In a Jungian nutshell, when we're talking about
and
—or any other IE for that matter—these aren't really about specific behaviors, nor even particular cognitive operations that humans engage in. Every normal human being without functional brain damage can do logic, use imagination, exercise foresight, be curious, construct theoretical hypotheses, account factual evidence, evaluate moral implications, empathize with others, etc. You have to be missing hunks of your frontal lobes in order to be rendered incapable of performing such things. So I think its important to not get hung up on typing by details like these. They're typologically benign, so to speak.
Rather, what we're really talking about re:
vs.
, is a distinction in the attitudinal orientation of one's thought process itself. That is, if you were to diagram their respective chains of reasoning, they'd go something like:
: objective evidence → [subjective inference → objective evidence → subjective inference → subjective inference…] → conclusion.
: subjective inference → [objective evidence → objective evidence → subjective inference → objective evidence…] → conclusion.
Wherein you can see that the intermediate links are arbitrary; both orientations can be equally 'factual' or 'theoretical' in the contents of their output, both will incorporate evidence as well as generate inferences. What matters here in separating the two, is the root foundation that one's reasoning tends to derive itself from.
For you—by your own stated admission—that foundation is apparently one more aligned with a
nature.