Maybe it's just me, but part of that description is me at my best, at least as far as art is concerned. The whole description may not describe me, but it doesn't really sound like me at my worst, just different. Maybe it's because I'm fairly comfortable with Fi though I don't consciously use it. I still identify with ESFJ more as a shadow function.
On the cognitive processes site, they define the shadow as this:
The [shadow processes] operate more on the boundaries of our awareness. It is as if they are in the shadows and only come forward under certain circumstances. We usually experience these processes in a negative way, yet when we are open to them, they can be quite positive.
In other words, the shadow doesn't have to be you at your worst, just, as you say, different.
The reason that I came to this possibility is that if I had to pick two types to define me, it would be these. I am constantly divided between art for art's sake (the sensual, non-thinking reaction I get from either creating it or receiving it) or the very rational, non-sensual side of myself. I've considered Bob Dylan as a soul mate (he's considered to be an ISFP) and I have connected on a deep level with those I would consider to be ISFPs, yet overall, I would say I am most decidedly an INTP.
Why, I have to ask, would I identify with the two types who cognitively are most unlike each other? If ISFP is the INTP shadow, that could potentially provide a reason. Also, it would help explain why so many people are conflicted as to whether they are INTP or INFP- as Seducer says, the INFP is the in-between of sorts of the two. So why not just consider myself an INFP, you might ask? Because I read the INFP description and it doesn't fit; INTP, with hints of ISFP, does more.
Also, I wonder, if there are a large contingent of INTPs who truly consider ESFJ to be fitting as their shadow function. If so, as I imagine is the case, perhaps INTPs could be divided into two groups: 1. those of the more artistic bent, with an ISFP shadow function and 2. those of the more scientific bent with the ESFJ.
Just some not very well-formulated ideas...