# Abstract Thinking vs. Concrete Thinking



## goodgracesbadinfluence

What exactly is the difference?


----------



## Tiroth

Abstract thinking deals with theories and possibilities. This kind of thinking is often limited in usefulness by technology of the time. A lot of physics gets into this, we can't really use the knowledge of exactly how quickly an object will be pulled into a black hole a certain distance right now, and testing it would be extremely expensive. 

Concrete thinking deals with the here and now. It leads to thinking of more testable things that can be applied to real life. A good example of this would be diagnosing a patient in medicine.


----------



## nevermore

Generalized concepts vs. specifics.


----------



## birthday

Abstract thinking is imagination whilst concrete thinking is logic.


----------



## BeauGarcon

birthday said:


> Abstract thinking is imagination whilst concrete thinking is logic.


This is not the meaning of abstract or concrete thinking.

I suggest to look on this page: Abstraction - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
I think it is explained well.

Abstract: keeping the general idea, leaving the details, less specific, .. 

From abstract to more concrete
For example: communication tool (audio, visual, verbal) -> audio communication tool (gsm, phone, ...) -> phone -> Phone type x brand y -> my own phone of type x brand y. 

You could even go further to more abstract or concrete. But when you go too far, it would be possible that the recipient won't understand your message (cause you generalized too much and some essentials were lost), but this depends on the context of the dialogue.


----------



## Ti Dominant

birthday said:


> Abstract thinking is imagination whilst concrete thinking is logic.


That's very incorrect. Both are forms of "thinking," and so both may involve logic.


----------



## affezwilling

Concrete thinking deals with the tangible, physical objects and actions.

Abstract thinking deals with the intangible, theories and possibilities.


----------



## birthday

BeauGarcon said:


> This is not the meaning of abstract or concrete thinking.
> 
> I suggest to look on this page: Abstraction - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
> I think it is explained well.
> 
> Abstract: keeping the general idea, leaving the details, less specific, ..
> 
> From abstract to more concrete
> For example: communication tool (audio, visual, verbal) -> audio communication tool (gsm, phone, ...) -> phone -> Phone type x brand y -> my own phone of type x brand y.
> 
> You could even go further to more abstract or concrete. But when you go too far, it would be possible that the recipient won't understand your message (cause you generalized too much and some essentials were lost), but this depends on the context of the dialogue.





Ti Dominant said:


> That's very incorrect. Both are forms of "thinking," and so both may involve logic.


Now the man upstairs has gotten it right. My words, whatever they may be, have always been and will always be, misunderstood by the general audience. That being said, it is safe to state that I lack the ability to express myself in a way that others can understand.


----------



## SicIndigo

This is strange, it all seems the same to me.

I feel I am a Abstract logical thinking critically : )


----------



## Alphar

Abstract is more ideas and concepts whereas concrete is more absolute like facts etc


----------



## lunaticrabbits

Concrete = the object
Abstract = the idea behind an object


----------



## BigApplePi

birthday said:


> Abstract thinking is imagination whilst concrete thinking is logic.


I know this was criticized. I'd say imagination and logic can be related to abstract & concrete. To abstract from something requires some imagination; logic has something specific about it.
===========================

*Abstract Thinking vs. Concrete Thinking*



goodgracesbadinfluence said:


> What exactly is the difference?


How about general vs. specific thinking as someone said? To abstract means to lift from. I've always been a little disturbed by the difference between abstract and general. I guess general lifts from a lot of things while the results of abstraction can be taken from many things. 

Now what about specific versus concrete? Concrete is sensual. One views only one thing at a time with the senses. Specific points to one thing. 

Here is where the personality types come in: xNxx and xSxx. Some people want to be specific; others find specificity confining. As an INTP, I like the latter, but the former is necessary.


----------



## Super Luigi

goodgracesbadinfluence said:


> What exactly is the difference?


It's Ti vs Te, isn't it?

Ti is abstract and Te is concrete, isn't it?


----------



## Sylarz

There is no such distinction. Abstractions are made from concretes and abstract thinking is useful in so far as it is applicable to concretes.

