What we have here is a complex, which has one facet of it being hastily applied to general topic of socionics as to enlargen the problem: one is the general definition of "intelligence" which I will not define strictly to the ability to comprehend abstract data; the second is the propounding of the notion that inuition, the ability to "comprehend abstract data", does not correlate with intelligence as it is commonly referred to.
While it is true that it does not compose all that is needed to understand concepts generally referred to as "abstract" and "intellectual", inuition is major component in understanding such things. What confounds me is the fact that inuition is defined as the ability to percieve things "abstractly", which is the most common definition asserted when referring to intelligence; "the ability to reason and understand abstract concepts." It is true that certain functions give one the ability to comprehend whatever it is associated with if one has it so developed as it would occupy one position in one's "ego" block, as it emulates certain facets of the common definition of intelligence, however to disregard inuition as the primary tool in comprehending such things is foolhardy, and if you allow me to be so bold, a rather rash attempt to be "politically correct." How can you say such things without looking at the sheer facts? I say all this assuming that you believe in the informaton metabolism theory.