# How to differentiate between concrete and abstract thinking



## Blazy (Oct 30, 2010)

I noticed that many (as well as I) struggle differentiating between concrete and abstract thinking. I did some simple Google search and came up with a helpful article that did its job pretty well. Here's the link to satisfy your curiosity: Tutorial: Concrete vs. Abstract Thinking


----------



## Up and Away (Mar 5, 2011)

Good article.

More representational of form= more concrete
Less representational of form= more abstract

Presupposing you agree on what form is.


----------



## JoniF (Jan 7, 2010)

Souled In said:


> Good article.
> 
> More representational of form= more concrete
> Less representational of form= more abstract
> ...


Someone's an abstract thinker.


----------



## IonOfAeons (Dec 2, 2010)

Haha this article reminds me of so many conversations with friends

"You bring up an interesting point, *goes off on abstract ramble*"

'What the hell does that mean??'

Needless to say I'm not very good at long conversations with them...

I had a long conversation with my ISFP friend that I now see was almost entirely abstract, even though I wouldn't have described it that way. Interesting...


----------



## Up and Away (Mar 5, 2011)

JoniF said:


> Someone's an abstract thinker.


----------------Abstract
-
----------Art-------------Politics
-----------------Concrete

Make a square out of those.

Then make the EIJP square.

Then turn them so it makes a star.

Lol jk


----------



## personalityjunki (Jan 25, 2011)

Can sensors understand abstract thinking?


----------



## niss (Apr 25, 2010)

personalityjunki said:


> Can sensors understand abstract thinking?


Read the article--it is quite good at answering your question, albeit indirectly.


----------



## Metaplanar (Apr 2, 2011)

personalityjunki said:


> Can sensors understand abstract thinking?


 Are intuitors able to handle plain facts?
Do thinkers have feelings?
Can feelers understand logic?

...No, of course not. If all that were possible, how would we ever be able to apply this theory? Clearly, you, as a sensor, are completely unable to have abstract thoughts or higher cognitive functions*. You must have noticed that by now.

*not in the MBTI-sense


----------



## personalityjunki (Jan 25, 2011)

HA, you almost got me there. 

It doesn't hurt to ask.


----------



## JoniF (Jan 7, 2010)

Souled In said:


> *----------------Abstract
> -
> ----------Art-------------Politics
> -----------------Concrete
> ...


As you can see, I am also an abstract thinker.


----------



## Paradox of Vigor (Jul 7, 2010)

If I didn't know about KTT and I read that, I would have crapped my pants and shouted hallelujah.


----------



## Paradox of Vigor (Jul 7, 2010)

personalityjunki said:


> Can sensors understand abstract thinking?


Of course they can. They just have a hard time performing it. Your first and best ability with abstract thinking comes from your tertiary diplomatic intelligence, and then on to your poor strategic intelligence.

Don't get me wrong I am an idiot when it comes to logistical intelligence, something an SJ like yourself excels in, so it's not typist in any way.

You want to think in abstract terms your best bet would be to read up on diplomatic intelligence, and simply think about it. You're a human just as I; you're capable. I however, am just too lazy...


----------



## Up and Away (Mar 5, 2011)

JoniF said:


> As you can see, I am also an abstract thinker.


Hahahahahahahahaa. That is awesome. Saved.


----------



## niss (Apr 25, 2010)

personalityjunki said:


> HA, you almost got me there.
> 
> It doesn't hurt to ask.


You're right; it doesn't hurt. Sometimes those with more experience in a particular subject tend to lose sight of the fact that we are all on a path of learning and self-discovery, but we are not all at the same place in the process.


----------



## Blazy (Oct 30, 2010)

Hello everyone- I posted a thread where you can take a short quiz about it. Here's the link: http://personalitycafe.com/personality-test-resources/55180-concrete-vs-abstract-thinking-quiz.html


----------



## beady66357 (May 15, 2013)

Here is my 2 cents on the topic of abstract thinking: goo.gl/XTSG1

I also would like to thank Master_Wolf for the for the clearing-the-table metaphor. I didn't mean any infringement, and have credited you on the blog, but if you'd like me to remove that last bit, let me know.

Thanks again, I found this thread quite enjoyable.


----------



## clairdelunatic (Mar 20, 2013)

IonOfAeons said:


> Haha this article reminds me of so many conversations with friends
> I had a long conversation with my ISFP friend that I now see was almost entirely abstract, even though I wouldn't have described it that way. Interesting...


This brings up an interesting point. I've always thought that N was associated with abstract thinking and S was concrete. But it sounds like you and your friend are the other way around.

