'll find Thomson, Berens, Nardi and Quenk using bears little resemblance to Jung's "introverted sensation" and is instead a description made to match MBTI SJs. And you can read about the changes Myers made to Te in
this PerC post.)
So... since "Ne" descriptions are set up to match NPs (extraverts and introverts both) reasonably well (since the IN_Ps are "Ne-aux" types) and "Ti" descriptions are set up to match TPs (extraverts and introverts both) reasonably well (since the E_TPs are "Ti-aux" types), it's not surprising that INTPs and ENTPs both read those modern Ne and Ti descriptions and feel like they relate reasonably well. (Although I can't help noting that, as discussed in the spoiler in
this post, INTJs often relate pretty well to Ne and Ti descriptions as well....)
As a general matter, in other words... if you're looking at those modern cognitive function descriptions, and you're applying them to the types who purportedly have them as their
dominant or auxiliary functions, you're likely to get quite a bit of
piggybacked validity, because if an "Ne" description is largely made up of things that NPs tend to have in common, it's obviously going to be reasonably valid for NPs.
But none of that has anything to do with whether the functions — as components of a four-function "type dynamics" model — beat Reynierse's "category mistake" rap.