Quote Originally Posted by labcoat
Not all of what was writting about INTj's is entirely unbiased. If I considered the search for the truth a "quick drive by" I wouldn't be here today, still trying to figure out what ties this whole socionics' mess together at the molecular level after having studied it for longer than a year. Also, while it is a simple to eliminate parts that are not needed, it is an intricate task to judge which way one should go to reach an answer that does meet ones standards... In general, an INTj doesn't stop at saying "This isn't good enough". He proceeds to add "the correct answer is closer to...".
I was talking about the theoretical archetype of INTj. You are not it. You are an example of what falls within the range of "being closer to INTj than anything else" My description was of the extreme peak of INTjness, of the equibalance of Ne and Ti. You're far more Ti. If you want to define a type, you can't use yourself as a measuring stick. If I said something not correct, it was not because of bias, but because I was unable to put my words better. INTj is defined by 'result', which is to seek quick solutions. 'Process' is to push through with ideas of looking and pushing deeper into a subject. This difference can not be ignored. Your example of what you do, is of course reasonable, that is what should happen next, to try to go a step better, but that is the change from what is INTj to what is NOT.

Socionics has only four types for people of the NT club, people who try to define knowledge. And it's quite natural that one will find oneself somewhat disappointed by what can be described by two bits of information.

And it's not uncommon at all to meet INTjs who discard the whole for a small error. Anyway, I hope you did pause to read the other descriptions as well. I don't think I handled any of them with kid gloves.

For a nice view on how this throw-away thing of hologrammists works, one can watch the series "Sex and the city" In which at least three of the four main characters show repeatedly their ability to discard things, in this case men, based on the most trivial notions and errors (and in some cases not so trivial).

...

By the definition of dialectic thinking I should have proceeded to a depth of self-control and asceticism of extreme proportions and be off spending three hours a day washing my hands (knowing that somewhere there's still a microbe of impurity left). Clearly I do not do that. That's because I'm sane and not constricted to using this style of thought to everything.