[NT] Do NTs have tend to have abstract or concrete feelings/values?

[Athenian200]

I hate to say it, but the fact that you don't understand your feelings well enough to respond hints at what I had suggested previously... that you end up responding to your emotions in a raw, instinctive SF-ish way that you don't consciously understand when you're really responding to them, and the rest of the time you're analyzing them. You may even misunderstand your reasons for valuing something because of your tendency to apply a pattern after the fact.

Although it is clear that especially with Ni users, some kind of conceptual emotion gets evoked. Which means NTs do engage in NF processing, though it's not clear whether this processing is related to their actual feelings and values.

 

[BlahBlahNounBlah]

Hmm... it could easily be, actually. Especially if there was a concrete element in it that drew you, or something special about the circumstances in which you first heard it.

Even though I don't usually like poetry, this has always touched me deeply:


Bluebird
Charles Bukowski

there's a bluebird in my heart that
wants to get out
but I'm too tough for him,
I say, stay in there, I'm not going
to let anybody see
you.

there's a bluebird in my heart that
wants to get out
but I pur whiskey on him and inhale
cigarette smoke
and the whores and the bartenders
and the grocery clerks
never know that
he's
in there.

there's a bluebird in my heart that
wants to get out
but I'm too tough for him,
I say,
stay down, do you want to mess
me up?
you want to screw up the
works?
you want to blow my book sales in
Europe?

there's a bluebird in my heart that
wants to get out
but I'm too clever, I only let him out
at night sometimes
when everybody's asleep.
I say, I know that you're there,
so don't be
sad.
then I put him back,
but he's singing a little
in there, I haven't quite let him
die
and we sleep together like
that
with our
secret pact
and it's nice enough to
make a man
weep, but I don't
weep, do
you?

 

[Two Point Two]

Also, I was wondering - You began by saying that maybe NTs, particularly T-dom NTs, process F in an S fashion. Do you intend this to be, potentially, a general principle according to which NFs (particularly F-doms) process T in an S fashion, maybe NTs that are N dom process S in an F fashion, N-dom NFs process S in a T fashion, S-dom STs process F in an N fashion...(etc.)?

Sort of...if you N your T, you therefore are likely to S your F (unless N-ing is your main thing)?

 

[Athenian200]

Even though I don't usually like poetry, this has always touched me deeply:


Bluebird
Charles Bukowski

there's a bluebird in my heart that
wants to get out
but I'm too tough for him,
I say, stay in there, I'm not going
to let anybody see
you.

there's a bluebird in my heart that
wants to get out
but I pur whiskey on him and inhale
cigarette smoke
and the whores and the bartenders
and the grocery clerks
never know that
he's
in there.

there's a bluebird in my heart that
wants to get out
but I'm too tough for him,
I say,
stay down, do you want to mess
me up?
you want to screw up the
works?
you want to blow my book sales in
Europe?

there's a bluebird in my heart that
wants to get out
but I'm too clever, I only let him out
at night sometimes
when everybody's asleep.
I say, I know that you're there,
so don't be
sad.
then I put him back,
but he's singing a little
in there, I haven't quite let him
die
and we sleep together like
that
with our
secret pact
and it's nice enough to
make a man
weep, but I don't
weep, do
you?

Concrete. Definitely concrete. As far as I can tell, you just gave me a list of facts:

1. There's a bluebird trapped in someone's heart. The heart is being used to refer to emotion here, though it technically only pumps blood, and because if there were actually one in there, neither it nor the person would survive. This is probably a metaphor for someone being afraid to express their deepest feelings.

2. He pours alcohol and cigarettes on it, and doesn't tell people. Well, you don't want people to know you abuse animals, but that's beside the point. It probably means that the person uses alcohol and cigarettes as crutches to soothe their feelings temporarily rather than channeling them in a more constructive manner.

