I've actually found this with a lot of Ti people. I can tell we're so clearly using the same software, and so there's a sense of eerie familiarity, yet we can't help clashing. Let's call the standard xNTP Tom. I think as a result of our similarity Tom and I have each got the same pitfalls and suspicions about everyone other than ourselves, and the same countermeasures to those suspicions, with all the same mental checks and balances for being 'accurate' and 'precise', and are always quite certain we've done all we can to secure our certainty. So whenever there's a disagreement, it's as if the other person is an imperfect copy of ourselves. They must be doing something wrong. They're not who we thought! It's like looking at a distorted reflection of yourself. Or like having a reflection who doesn't move where you do, but does whatever the hell he wants. It's unnerving and unsettling. And a lot of the time you can't connect properly, because Ti is so detached by necessity Tom becomes convinced he is as well - detached, objective, independent, individual... the perfect analytical weighing machine. Everything *I* say has to be phrased in the most stringent terms to be accepted, even though if the same thoughts occurred in Tom's head the qualifiers and disclaimers would be axiomatic and therefore unnecessary to voice. So everything is received from me as an Other with suspicion because it didn't arise in Tom's head, which is the final arbiter of truths (he is willing to accept). Because Ti has to weigh it up before Tom will accept it as 'worthy'. It's this very independence of mind that makes us in some ways so hard to connect with, because we don't extend the benefit of the doubt to others. This can make it hard for Ti users to talk to each other without feeling overly pressured to add a bunch of qualifiers unnecessary for the conversation and offended that the other doesn't realise they mentally assume all the same disclaimers the other is now demanding as a matter of course - and at the same time feeling suspicious of the other person's mental clarity because of *their* imprecise language! As a result each goes away dissatisfied, thinking the other an intellectual fraud and somehow worse than a stereotypical ESFP who can just be (so they think) dismissed out of hand as worthless - as well as an unpleasant conversationalist.
For Ti users, an important Next Step in our constant attempt for mental progress would be incorporating not only the very natural "I may be wrong" counter, but also the "They may not be talking out their ass" counter. Extending the benefit of the doubt, giving them a proper chance to prove themselves (utterly and gloriously wrong
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/b470d/b470d7da2913df4fb8e7ab2215898db3541ed9f1" alt=":p :p :p"
) rather than jumping on every hint of imprecision. Just as a useful development of genuine connective ability, maybe, not our usual kind of connection where we pretend to be into it but keep a small part of ourselves wary and watchful and... cmon, admit it - silently judging.
(I think.)
It's more a problem when you're trying to share an idea or an interesting thought. There are definitely those occasions when sparring/debate/attempts at perfect expression are fun.