I've recently learned that there are two different kinds of subtypes. For instance, INTj-Ne could mean that such an INTj is similar to INFjs or ENTps, depending on which author is making the distinction. This changes my view on subtypes, for which I visualized a simple spectrum between the types (e.g., INTj-Ti - INTj-Ne - ENTp-Ti - ENTp-Ne). What this view essentially meant is that the INTj-Ne and ENTp-Ti subtypes border each other, and the border separating them is a type entirely between the INTj and ENTp types. However, there should now be two different spectrums for INTjs: one going from INTj-Ti to ENTp-Ne and one going from INTj-Ti to INFj-Fi.
On the other hand, I've now thought of something different. An alternative possibility is that an INTj-Ne values Ne more than Ti (but is stronger in Ti and uses Ti more often). Such an INTj may place more value on new theories and ideas than purely logical ones, but is stronger in logic and uses it more frequently. Further, such an INTj would be more similar to an ENTp-Ne than an ENTP-Ti. There would also be a behavioural similarity between INTj-Ne subtypes and INFj-Ne subtypes, since they both value Ne more than their leading function. (However, these INTjs would share less similarity with undifferentiated INFjs and INFj-Fis.)
Unlike my first theory, my second theory doesn't have an effect on intertype relationships. In my first theory, because, on one spectrum, an INTj-Ne is closer to ENTps, INTj-Ne subtypes prefer ESFj-Si subtypes, and can fair better with ISFps than the typical INTj. However, in my second theory, since INTj-Ne subtypes are not necessarily one step closer to ENTps, there is no relationship between their valuing of Ne and the valuing of their other functions. Therefore, they would have no specific preferences when it comes to the subtype of their dual. (I think that this actually makes more sense, based on what happens in practice.)
Anyway, tell me which theory you prefer. (Or whether you prefer some other interpretation.)