I think the confusion is that both Socionics and MBTI are models, whereas actual people are more complicated. For example, I like SEEs, and I like ESEs. And even if I'm not an INT type, I think that in real life the behaviors and intertype relations are more subtle and complex than what either theory can represent. That's, of course, why Tcaud, Gulenko, etc. try to come up with extensions of the theory.Originally Posted by Expat
Probably people who don't "fit" the theory well in some respects will see more ambiguity; focusing on observing other people (rather than oneself) may help one get a better sense of what "pure" types are like.