3. Overall, the person is afraid that revealing these emotions would lead to their ruin and downfall, thus they hide them. Which makes sense, I suppose. They also think that this denial makes them intelligent, which is true if the prediction that expressing these emotions would lead to their downfall is correct.

I know it was supposed to mean something, but I totally don't get it. This is exactly the kind of thing I miss all the time.

Essentially, all I got from it was that we have a person who is afraid to show their feelings for fear of the consequences, and tries to fill the void with substance abuse.

 

[Two Point Two]

I hate to say it, but the fact that you don't understand your feelings well enough to respond hints at what I had suggested previously... that you end up responding to your emotions in a raw, instinctive SF-ish way that you don't consciously understand when you're really responding to them, and the rest of the time you're analyzing them. You may even misunderstand your reasons for valuing something because of your tendency to apply a pattern after the fact.

I'm still mixed up about whether you're talking about having emotions as a result of abstract things (emotions in response to ideas, theoretical understanding of a situation, interpretation, foreseen implications, etc.), or whether you're talking about abstracting based on your emotions (contemplating your emotional responses to things, formulating theories to explain them, symbolising them in poetry, etc.). I do both; the former is innate and just a part of those theories and ideas and whatnot, while the latter is something that I do but am admittedly not as proficient with (and in particular, for example, I dislike much emotional encoding in symbolism - e.g. poetry).

Although it is clear that especially with Ni users, some kind of conceptual emotion gets evoked. Which means NTs do engage in NF processing, though it's not clear whether this processing is related to their actual feelings and values.

It is.

For example, stories about AI, and the notion of AI, often make me incredibly sad. I love such stories, and I contemplate AI quite a bit, but the reason they make me sad is because of the horrific potential I perceive for harm, and the value I place on consciousness, on conscious entities being allowed to pursue their ends as they see fit. There are few things sadder than a living or pseudo-living thing being snuffed out because someone didn't realise they were in there.

Now, the emotions I associate with AI all come from theory and concept and imagination, and yet they're also very much tied into the emotional and moral associations I have more generally.

 

[BlahBlahNounBlah]

Concrete. Definitely concrete. As far as I can tell, you just gave me a list of facts:

1. There's a bluebird trapped in someone's heart. The heart is being used to refer to emotion here, though it technically only pumps blood, and because if there were actually one in there, neither it nor the person would survive. This is probably a metaphor for someone being afraid to express their deepest feelings.

2. He pours alcohol and cigarettes on it, and doesn't tell people. Well, you don't want people to know you abuse animals, but that's beside the point. It probably means that the person uses alcohol and cigarettes as crutches to soothe their feelings temporarily rather than channeling them in a more constructive manner.

3. Overall, the person is afraid that revealing these emotions would lead to their ruin and downfall, thus they hide them. Which makes sense, I suppose. They also think that this denial makes them intelligent, which is true if the prediction that expressing these emotions would lead to their downfall is correct.

I know it was supposed to mean something, but I totally don't get it. This is exactly the kind of thing I miss all the time.

Essentially, all I got from it was that we have a person who is afraid to show their feelings for fear of the consequences, and tries to fill the void with substance abuse.

Okay. This makes more sense now:

I seem to end up processing concrete reality in a ridiculously impersonal and cold way that strips it of personal meaning.

 

[Haphazard]

Sort of...if you N your T, you therefore are likely to S your F (unless N-ing is your main thing)?

For some reason, this makes me giggle.

 

[Athenian200]

I'm still mixed up about whether you're talking about having emotions as a result of abstract things (emotions in response to ideas, theoretical understanding of a situation, interpretation, foreseen implications, etc.), or whether you're talking about abstracting based on your emotions (contemplating your emotional responses to things, formulating theories to explain them, symbolising them in poetry, etc.). I do both; the former is innate and just a part of those theories and ideas and whatnot, while the latter is something that I do but am admittedly not as proficient with (and in particular, for example, I dislike much emotional encoding in symbolism - e.g. poetry).

The bolded.

It is.

