[Paul Siraisi]

Note that Ni lives in lockstep with Se--all Ni's are Se's. They are aspects of the same thing.

Se is a mechanism for obtaining an excellent grasp of physical reality. No other function does that.

A good grasp of physical reality means having a feel for it. Knowing what it can, and can't, and might do.... There's your Ni.

Finally, let no one kid themselves. Physical reality is all we've got. Ni is about foreseeing it, based on good knowledge of it.

[marlique]

So I've found the following images lying around on the web, don't know where they came from, maybe originally from here?
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
That would be odd.


To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.



To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


I've read a lengthy discussion about them on another forum but it only served to confuse me more. I even read that Ne is the same as Ni, only it gives the subject awareness of all the "in-between" steps that lead to one strong conclusion - and I do not believe that to be correct.

But before I get into what I believe or what I understand, which may be erroneous, I would like to ask you, people of the theoretical board, what the difference between Ni and Ne is.
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

[stock]

those pictures are kinda cool actually and embody what you see externally from an Ne vs Ni user.

Below are bits and pieces of stuff I have observed over the last two years or so, trying to understand and compare/contrast the two functions. It is looking from the outside in (thus terribly flawed already), over generalized (as it is pieces of what many different Ni doms have said all rolled into one description), and lacking in sufficient data and examples to be considered correct. My apologies in advance for all of the above errors and flaws.

I figured it may be of some value, since you are an Ne dom trying to figure out what Ni doms are doing, though, so I figured it couldnt hurt to post since some of these observations may be the types of things you'd observe as well.

1. The Object- Ni focuses on a single "object" where the object could be an internal or external problem, actual object or some idea they have had stored away for a long time. I use the term "object" recognizing it could be a completely abstract thing under study. Often it seems to Spring off a limited set of Se observations. (The only way to change their minds is with new Se data....)

In contrast Ne seeks to link many, many objects into networks, symmetric rules, correlations. We will take well understood truths, facts, values from our past Si, then use Ne to grow and explore and add to that mesh/matrix/known library of information.

2. Exclusion of things besides the Object-Ni then focuses on that object to the exclusion of other things and then zooms in, then zooms in again, then zooms in again. At every look, more layers of the object are perceived and understood.

Ne in contrast briefly glances at the object, then rapidly tries to connect the object to other objects. The object itself is of trivial interest-the connections are what is invigorating. It feels like leaping through clouds and every leap connects new clouds together. Each connection is just a single link-the connective nets are what is of value-like idea meshes.

3. Context shifting-The Ni doms then do this crazy, crazy, crazy ass thing. I had no idea how weird Ni was till I saw this. As they look at the "object" they perceive, then reperceive, then reperceive it, each time seeing slightly different possibilities inherent. The term "context shifting" was being tossed about a bit to describe it. All that seems to matter is that the repercieved data can identify a final Se solution. As they solve the problem they have no qualms at all with discarding EVERYTHING known and historically accepted, in order to solve the Se problem. (Dont be fooled...Ne doms DONT do this the way these guys do...) When trying to talk with them, it feels like they are changing the subject of the convo in mid convo. Also-within each reperceived context-the accepted definitions and rules-may be entirely different. Thus in context 1, the sky is blue and in context 2, the sky is red. From the Si perspective this sounds CRAZY, but they seem to be unaware how weird this can be for the rest of us. They also have no attachment to a given context and just swap them in and out willy-nilly for any new problem. Blue sky, red sky, yellow sky, whatever works for the problem at hand.... The better their Ni, the more contexts they have and the better their aux function is weeding through those context libraries to find the right way to perceive the new Se problem. The rules are reinvented for every new instance, because the context of the problem is different.....almost like there are no universal rules or definitions-moral or logical.

Notice the flow/movement/flux of the Ni....it is very much an action. Se is the noun, the thing, the object. Ni is all possible ways of perceiving the object, all possible paths, Ni is the verb. The final path? That is that exceptionally focused laser beam in the picture. Once they pick a path INTJs are almost unstoppable.

