Anyone who really understands Socionics knows that no way of thinking is universally better than any other. Each way of thinking is appropriate for an specific context of usage and weak in others. The Socion is a super-structure that combines the specific functional arrangements in a complimentary way. Its premise is that the weak points of any way of thinking can be backed up by the strong points of some another. Up to a degree, of course (there is no absolute complementarity).

In this sense, NT and NF being right depends on what are you talking about and what do you mean by right. For example, statistics can state that birth rate to be about 2.2 child per woman in a given population. NFs may accuse NTs of looking at reality from a too abstract point of view and would then point out the difficulty about (say) passing a law that sets a limit to the allowed number of births per woman (2 or 3? we have to choose integer numbers since you can't really see 0.2 children, or like a leg, playing in the park) . The NT would accuse the NFs for failing to understand that statistics aren't reality, but a representation of reality, and exist for the sole purpose of simplification of the analysis of it.

It's not a matter of finding out who is right because both of them are. What matters here is to determine which context matters: the "pure" truth of idealists, where no degree of falsehood is allowed or the "practical" truth of researchers that are contempt to produce working solutions.

In this sense, there is a scale on practicality ST > SF > NT > NF. It could be said that idealism is the most perfect form of reasoning but at the same time the most difficult to apply to reality.

Quote Originally Posted by Pookie View Post
N as a whole tends to give insight, or skill, or whatever term one feels appropriate for technical expertise in the field of concepts. Words and language, are all concepts and metaphors that represent a notion. These notions are well defined to N's, and because of that they can typically be right in areas where S's(less concerned with all that) don't care about.
Intuition is just a vague way of thinking, as opposed to specific thinking of sensing. Sensing is detailed which is an useful property when dealing with practical stuff. Intuition is good for generalizations (which is the basis on conceptualizing) and thus more broadly applicable.

Quote Originally Posted by Pookie View Post
With that said, T's analyze and collect knowledge, and F's make value judgements and look beyond the forms things are presented in.
Logic is a closed system while ethics is an open one. By this I mean Logic posses a finite, structured set of rules that are fixed and applied to everything. This gives logical thinking an edge when it comes to working with incomplete information, as it can deduct what is missing (at the expense of factual accuracy). On the other side, Ethics grows with information / experience and its rules become more and more sophisticated and precise over time. In a way, Ethics has a more detailed vision of the world, since it takes information as it is, without "rounding" it like Logic does.