How abstract is too abstract?

[Night]

Originally Posted by Antisocial one

I am glad to hear that. But you are not very S aren't you?

What is an "S"? What ostensibly defines an S?

Anyone can field this one, really.

[Cimarron]

Originally Posted by Antisocial one

I am glad to hear that. But you are not very S aren't you?

The point of my reply was that our lives literally depend on things we can't sense but they exist for sure since we can use them and we are using them.

I as for the part about hurt feeling I know that since I do that to other people all the time. (but with good intentions)

I still don't get what the connection was when you started talking about technological advancement and stuff, unless I guessed correctly. (?)

[Antisocial one]

Originally Posted by Cimarron

I still don't get what the connection was when you started talking about technological advancement and stuff, unless I guessed correctly. (?)

You can't link technological advancement with what? Sorry I have said alot of things and I want to give the right answer.

[Eldanen]

Originally Posted by Night

Antisocial, you have to provide more framework for others, when speaking of matters specific to your general areas of interest. As you cannot possibly know everything that interests your audience, so too is your audience unable to arbitrarily appreciate everything that inspires you.

From the sounds of it, this is less an issue about being "abstract", than one of providing basic context.

Agreed. ++.

[Little Linguist]

Originally Posted by Antisocial one

The purpose of this thread is to provide the place for me to find out what people feel/think about abstract things.


It looks to me that I have huge problems when I am talking to sensors.
I am very abstract person but because of that people have trouble in understanding me. (even the Ns)

So I am interested at what level things get to abstract for sensor. I know that there are many kinds of sensors but for now I will just treat them as one group.

Is it when I say

1.That entire system is unstable.

2.That this not going to work because step 17 is undefined so that could slow the process in step 21 what will create deficit of x that will grow until step 26 where will be system breakdown and all other steps will give incomplete data/result.

3.That their grand,grand,grand,grand..............parents that lived 400 millions of years ago were fish that lived in oceans that no longer exist because continents are on the move.

4.That everything you see and hear are just illusions created by your brain and that reality is quite different from what you sense.

This is probably enough to get us started.

Ehhh, no not really. Abstract concepts don't bother me. Being vague on purpose to conceal truth does. There's a difference.

[Cimarron]

I was talking about this:

Originally Posted by you

4.That everything you see and hear are just illusions created by your brain and that reality is quite different from what you sense.

Originally Posted by you

You are joking,right?
I know that my reply will be brutal but I can't help it.

If my knowledge is correct our entire civilization is build upon this.

The most obvious part is that this way of thinking allows you to understand the concept of nuclear energy what is far from something unsignifican from civil or military perspective.

For another example right now: I am studing how to use x-ray on cristals to determine chemical composition. What in the end could mean that the price of that cristal is not 2$ but 20 000$ (and I have bought is for 10$). What is hardly from unsignifican once again.

Originally Posted by me

If the point of your reply was to say that "new ideas can be applied to bring new progress", I think that's pretty self-evident, and I don't see what the big deal is. If that's the only issue here, the other parts of my reply may help you fill in the gaps.

[Antisocial one]

The purpose of this thread is to determine how good are people in understanding of abstract things and establishing why sensors have bad reputation when it comes to this.

If someone has the better idea about what should be in this thread he/she is more that welcome to post it.

[Night]

Cimarron is spot-on, Antisocial.

You're mixing unrelated words within a quasi-scientific statement..

Illusion?
Illusion, how? Optical? Aural? Specificity, please.

Reality?
As in the psychological expression our brains offer us via neurochemicals?



When offering prose, creative contrast can add unique accent to your ideas.
When you're offering a theoretical concept, I'd recommend couching quirky language in favor of concision.

This simple move could save you a lot of grief...

[Eldanen]

I can understand the fourth one in some situations, actually. I had a situation once where I was thinking about God so intensely that I was looking at a sign at a distance and I saw the word "Jesus" on the sign instead of the actual text, which was totally different from what I perceived.

[Antisocial one]

I admit that my thinking stile is not too understandable and that is the problem all the time in real life.

The connection was that you can't understand what is keeping you alive if you focus only on your senses. You can't be progressive from the point of science if you don't use abstract thinking. You can be scientist that is mixing same chemicals every day but you will not fully understand what is going on if you don't get abstract.

I hope that this make some sense to you.

My question about him/her and much S he/she is was an attempt to get the information about the S/N ratio on MBTI tests. I have asked that simply because it is important for the thread. Personally I get high N all the time.


All of this brings the key part to the surface.

Can you jump from one part of the picture to another or you must always go step by step?