'There is nothing more practical than theory.' - Ludwig Boltzmann


----------



## Wellsy

https://www.marxists.org/glossary/terms/chat/index.htm


> Abstract and Concrete are philosophical concepts concerned with the development of conceptual knowledge: abstract = simple and remote from reality, concrete = mature and closely connected to reality. But in appropriate contexts, these meanings can seemingly be inverted.
> ...
> Abstract and Concrete are philosophical concepts concerned with the development of conceptual knowledge. The contrast between abstract and concrete does not mean the contrast between a theoretical idea and practical reality, but both words may have seemingly opposite meanings in different contexts.
> ...
> An abstract concept may mean a simple, undeveloped idea which is the product of the analysis of a whole complex process. It is described as ‘abstract’ because the complexities and differences that were to be found in the representation of the process at the beginning of the analysis have been ‘pared’ down to simple characterisations of the whole, or a number of such abstract concepts. For example, in lieu of a list of the names and details of all the unemployed people in a country we get the simple, average unemployment rate, say 6%. Such an analysis begins from the “imagined concrete” which Marx characterised as a “chaotic representation” (Marx, 1857) and produces a simple abstract representation. That initial representation is ‘concrete’ in the sense that it is a combination of very many abstractions – the various facts, measurements and impressions which would be found, for example in historical records or personal recollections – although each fact is just an abstraction and of little significance in itself.
> 
> Each of the facts are ‘abstract’ in the sense that they have been torn out of their context, are one-sided and frozen in isolation from the whole process. Facts are abstractions. So a collection of many facts may be ‘concrete’, but is nonetheless “chaotic.” The product of the analysis of such data are abstractions – abstractions in the sense of being simple and stripped of all the complexity reflected in the data from which they were derived, such as an average or total.
> 
> They may also be ‘concrete abstractions’ if they contain within them the rational analysis of a large amount of diverse data and sum up the real connections between all that data. A ‘more concrete’ generalisation would be a considered characterisation, taking everything into account, summed up in concepts like, for example, ‘recession’ or ‘recovery’. However, statistical data, such as the percentage unemployment rate, would be described as ‘abstract generalisations’, because such a generalisation, even though it is combination of a large number of isolated, ‘abstract’ facts, is a very poor reflection of the whole.
> In any case, the outcome of the first phase of analysis is abstractions. So, as Marx famously remarked, must then begin the “ascent from the abstract to the concrete,” from the principles and theories abstracted from the raw data, proceeding to the reconstruction of the “imagined concrete” of the whole process, but this time “the concrete is concrete because it is the concentration of many determinations, hence unity of the diverse.” Thus the abstract concept of the whole (in terms of theoretical conceptions) becomes more and more concrete in the development of concepts into a practical and scientific theory – “a reproduction of the concrete by way of thought.”
> 
> *So in short, ‘abstract’ means simple, and isolated from connection with the whole, whilst ‘concrete’ means the combination of many abstractions.
> 
> But there are two senses of ‘concrete’: ‘concrete’ as in an unfiltered image of a complex reality ('one damn thing after another’), and ‘concrete’ as in the scientific concentration of many abstractions in a mature concept or theory (a ‘concrete universal’). In both senses the ‘concrete’ conception captures all the complexity of the whole, but in the first case as a “chaotic conception” and in the second case as a reconstruction of the whole in concepts.
> 
> And there are two sense of ‘abstract’: ‘abstract’ in the sense of poorly connected to reality ('abstracted from its context’ or ‘cloud-cuckoo-land’), such as in the case of isolated facts or ill-founded theories, and ‘abstract’ in the sense of being the succinct product of a protracted process of analysis which strips away the inessentials and to capture things ‘in a nutshell’. But to the extent that the abstraction captures the whole it is also concrete.*
> 
> Whilst a bare average is a “abstract generalisation,” the ‘unit of analysis’ is a “concrete universal” even though it is an abstraction!


https://www.marxists.org/archive/ilyenkov/works/abstract/abstra1a.htm

All thought is necessarily abstract in it's nature of abstracting only parts of reality, focusing in and out on certain features and so on rather than an experience of everything all at once as some sensuous whole.


----------



## superloco3000

Sylarz said:


> There is no such distinction. Abstractions are made from concretes and abstract thinking is useful in so far as it is applicable to concretes.
> 
> 'There is nothing more practical than theory.' - Ludwig Boltzmann


 For sure , almost any concept have both . Even the most abstract art have a concrete thinking ... I guess for simplicity we focus in the strongest tendencies .


----------



## Catandroid

Concrete thinking: How can it impact the immediate time and environment.
Abstract thinking: How can it impact the future or did it impact the past.

'It' being the object or the subject thought about.


----------



## BigApplePi

goodgracesbadinfluence said:


> What exactly is the difference?


Let's take the example of doing a jig-saw puzzle.

Concrete thinking: I need to connect this piece. I'll look for a match among all the choices and try some good ones. Let's turn up all the pieces.

Concrete but with a touch of abstraction: Collect all the border edges in one place.

More abstract: assemble all the edges first as that may be easier.

Abstract thinking. Why don't I put common colors and features in a group? Make future searches easier. This is abstract because such an action doesn't fit any pieces directly. Concreteness is present as the visual sense is being used.

Combination: seek and find outstanding features (concreteness). Work those first: abstract policy.


----------



## LeSangDeCentAns

What the most important aspect of a racing car? The engine or the aerodynamics?

Where the engine represents concrete thinking and aerodynamics abstract.


----------