For example, stories about AI, and the notion of AI, often make me incredibly sad. I love such stories, and I contemplate AI quite a bit, but the reason they make me sad is because of the horrific potential I perceive for harm, and the value I place on consciousness, on conscious entities being allowed to pursue their ends as they see fit. There are few things sadder than a living or pseudo-living thing being snuffed out because someone didn't realise they were in there.

Now, the emotions I associate with AI all come from theory and concept and imagination, and yet they're also very much tied into the emotional and moral associations I have more generally.

Those stories generally make me happy, not sad, because it means we'll eventually expand our definition of sentience to include something other than natural life. It means we'll be pushing the envelope and possibly reaching a point where we can improve on ourselves, create new beings, and I just see all this... potential.

 

[BlahBlahNounBlah]

For some reason, this makes me giggle.

I know the reason!

 

[Athenian200]

Also, I was wondering - You began by saying that maybe NTs, particularly T-dom NTs, process F in an S fashion. Do you intend this to be, potentially, a general principle according to which NFs (particularly F-doms) process T in an S fashion, maybe NTs that are N dom process S in an F fashion, N-dom NFs process S in a T fashion, S-dom STs process F in an N fashion...(etc.)?

Sort of...if you N your T, you therefore are likely to S your F (unless N-ing is your main thing)?

Oh, yeah, that was the general principle. You figured it out!

The entire legend would look like this:

F-dominant NFs: Tend to process feelings in an NF manner, and logic in an ST manner.

N-dominant NFs: Tend to process feelings in an NF manner, and may express logic in an ST or NT manner.

T-dominant NTs: Tend to process logic in an NT manner, and feelings in an SF manner.

N-dominant NTs: Tend to process logic in an NT manner, and may express feelings in either an SF or NF manner.

T-dominant STs: Tend to process logic in an ST manner, and feelings in an NF manner.

S-dominant STs: Tend to process logic in an ST manner, and may express feelings in either an NF or SF manner.

F-dominant SFs: Tend to process feelings in an SF manner, and logic in an NT manner.

S-dominant SFs: Tend to process feelings in an SF manner, and may express logic in either an NT or ST manner.

Basically, the theory is that perception dominant types are less naturally confined in the domains they can use their dominant function in.

 

[Siúil a Rúin]

I'm not sure it is possible to experience emotions as strictly concrete or abstract. There are a myriad ways these can be woven together. There probably tends to be a general emphasis, or one aspect encountered first, but it might be easier to deal with the topic if one realizes that every person experiences emotions with some concreteness and abstraction. I don't think a person has to enjoy poetry to approach emotions abstractly, but symbolism of some sort would typically come into play, I think.

 

[Two Point Two]

Those stories generally make me happy, not sad, because it means we'll eventually expand our definition of sentience to include something other than natural life. It means we'll be pushing the envelope and possibly reaching a point where we can improve on ourselves, create new beings, and I just see all this... potential.

I see potential too - for a kind of racism that will have enough support in common sense to be, at best, a very long time in the defeating, and for a lot of suffering and death in the interim.

Of course, AI can also be beautiful and uplifting (and there's another emotional response to the abstract). It's more the sad aspects of it that upset me. But my main point was less about the AI, and more about demonstrating the connection between my general moral and emotional dispositions and the kinds of emotional responses I sometimes have to the theoretical. The exhilaration of Ni is one thing; this is something else.

For some reason, this makes me giggle.

Well, now that you've taken it out of context, it makes me giggle, too.

 

[Orangey]

Poetry and symbolism in certain kinds of creative expression are abstractions of emotions that attempt to recreate a subjective experience externally so that someone else might connect and relive some manifestation of it. Emotions are also abstracted when expressed in metaphor that attempts to define both the unique personal experience of that emotion and the ways in which the core of that emotion is shared universally. I think abstract emotion is about experiencing the emotion as a means to an end, which is understanding the experience of the emotion. One has to experience it to know it, but one also has to view it from a distance to know another aspect of it. This is how one fully understands the meaning of a particular subjective experience, by viewing it from all possible vantage points available to the person.