In contrast, Ne seems to leave the objects as they are. The objects have to be locked down and established, rules at least mostly universal-as then you can imagine expanding that possibility landscape off of those set rules and observations. At any point there may be ten to twenty possibilities being shuffled across my mind, connecting new things to old, well understood things. Like a tree, in order for new branches to grow via Ne, the roots-Si-must remain steady.

In my mind, I do have a library of possibilities, tentative connections that are set aside as they dont have any value or they dont have any evidence to support them. Sometimes later those connections will fall into another connective net based upon new information-they become mutually supportive.

The data is always based upon repeated measurements, repeated observations or known trusted rules or values-Si. I rarely trust observations that were made by others and I rarely trust correlations I see once. Those single Se observations are not enough to build a correlation off of and they are not enough to make me modify a known Si rule. It seems that the Si known facts/objects are very concrete entities-nouns-that we then seek to connect to everything else-the Ne is the verb, the action, the flowing.

4. Finding the unconsidered problem-The Ni doms have a real knack for finding the unseen holes in other peoples plans. The questions everyone forgot to ask. The best I can figure is that they re-perceive the problem in so many ways, that they end up left with a gap-a way of perceiving the Se problem that sheds lights on something no one considered.

Ne in contrast has the ability to see connections between related problems other people cant see. It feels utterly, blindingly obvious to the point of banging your head
against a brick wall.

5. The idea coming from nowhereNi doms-as they scan through the perceptions/contexts looking for a solution to the Se problem describe it as a passive sort of waiting, a quiet stillness where they let their minds present up the possibilities, then they sort the ideas via the aux judging function. As they do this I guess they will have sudden insights crystallize out of seemingly nowhere.

For me, Ne feels like an active exploration of the problem. I am reaching our and uncovering the edges of a landscape already known. I am not waiting, but instead am in motion, moving and pushing the boundaries around me. Instead of ideas coming out of nowhere as the Ni doms describe, for me it is more connectivities suddenly becoming real and whole new sections of the landscape below me being seen more clearly than in the past. The ideas/connections were already there-I just couldnt see them before. They didnt come out of nowhere-they were already real.

5. Movement-Internally the Ni doms are sitting waiting. Once they act, externally, you will see that single point focus onto the Se problem/solution. Thus externally they look exceptionally focused, however I'd guess internally, up until that point, there are many, many ideas brewing and much flexibility.

Externally the Ne doms seem to be chasing 20 different topics at once. So we look very scattered. But internally we actually have a pretty solid core of ideas/values which we are expanding off of. Often the twenty external ideas are all branches off of one Si tree. But if you cant see our Si tree, you may not understand that. If you cant see that internal Si matrix of historical data and connections, you will not see how truly concrete and unified we can be about a problem. As we age, we can be positively conservative when asked to change an Si rule or value.

[jelo]

Horray ... I'm not crazy .. or at least I'm not alone.

I used to work in data analysis ... when new problems arise and my bosses try to explain their solutions .. i usually don't comprehend it ... somehow their methodology of problem solving just flies over my head ... I just agree and act like I get it ... I just then turn around and resolve it my way.

Many times that they said certain problems cannot be resolved ... I turned around and solved it ... the only problem is I cant really explain how I figure it out.

Another example .. I am a pretty good cook but I can never tell you what I'm cooking until the last ten minutes prior to finishing ... until then I still haven't decided what the dish is ... Oh since I don't have a recipe I cant really recreate what I just did.

[HAL 9000]

Ni-"Should a cat fly without aid of boot, artificial wings, rockets, or propellers, it would signify not only a great leap in evolution and aviation, but, with its example, redefine what we deem to be possible and impossible within ourselves."

Ne-

Ne 1:"Wouldn't it be cool if a cat could fly?"

Ne 2:"We could kick the cat."

Ne 1: "You're thinking too small. Just think if we were to attach glider wings, little merlin engines, and..."

Ne 2: "A capital idea, but what if we could get the cat to fly autonomously, without the constant aid of man in the form of elbow grease, gasoline, and rocket fuel?"

Ne 1: "If we could genetically enable the cat to naturally employ anti gravity, or perhaps sprout bird wings...then..."

Ne 3: "Might I suggest the use of lighter than air technology?"