Have I been mistaken/alone in making the assocation between Ns and abstractions, and Ss and concrete thinking?


----------



## Dastan (Sep 28, 2011)

clairdelunatic said:


> Have I been mistaken/alone in making the assocation between Ns and abstractions, and Ss and concrete thinking?


In the MBTI world N is usually associated with abstract (theories, ideas,...) and S concrete (sensation) thinking.

But I would be careful with directly equating these things or thinking that they depend on each other one-by-one.
Sense perception is of course quite concrete. But the difference of N and S perception is first of all the origin or source of the perception, not the quality. So I would say that intuitive perception can be both abstract and concrete. 

Example: the ideas of creative artists or composers may originate from intuitive processes, but the quality of these ideas can be quite concrete ("re-concreted") and sensory.

Since the "technical" meaning of concrete and abstract (something being connected/bound or separated/removed) is one of the universal opposites we see in the world, you can apply it to all kinds of things. Often people say here Carl Jungs understanding of introversion and extraversion also contains the aspect of abstraction and concrete thinking in relation to the objects as a difference. Introverted sensation is more abstracted from the original object than extraverted sensation for example.


----------



## clairdelunatic (Mar 20, 2013)

Thanks for that explanation, @_Dastan_.  My comments/questions are:



Dastan said:


> In the MBTI world N is usually associated with abstract (theories, ideas,...) and S concrete (sensation) thinking.
> 
> But I would be careful with directly equating these things or thinking that they depend on each other one-by-one.


Can the same be said for cognitive functions? That I should avoid thinking of Ni/Ne as “abstract” and Si/Se as “concrete?” (This functional stack business is so confusing to me, but I’m just getting started.)



> Sense perception is of course quite concrete. But the difference of N and S perception is first of all the origin or source of the perception, not the quality. So I would say that intuitive perception can be both abstract and concrete.


Are you saying that S’s aren’t both abstract and concrete? Whereas Ns are? (Just wondering if the first sentence had an intended omission, as compared to your third sentence).



> In the MBTI world N is usually associated with abstract (theories, ideas,...) and S concrete (sensation) thinking.
> Example: the ideas of creative artists or composers may originate from intuitive processes, but the quality of these ideas can be quite concrete ("re-concreted") and sensory.


I think I do this a lot when I write; I tend to start with an abstraction and work my way to a more concrete metaphor. But that's usually a gesture on my part so that the reader can have some sort of access to the feeling or idea I'm describing.


----------



## Dastan (Sep 28, 2011)

clairdelunatic said:


> Can the same be said for cognitive functions? That I should avoid thinking of Ni/Ne as “abstract” and Si/Se as “concrete?” (This functional stack business is so confusing to me, but I’m just getting started.)


It may be okay to say there is such a tendency, but not Ne/Ni=abstract and Se/Si=concrete!
I guess if somebody is very much into abstract issues, it is not because of his sensing function.
But if somebody is an intuitive type, I would not deduce certainly that he loves abstract theories.



clairdelunatic said:


> Are you saying that S’s aren’t both abstract and concrete? Whereas Ns are? (Just wondering if the first sentence had an intended omission, as compared to your third sentence).


Basically yes, that's what I mean... but:
There can be a difference between concrete sense perception (like a stream of inseparable sentiments and feelings) 
and abstract sense perception (some emphasized part of the sensation, which is separated from its sorroundings). 
But overall it is still sense perception, which is the kind of information that we call concrete and original, the "base material". Intuition feeds on this base material, so it has to tear it apart. At this moment the infomation is abstract. But intuition does not only give you the abstract of sense perception, but also rearranged versions of the original sense perception, which I wouldn't call abstract ideas.

I guess that "platonic" sort of intuition that gives you the essence of tangible things is just one of several aspects of intuition.



clairdelunatic said:


> I think I do this a lot when I write; I tend to start with an abstraction and work my way to a more concrete metaphor. But that's usually a gesture on my part so that the reader can have some sort of access to the feeling or idea I'm describing.


Well in this case your intuition or your thinking is rather abstract when you start with it 

Actually the thinking function is much about abstraction. You always have to separate objects from the original connections to bring them into a logical form.


----------



## Scelerat (Oct 21, 2012)

I'd say that abstract thinking is your ability to generalize ideas and principles from objects and apply them to different objects. 

One moment that I can think of was abstracting the various interactions between parts in the Roman governance system, seeing that they not only fit in other governance systems, but in a smaller scale in human relationships etc.


----------

