A lot of you seem to be missing the point of this exercise, which is to emphasize the biggest hurdle in NT personal development--finding what value the real world and emotions has to offer you.
Because the NT temperament thinks abstractly without concrete or emotional checks and balances, it tends to self-inflict the very state of ignorance it initially sought to avoid. It is those with the deepest desire for truth who will bite into the hook of false knowledge the hardest (SW anyone?) Behind a wall of intellectuality, self-enabling thoughts are allowed to fester and the NT slips further away from the actual truth. As they lose their grasp, pride develops to protect the ego.
The end result is ironic, especially if the NT sees them self as a pedagogue, as others assume competence is the explanation for the intellectually haughtiness and develop misplaced trust in the false ego. They start to replace their accurate (albeit humble) knowledge for lofty theories (perhaps even mimicking them, imitation is the sincerest form of flattery after all) and the ignorance spreads. This also serves to bolster the NT confidence and usually sealing their fate.
I don't really care how you define success, but attempting to do so in a concrete manner is the first step towards overcoming the vicious cycle of intellectual masturbation and the ignorance it induces. By becoming more receptive to their concrete and emotional nature, the NT becomes a more balanced individual overall, ultimately fueling a greater degree of success through their preferred means.
This actually makes
a lot more sense than your original post, IMO. This post includes some things that weren't touched on at all in the OP. And I can relate to it in *some* ways. I do believe, as simulated world said, that it's more of an NTP issue.
I will admit (and I'm not proud of it) that there have been times where I have kind of basked in this intellectual haughtiness myself. It usually happens when I'm discussing an issue with someone (perhaps a sensor) and I'm able to out-argue them just by pure logical skill and technique, but then I walk away and think, "That person actually knows more about the subject than I do; all I did was play devil's advocate and out-argue them."
And I do agree, at least for myself, that I'm more well-rounded and better able to connect with others when I pay time and attention to concrete details and to emotions/feelings. It may not necessarily make me "better", but more well-rounded. The reason I say I may not be "better" is because I believe I'm at my best when I'm operating within my strengths and talents - and those strengths (the things I'm best at and have gotten the best results at) are often abstract, relatively speaking. I don't think that "writing" is abstract - I actually think it's concrete - but, a lot of sensors see things like writing, composing music, and photography as "abstract".
If you show me how to troubleshoot an engine or give me tips on how to better interact with people, it definitely makes me more well-rounded. And I should place importance on those things. But, those still are not my natural strengths.
So, I don't know if this was the kind of "exercise" you wanted to engage us in, but I can feel what you're saying in your above post much more than your OP.