Ne 2: "We would only have to find a way to not make the cat flammable"

Ne 1: "Helium!"

Ne 2: "What if there is a better method of flight not yet discovered?"

Ne 67: "What would this mean for humanity"

Ti1: Leave that one to me.

---------
This dialog was, of course, internal.

[jndiii]

	Originally Posted by HAL 9000 To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Ne 2: "We would only have to find a way to not make the cat flammable" Ne 1: "Helium!"

Then Ni imagines a cat meowing with helium-squeaky voice, laughs out loud at the imagined sound, leaving everyone around wondering what the heck I was laughing at.

[HZX]

Originally Posted by stock To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

1. The Object- Ni focuses on a single "object" where the object could be an internal or external problem, actual object or some idea they have had stored away for a long time. I use the term "object" recognizing it could be a completely abstract thing under study. Often it seems to Spring off a limited set of Se observations. (The only way to change their minds is with new Se data....) In contrast Ne seeks to link many, many objects into networks, symmetric rules, correlations. We will take well understood truths, facts, values from our past Si, then use Ne to grow and explore and add to that mesh/matrix/known library of information.

That make me confused...
When I am trying to solve a problem,I get three solutions.Then each of them have three ways to go... So do I focus on a single object or link to many objects?

[Zionoxis]

Originally Posted by just a user To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Ni takes shortcuts inside your mind. It is not a process of Those of you who watch "House MD", remeber his moments of insight, usually just before the end of each episode: somebody says a sentence, related to a non-medical problem. House stands still for a moment, then rushes to the patient. He has connected this sentence to all the little facts floating inside his mind about the current case. I imagine it is like a final lego brick, falling into place. I guess Ne-users have this sort of ideas all the time.

Not all the time. We will see something and come to a conclusion to a problem we were thinking a few days ago. Also...when I come up with an idea (that I still have time to implement), I get really energetic to sprint to that goal. Mind you, the INTP trait also gives you problems once you get half way through and are now bored it the project.

[roxtehproxy]

Ni to me is like looking at the footprint of a Yeti and adding up all the possibilities. 'I saw another trail earlier, could this be the same Yeti?' 'The Yeti might be inside my house, the trail is heading right towards the direction of it!'. Ni is interested in funneling data into one meta-perspective. It's trying to find relationships and patterns between things that might not actually have them. I think detectives would make use of Ni a lot, personally.

Ne to me is like exhausting possibilities off the Yeti footprint. You see one object (the footprint) and you play off that idea 'Footprint, Foodprint, Food...food? What the...Oh, he could be heading towards my house! I have pie on my windowsill!!!'. Ne is much more subjective than Ni is since it doesn't have a particular direction. Ne is like fanning out related connections, where Ni is closing it.

[irini]

Originally Posted by HAL 9000 To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Ni-"Should a cat fly without aid of boot, artificial wings, rockets, or propellers, it would signify not only a great leap in evolution and aviation, but, with its example, redefine what we deem to be possible and impossible within ourselves." Ne- Ne 1:"Wouldn't it be cool if a cat could fly?" Ne 2:"We could kick the cat." Ne 1: "You're thinking too small. Just think if we were to attach glider wings, little merlin engines, and..." Ne 2: "A capital idea, but what if we could get the cat to fly autonomously, without the constant aid of man in the form of elbow grease, gasoline, and rocket fuel?" Ne 1: "If we could genetically enable the cat to naturally employ anti gravity, or perhaps sprout bird wings...then..." Ne 3: "Might I suggest the use of lighter than air technology?" Ne 2: "We would only have to find a way to not make the cat flammable" Ne 1: "Helium!" Ne 2: "What if there is a better method of flight not yet discovered?" Ne 67: "What would this mean for humanity" Ti1: Leave that one to me. --------- This dialog was, of course, internal.

Si 1. A cat cannot fly but man can
Ne 1. Why not cats?
Si 2. We can put a cat on an airplane
Ne 2 Or hang her under a big balloon!
Si 3 Cat could not fly like that!
Ne 3 Of course it could, and it would have been fun!!!
Fe 1 Plus it won't really harm her
............
I don't know how T would participate into this (it is my less strong function)

[Lotophage]

Hi

this is my first post in this forum, so don't get too hard on me
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Also excuse my poor english and possible faults
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


As far as my concern, the main difference is this:

Ne: extraverted intuition, means one can make connections, explore possibilities, come up with new ideas about exact entities (people, machines, THINGs) in his/her external enviroment.

