The OP didn't reach the goal it was aiming at I believe. For starters it way way too technical. If you want to help to distinguish it's better to provide examples. Also he has quoted the common definition of Introverted intuition and extroverted intuition which have terrible definitions.
The issue with both those functions are they unlike the S counterparts can't function or be realized without the sensing. Ni more so than Ne.
Ni are filtered realizations of what they know/observed etc/S to their more pressing subconscious questions. Everyone has these realizations, but INJs trust them the most.
I do not believe that this is true. Check out the "boxes" analogy I used earlier in this thread, prompted by an observation MacGuffin made. Let's compare Si with Ni. Si is the concrete singular box that is shared by a community/society. People can argue about the box, what should be in the box, how to change small pieces of the box. Some people can think "outside the box", covering material that is not part of the usual communal understanding of the world. The point is that there is only the one box, and YOU don't get to change it. You can "leave it" (e.g., via Ne), but even Ne doms are unconsciously constrained by it.
Ni doesn't reject the notion of a shared box, so much as it starts out life creating new boxes without trying. At this point, it helps the analogy to indicate what the "box" and "boxes" really represent. They're
worldviews: both Ni and Si are worldviews that underpin how the different types subjectively understand reality. The Si singular box is naturally and easily shared because its rules are concrete: "fire is hot", "ice is cold", "rocks are solid", "water is wet". Si is the vast crystalline matrix of everything one might think of as a fact. It's essentially an understanding of what "things" "are". Ni doesn't work like that at all. Ni has a really hard time trying to memorize long lists of data outside of a context, the way Si does. Instead, Ni
relies on context. For Ni, each "box" is "a context." That context is basically a list of cause-effect rules: "gravity makes things fall down", "fire burns things down". My examples are clearly obvious cause-effect rules.
Here is a link to a post of mine with a more complicated example.
What needs to be made clear here is that
most people don't think like this. It isn't about intuitions and hunches, and Ni doms trusting them more. Most peoples' minds do not follow these paths. Most people don't switch out contexts in order to better understand something.
For them the external sources/what others say aren't necessary because they have trained themselves to trust what they know/trust in Ni. And why shouldn't they, they have know all the necessary details.
Or more to the point, while an Ni dom might not have all of the details, the cause-effect patterns we see hold true in spite of the details. For instance, watching a balloon "fall up" doesn't disprove gravity, it's a specific context of how gravity works. The usual Ni dom mistake is that, for instance, we didn't know you were talking about a
helium-filled balloon, as opposed to a car or a philly cheesesteak sandwich.
Their decisions will be biased only by the judging functions: Te or Fe.
Biased isn't quite the right word, here. Decisions will be
in terms of Te or Fe. The decisions are
biased by what Ni sees and doesn't see.
However the issue may rise when they come to the wrong conclusion/realization if they don't have certain crucial details.
Very true.
Because they don't think of answers from different angles but simply tends to question more (unless they are a E6 who has a shit ton of self doubting) they don't tend to think of different possibilities.
Not true. We don't think of different Ne-style angles, searching around the outside of the communal Si box. We think in terms of switching out hypothetical rules/contexts until we come up with an explanation that answers the question we have in mind.
However when more crucial evidence is taken in by their Se their realizations/Ni will quickly without any hesitation change.
True.