The Lenore Thomson Exegesis Wiki
p. 205: "ENPs need to turn their Judgment inward to take personal limitations--of time, energy, resources, ability, even desire--into account."
This seems very different from the role that Introverted Judgement plays in IPs. By definition, IPs have Introverted Judgement in abundance, but it doesn't seem to help them in the logistical department.
Perhaps what Lenore means here is that Ji provides a cognitive avenue to Si matters that doesn't directly oppose an ENP's Ne approach to things.
Si focuses you on things that you need stable and dependable, regardless of varying circumstances or whether they happen to be grabbing your attention at the moment. Upon hearing any claim that we depend on something and therefore it must be held stable, the typical ENP reaction is to pull in some unacknowledged aspect of the present situation, thereby "changing the game" and contradicting the claim.
For example, you think you need three weeks to complete a project: "Ha haa! The customer only thinks they need a full application. We'll deliver them one of these new 'thin clients', which will give them everything they really want, but will only take us one week to pull off!" You think you need training in databases to deliver a working database in one week: "Ha haa! There's this new kind of database out, that does everything much more simply than before! A learning curve of only a few hours!" You think you need some rest before you can dive into this project and be sure of success: "Ha haa! There's this new drug just out, Pro-Vigil, that lets you stay up for five straight days with no side-effects!"
Eventually you dig yourself into a deep enough hole that you can't escape by exploiting some new, surprising circumstance. From a purely Ne standpoint, you can't tell when to say No. If the meaning of every promise and the definition of every goal are constantly open to revision by exploiting newly arisen circumstances, there is no way to choose anything to hold constant. Every line drawn in the sand will be just that: a line waiting to be revised when the winds change.
From an Si standpoint, a promise is a promise only if its meaning remains stable regardless of how the winds change. Promising the customer a database application means that you deliver just that, not some ad hoc solution that you had no clue about when you made the promise. Thus Si gives you a clear-cut, reliable way to draw lines and to know when to say No. But a dominant-Ne standpoint will not sit still for that. That kind of argument would seem to deprive promises of their real meaning, which from an extraverted standpoint is always tied to present circumstances and present needs. From an Ne standpoint, a promise is not some immutable definition, but rather engagement with real needs and real opportunities--which are indeed ever-changing.
Ji provides a different way of getting cognitive access to limits. From the Ji standpoint, meanings are stable over time but in a way that allows Ne opportunism. From a Ji standpoint, things are meaningful insofar as they manifest a causal or explanatory principle that underlies what we see. Such a principle can take an infinity of forms depending on circumstances, but there is a clear difference between faithfulness to the principle and unfaithfulness. (Maybe a bit like a group invariant in mathematics.) Ji leads you to attend to whether things are harmonious or not: things are harmonious insofar as all the elements fit together and support each other.
So ENPs would learn to heed limits and become more dependable by becoming attuned to whether they're heeding the causal order that exists within things regardless of change (Ji). One of many possible ways out of the looming crisis described above might be to attend to the natural rhythm of things like software development and creative work: the way in which, if you deliver the customer something clever that he can't appreciate, you create disharmony because you're getting out of sync with the actual speed at which people and social institutions can absorb change. This sort of distinction is not one that you can define in terms of specific numerical measurements: it's an emergent property of all variables in the system simultaneously: the ways in which they relate to each other, not any specific values they have. You understand it mostly by getting a feel for it, but once you have that feel, you know when you've crossed an important line.
For INPs, indeed Ji is not a way to tune into logistical matters and manage time more wisely. For INPs, attending to the underlying principles by which things or deeds are harmonious is life itself. IPs have difficulty with time management because once they've locked on to a process where they feel in touch with the guiding principle, they can't disengage. They will ride it for as long as the ride lasts. What Pe gives them is a way to disengage when they're pushing faithfulness to one principle at the expense of the other relevant factors in a situation--factors that might be utterly new or unknown to them.
The reason Ji gives ENPs something that it doesn't give INPs is because the missing element is not a property of one specific attitude, but rather the richer conscious engagement with life that is provided by mixing a dominant and secondary attitude.
A person is "trapped" in a dominant attitude when they can only understand their situation in terms of one Semiotic Attitude. That's when it seems to them that their only reasonable or honorable options are to continue on their present course, no matter how obviously self-destructive it is. The value of a secondary attitude is that it gives you a way to see things as meaningful that goes beyond the limits of your dominant attitude without opposing it. This enables you to see other options as reasonable and honorable.
From a dominant-Ne perspective, ignoring changing circumstances and opportunities because of some past words spoken is the height of arbitrariness and stupidity. If you can't use present opportunities to full advantage to serve useful ends, why even live? All thought would seem pointless. It can be very easy, then, to see any attempt to heed limits as an attempt to enforce pointless arbitrariness. Typically ENPs see such behavior as "giving in to fear". Ji gives them a way to heed limits that does not ask them to blot out the unique specifics and opportunities of their present situation. In fact, it gives them a way to exploit those opportunities even more richly and intelligently. But because it focuses on things that stay constant and take sustained effort to attune yourself to, it leads them far outside the grab-whatever-is-ready-at-hand approach they're most accustomed to.
Mixing attitudes is not like mixing paints, where if the shade is too dark you can lighten it by adding more white paint. Mixing attitudes means allowing yourself to be cognitively pulled in different directions without resolving the conflict one way or the other. This creates a new, richer kind of psychic balance than you can have when you are rooted exclusively in one attitude. It's like the way, when walking, your weight is never stably planted on one foot. A one-legged animal can't walk. For ENPs, Ji is like a second leg. It enables them to walk. For INPs, Ji is the leg they already have.
So, then, what can INPs teach ENPs about time management? Maybe nothing.