Ni: introverted intuiton, means one can make connections, explore possibilities, come up with new ideas about abstract entities (mental models, patterns, definitions called mental representations) in his/her internal enviroment

[trevarthan]

I concur with Vagrant's example. I'm often analyzing a software system, and getting nowhere, when BAM! It comes to me. I test the theory, and it works.

Similarly, the viewing of things as part of a larger whole rings true. I like to say that where there is one, there are more. Probabilities and patterns.

I also enjoy extrapolating the current into the future. This is often a trap in software, however. A more Sensing oriented approach is usually more efficient. I have to force myself to be concerned with the here and now and not worry too much about the future, because the world changes too, and over designing is wasteful.

I'd like to add something. I often make meaningful connections between separate systems while I'm taking a walk. Often it's an image or an idea. Some way to communicate the way I view the world to other people. This has to be Ti at work.

The first few examples remind me of the song lyric "you'll always feel like you tripped and fell", because I wish I could control Ti more. It's very powerful but very unpredictable. I might work for hours and get nothing from it. But this last Ti, the connection while I'm on a walk - it's my favorite, because it's unprovoked. I don't need it to happen. I'm just walking. It's like a gift. I should do more with those ideas. I always kick myself for not expressing them.

[jndiii]

Originally Posted by trevarthan To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

I concur with Vagrant's example. I'm often analyzing a software system, and getting nowhere, when BAM! It comes to me. I test the theory, and it works. Similarly, the viewing of things as part of a larger whole rings true. I like to say that where there is one, there are more. Probabilities and patterns. I also enjoy extrapolating the current into the future. This is often a trap in software, however. A more Sensing oriented approach is usually more efficient. I have to force myself to be concerned with the here and now and not worry too much about the future, because the world changes too, and over designing is wasteful. I'd like to add something. I often make meaningful connections between separate systems while I'm taking a walk. Often it's an image or an idea. Some way to communicate the way I view the world to other people. This has to be Ti at work. The first few examples remind me of the song lyric "you'll always feel like you tripped and fell", because I wish I could control Ti more. It's very powerful but very unpredictable. I might work for hours and get nothing from it. But this last Ti, the connection while I'm on a walk - it's my favorite, because it's unprovoked. I don't need it to happen. I'm just walking. It's like a gift. I should do more with those ideas. I always kick myself for not expressing them.

You are describing Ni, not Ti.

[trevarthan]

Typo, sorry. I meant Ni. I just read a Ti thread. Dyslexia is troublesome.

[scorpiomover]

	Originally Posted by marlique To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	But before I get into what I believe or what I understand, which may be erroneous, I would like to ask you, people of the theoretical board, what the difference between Ni and Ne is. To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

N is generating possible ideas and solutions, built from the mind's inner images, which are stored in memory, and thus things that one came across earlier. E.G. A flying car, where one has already seen a car, and a plane, and is now trying to combine the 2, to make a fast personal-transport vehicle.

Introversion and extroversion are attitudes. Extroversion is about throwing out many things quickly, each with only a little thought and time put into it. Any one is probably wrong. But with so many, one is bound to hit on something useful. Introversion is about concentrating on ONE thing, and trying to develop it very well. The thought is much better developed, and so very likely to be right. But since one is only focussing on ONE thought, if one makes a mistake by accident in one thought process, as is common, the whole thing is developed on very faulty foundations.

In the case of Ne and Ni, the same is true, but combined. Ne is about generating many possible solutions to a particular problem, each one developed very quickly. Each one is probably wrong. But with 50 or so, one is probably going to show itself to be on the right track, and worth pursuing. Ni is about developing one solution in great depth. If it's on the right track, then it's probably been developed very well, much farther along than even the one Ne idea that is on the right track. If Ni has assumed something that isn't always true, or even generally false, then it's following a road that leads nowhere, or back to where it started.

