"There are several reasons why I think a profession in law is right for me. The first has to do with David Ricardo's 'law of comparative advantage' which I learned about in macroeconomics. The idea being that countries can mutually gain by specializing in what they are good at and trading with each other. This law can also be applied to people. My main comparative advantage is in public speaking and debating, which are skills that are important for trial lawyers, and yet both GPA and LSAT score are ill-equipped to measure this dimension of a person. Moreover, if I were to pursue a career as an accountant, for example, these abilities would not get their full use. Therefore, one reason why I am interested in a career in law is that it will draw on my strengths and maximize my personal potential."
So comparative advantage and utility-maximization were two important factors in deciding on this course of action. Yet, I think it would be incorrect to claim that the decision to pursue law was entirely the outcome of an ultra-rational process, just as certain historians of the Napoleonic Wars are incorrect when they assume that how things played out on the battlefield and the outcome of it was the result of some carefully thought out plan by a military genius. Thus, even though these are among my reasons for pursuing law I won't deny the possibility that I was gradually groomed into this career due to countless other factors (such as taking political science as an undergrad which is a natural avenue to law). Thus, it is unrealistic to reduce the outcome of a complex process to only a few simple-simon reasons. The essence of intuitive-thinking is a dialogue between intuition and thinking where a series of compromises, concessions, and bargains are made before decisions are formed. From my experience, the optimal decision for an NT is a decision where the impression afforded by intuition and the outcome of rational thought draw the same conclusion.