enneagram 2 and 6 vs enneagram 4, 5, 9, and 1.
if context is just one concrete domain, you've got si. if context is all possible domains, brought about by a process of using analogy to blend a variety of contexts, you've got Ni. Ni likes the map about the map, because the meta-map lets us reorganize our search parameters by identifying clear sub-patterns. very alchemical.
if we are to perform abduction, or to deduce the causes from the effects (a kind of time travel), we've got Ni. in general, Ni is interested in "the conditions of possibility." we work by triangulating contexts until we can get to the imaginary center of things, which must be imaginary because we have invented a new domain for it out of too many seemingly disparate, disconnected levels of description. i liken it to the process of fractalization, of piecing together fractionated contexts into a coherent, quasi-absolute topological field whose relative symmetry organizes how to perceive the meaning of the differences that emerge over time (forward moving, diachronic time).
also, infjs at the bat tend to hit more foul balls. straight lines are really hard for us. and there's so much more chaos in every aspect of us because we're constantly re-aggregating everything. no meaning to memorize that can ground us and stay fixed, because Ni just doesn't work like that. the waves are too powerful. and time is happening in all directions while we check out to try to reintegrate a sense of absolute, synchronic time to unify the disparate, relativistic contexts. neglecting to keep your eye on the ball.
more simply, perhaps a quick, other-administered "are you an anime character" test would help disambiguate.
anyway, both types tend to neglect their own story and have trouble monitoring themselves from the inside over the flow of time. in general, the lack of temporal awareness, of being with the internal, particularizable self along a path of changes is highly underdeveloped which makes us overrely on the predictive aspects of more universalized/cultural meanings and the way those are value-marketed in concrete cultural settings/games. this is the way Fe is ecological. we're a constant barometer for social dynamics that we can't help but identify with because our way of monitoring well-being is marked to compare whether the prescriptive lenses we have inherited and re-potentiated again and again are registering within ranges of health or unhealth. so isfjs tend to try to hold stasis outside of them, because there is a more concrete validity to those meanings that have been assumed so long ago, and the grammar of it all simply is what it is, whereas infjs tend to try to slough their way back to the origin again and again, the whole questing thing, to figure out where the center is in the multiverse, to try to contextualize functional value across disparate populations needing constant reaggregation, to become self-conscious of evolution in process and contribute to a wider-ranging update of the various operating systems that need to be reconfigured.
the enneagram is like a prism that organizes the qualitative sites and their respective scales through which this kind of deliberative function plays itself out. Ni is the most abstract, but, say, 1 vs 5 is pretty different because e1 is using abstract means to model concrete problems requiring coordinated social action whereas 5 is building an interpreter for the various codes of the cosmos.