I'm not sure about that one buddy haha. MBTI is billed as an extrapolation of Jung. 
It doesn't mean it was interpreted correctly. And this is what makes me not want to even talk about this anymore; it misinterprets a lot, but Mbti enthusiasts don't want to admit it and won't discuss it when these issues are brought up.
I happen to disagree. Would you mind elaborating on that particular point?
Because it assumes Ni can't be broad-minded. If I said Ti wasn't broad-minded compared to Te that would just be a stereotype. It doesn't really explain how they differ on a conceptual and philosophical level. Ergo, it's an overgeneralization.
If a person has an Se/Ni axis, then that person’s observations will be more singular and intense (Christopher Hitchens, Oprah Winfrey, General Patton). The person will stress one point of view (Ni), which is indeed frequently the viewpoint that generates the greatest yield here and now (Se). The singularity of observation involved will frequently lend a manifest and immediate quality to the Se/Ni type’s observations, which in turn tends to make them convincing.
On the other hand, if a person has an Si/Ne axis, that person’s observations will be more multifaceted, drawing upon multiple perspectives at once (Ne). The person will also be more careful and meticulous (Si) because there is an unconscious striving to contribute one’s observations to building a system which is valid not just in the here and now, but which is perceived to be true in general: To generate the type of knowledge that could conceivably end up in a future textbook on the subject.
Ni is archetypal anyway. It's not about being convincing, but noticing patterns. Maybe an ESTP would take their Ni and attempt to convince, for example, because they are more about taking action with knowledge, but this is still an assumption.
Conceptually, Ni is both abstract (thinks in forms or archetypes), subjective (in that it internalizes the world around it), and intuitive (finds patterns without logic). It takes in and perceives relationships between different aspects of the world without judgment and without considering the impact on the self. Stressing a point of view is not only a judgment call, but it is not a perceiving quality. Furthermore, Si on the other hand, is concrete (thinks in terms of what is immediately understood), subjective (in that it internalizes the world around it), and sensing (relates the world back to itself). It sees the world through impressions and impacts on the self. Why somebody will say this has to do with being detail-oriented kind of baffles me that they don't seem to care that is a HUGE over-generalization; sure, someone who is easily impressed will tend to remember things well, but it's misleading to suggest they "value" or "aim" at being detail-oriented. Those are two different things.
And what's going to annoy me is that despite how much I've read and thought about this stuff, all you have to do is assert the belief that these things mean something else, even if you aren't taking into account as much as I am or even bothered to read Jung. And all you need is an excuse, like Jung is convoluted and vague, even if I find him incredibly clear, or MBTI is just a descriptive tool, even if what ends up being descriptive ends up being a forer effect or abused as a stereotype to explain away and justify behavior.
And don't get me started on Ne. That's an extroverted function. It intuitively sees connections between things in reality
for the purpose of making that connection into a reality. For instance, seeing a bird fly might give an Ne type an idea on how to fly; they then seek out learning how to fly. It is both extroverted to do so and related to the world in an objective manner. It's not about interpretation, but knowing that it's possible and figuring out how to make it happen.
But being multifaceted and drawing up multiple perspectives at once is to have a subjective interest in interpreting the world and not in how to make an idea a reality.
But anyway, someone who focuses on a viewpoint and asserts that, ignoring all other viewpoints, has an agenda. Agendas aren't functions. And suggesting Ni is about an agenda and Ne about being broad-minded is a HUGE stereotype.
What type would you consider yourself snafupants? Also, how long does it generally take you to get a good sense of what a person's type is?
.
).
And people have a hard time understanding this. If we stuck to the concepts though, this wouldn't be a problem, although I do agree that the behaviors are more or less related to their functions in an ontological sense, but not in an experiential sense.