Ni is portrayed to be much faster than Ne, because Ni only produces one idea, and so an Ni-user only says one idea. Then it must be pursued, until it either works or not, however long it takes. Ne produces many ideas. So an Ne-user can say many ideas at one go. Each idea can be discussed, with most eliminated, leaving only those that are likely to work. So Ni requires a lot less discussion than Ne. But because Ne doesn't require assuming that one's intuitive idea was already on the right track, and it has been less-developed, and so any fault is more likely to show it as invalid, it requires a lot less testing to see if it's on the right track. So what your diagram misses out, is how Ni & Ne work in reality.

Ni is more like a scientist's theory. The scientist usually has some basis for his theory. Using that basis, it's easy to construct an experiment to confirm it. Then it gets published. Then it requires others to test it in many different ways, before we can know how reliable it is. Most scientific theories turn out to be wrong.

However, when Ni is used to quickly solve a major obstacle in the workplace with a quick workaround, it is extremely useful. It's usually been developed enough to make it reasonably plausible, and so the chances are that it will work for a few weeks, and in the meantime, a more stable solution can be developed.

Ne is more like an engineer's suggestion, on how to fix an major obstacle in holding up an engineering project, like a bridge. He usually suggests this as part of a group of engineers. Many times, the others will point out how it can't work, for very simple reasons, that he's missed, like from Se observations and basic knowledge of physics. No-one tends to accept it on face value, because it lacks the sophistication of Ni. But he doesn't mind, because he knows that his ideas that are wrong, are spotted quickly, and the ones that others can't find objections to, are usually going to work, because the problems have mostly been spotted in minutes, instead of years.

[SarcasticVlad]

I think of Ni as subconscious data processing.

[WoodsWoman]

My Ne is active data gathering. I use Ne a lot when I'm driving. If I led with my dominant Fi I'd never see the road signs or anyone else on the road.
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


For what it's worth:
I've heard an analogy that likened a dominant introverted function to a general who stays in his tent/office assessing information and making decisions, with a secondary extroverted function acting as an aide/secretary actively outside meeting people and gathering information. An extroverted dominant function reverses these roles with the general as a visible leader, leaving the introverted aide to do the dull paperwork.

[bigtex]

I like to think of it like this (although it might be extremely inaccurate)

Ne is the subconscious tendency to see how one object connects to many objects. It is a divergent process.

For example, I have an idea. I take that idea and "spread out" getting new completely related ideas. Kind of like a game of telephone. Each iteration of the sentence is related to the previous, although the last might have nothing to do with the original.

Ni is the subconscious tendency to see how many objects relate to one object. It is a convergent process.

For example, finding the common theme of several works of literature might be considered Ni.

[Moxiie]

Originally Posted by bigtex To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

I like to think of it like this (although it might be extremely inaccurate) Ne is the subconscious tendency to see how one object connects to many objects. It is a divergent process. For example, I have an idea. I take that idea and "spread out" getting new completely related ideas. Kind of like a game of telephone. Each iteration of the sentence is related to the previous, although the last might have nothing to do with the original. Ni is the subconscious tendency to see how many objects relate to one object. It is a convergent process. For example, finding the common theme of several works of literature might be considered Ni.

This is exactly how I view Ne as well. Great analogy. I also liken Ne to a spiderweb and Ni to a spiral.

[Enfpbutterfly]

	Originally Posted by Moxiie To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	This is exactly how I view Ne as well. Great analogy. I also liken Ne to a spiderweb and Ni to a spiral.

Both very neat analogies! I often think of my Ne as a neuron that somehow can stretch further and further until it connects most objects within its grasp. I now have a new analogy for Ni: a funnel. Makes it easier to distinguish the two, which I still find difficult at times.

[scorpiomover]

Originally Posted by bigtex To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

I like to think of it like this (although it might be extremely inaccurate) Ne is the subconscious tendency to see how one object connects to many objects. It is a divergent process. For example, I have an idea. I take that idea and "spread out" getting new completely related ideas. Kind of like a game of telephone. Each iteration of the sentence is related to the previous, although the last might have nothing to do with the original. Ni is the subconscious tendency to see how many objects relate to one object. It is a convergent process. For example, finding the common theme of several works of literature might be considered Ni.

I want to agree. But I also realised that Ti vs Te, and Fi vs Fe, are also convergent versus divergent. So I think that you are describing introverted functions versus extroverted functions.

Probably a bit more, to differentiate Ni, from Fi, Ti and Si.

---------- Post added 04-08-2013 at 06:31 PM ----------

	Originally Posted by Enfpbutterfly To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Both very neat analogies! I often think of my Ne as a neuron that somehow can stretch further and further until it connects most objects within its grasp. I now have a new analogy for Ni: a funnel. Makes it easier to distinguish the two, which I still find difficult at times.

If Ni is a funnel, then Ne is a speaker. A tiny bit of voltage goes in. A lot of sounds come out.

[Cygnus]

The more I interact creatively with strong initiatives the more I believe the distinction between to two is simply bias. Both Ne and Ni can sense connection, immediately pick up things, create new ideas, tie it all together into a larger understanding, basically, everything intuition entails.

So instead of a rigid definition of function, imagine intuition likes both pie and cake, Ne will simply gravitate to enjoying pie more often and Ni will end up naturally picking cake more times. Ne, 'I like creating new ideas', thus it comes more quickly and naturally, while Ni, 'I like refining my ideas', does that more quickly and naturally, but both can do everything intuition encompasses. I don't see it anymore complicated than that.

[jndiii]

Originally Posted by Cygnus To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

The more I interact creatively with strong initiatives the more I believe the distinction between to two is simply bias. Both Ne and Ni can sense connection, immediately pick up things, create new ideas, tie it all together into a larger understanding, basically, everything intuition entails. So instead of a rigid definition of function, imagine intuition likes both pie and cake, Ne will simply gravitate to enjoying pie more often and Ni will end up naturally picking cake more times. Ne, 'I like creating new ideas', thus it comes more quickly and naturally, while Ni, 'I like refining my ideas', does that more quickly and naturally, but both can do everything intuition encompasses. I don't see it anymore complicated than that.

This was my original hypothesis: I really wasn't seeing a DIFFERENCE between Ne and Ni. They're both intuitive and creative, and only slightly different. It really "just N" and it was only Ne-ish with Ti or Fi and Ni-ish with Te or Fe.

I now believe that hypothesis is wrong.

The critical piece is that Ni and Se are coupled, and Ne and Si are coupled. In other words, the "building blocks" that each type of intuition uses is qualitatively different. Ni-Se uses Ni-building-blocks, which are fundamental understandings of processes, of "how things work", of "functionality." Ne-Si uses Si-building-blocks, which are fundamental understandings of "what things are". Neither side is ignorant of the others' building blocks. The distinction is that Ni-Se uses process-building-blocks to build its models, then glues on concrete facts in an Se-way. Ne-Si uses Si-what-things-are-building-blocks to build its models, then uses Ne-theories to find new possibilities of "what things might be". Should the Ne-theories pan out, they become part of the "what things are" model.

Ni is always recalculating "what things are" based on current processes, but doesn't tend to use "what things are" to branch off to new ideas. For Ne, "what things are" isn't recalculated, but is instead settled, classified as "what is known", and instead Ne searches for new things, because of course "what is known" is already getting boring.

[Cygnus]

What context are you basing your analysis on jndiii? I'm specifically siting creative, it sounds as you looking more at problem solving and practical application.

[jndiii]

	Originally Posted by Cygnus To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	What context are you basing your analysis on jndiii? I'm specifically siting creative, it sounds as you looking more at problem solving and practical application.

Both are creative. I'm trying to describe how they're differently creative.

In particular, I look at "problem solving and practical application" because these are cognitive functions, i.e., "how you think," not "how creative you are."

INTJs and INFJs tend to be particularly adept at creating and adapting processes and functionality, especially within a particular context, with a particular application/purpose in mind. ENFPs and ENTPs tend to be particularly adept at brainstorming, at coming up with creative ideas and putting things together in a cross-context way. Ni types will creatively devise processes that Ne types would have a difficult time discovering on their own. Ne types will come up with new promising ideas that Ni types would have a difficult time discovering on their own.