This answer clarifies a lot for me, actually. I think, if this is what is meant by "abstracted" emotion, then I definitely do the concrete kind more. I've never really understood what I was supposed to be (in the case of reading) getting out of poetry or (in the case of writing) putting into poetry. I have an INFP friend who finds symbolism to be the height of beauty...for instance, the films that make her cry are extremely abstract and symbolic (think Au Hasard Balthazaar) to the point that most people would probably not even understand what was going on, much less be emotionally affected to such an extreme degree. Now, I find films like that to be beautiful as well, and I try to be affected by it because I don't want to seem unsophisticated in such matters, but it's much more difficult than, say, being overwhelmed by the sheer sight (absent any intellectual processing) of a beautiful landscape, or a beautiful structure, or the cinematography and score of a film independent of its overall meaning. It's not that I don't understand the symbolism, because I understand it very well, but it's more intellectual understanding than emotional reaction. It's like, "ah, how interesting that the character X's struggle and ultimate failure to be free represents the conditions of humanity under capitalism." There is pleasure in understanding this sort of thing, but not an overwhelming, "I can't contain my emotion because this is so beautiful and poignant" type of feeling.

Let me see... if you process feelings concretely, you feel impacted by the physical environment. So this means that you would end up feeling moved about things like physical beauty, the experience of dancing, good food, or some kind of major gathering or party, possibly an experience with friends.

If you process them abstractly, you feel impacted by abstractions. This would mean you're emotionally moved by things like abstract beauty (such as an idea, the emotional appropriateness of particular plan or ideal, etc), the possible symbolism of something, or the thought of future achievement and praise.

Well from this distinction I am definitely more concrete than abstract. That's not to say that I don't understand or experience emotion in the abstract way that you described, but it is more natural and intense with things like physical beauty and in-the-moment activities with friends. OTOH the thought of future achievement and praise is a big one with me.

Oh and I'm a T dominant NT, so I guess this goes along with your theory.

 

[Athenian200]

I see potential too - for a kind of racism that will have enough support in common sense to be, at best, a very long time in the defeating, and for a lot of suffering and death in the interim.

Of course, AI can also be beautiful and uplifting (and there's another emotional response to the abstract). It's more the sad aspects of it that upset me. But my main point was less about the AI, and more about demonstrating the connection between my general moral and emotional dispositions and the kinds of emotional responses I sometimes have to the theoretical. The exhilaration of Ni is one thing; this is something else.

This pretty much hits home that you process emotions concretely. You have this focus on the individual and the short term. You're clearly not applying N to F, because if you were, you'd see that in the big picture, the benefit and positive feelings to everyone over time outweigh the interim costs. You know, with revolution comes sacrifice. People who feel in present-oriented ways always hold back progress... sigh.

Well, now that you've taken it out of context, it makes me giggle, too.

Ah, ditsy sense of amusement... definitely not NF. Sorry.

*Note that this is a grandiose, narcissistic meta-joke.

 

[Totenkindly]

Oh, you need EXAMPLES? How tangible and concrete of you to think that way.

Okay. That was annoying.

It's not a matter of us aligning into your theory by our inability to understand, it's about your lack of ability to communicate exactly what you meant.

Let me see... if you process feelings concretely, you feel impacted by the physical environment. So this means that you would end up feeling moved about things like physical beauty, the experience of dancing, good food, or some kind of major gathering or party, possibly an experience with friends.

Geez. That's what you meant? That's sort of... meh.

I get some good feelings by that... but not a ton.

If you process them abstractly, you feel impacted by abstractions. This would mean you're emotionally moved by things like abstract beauty (such as an idea, the emotional appropriateness of particular plan or ideal, etc), the possible symbolism of something, or the thought of future achievement and praise.

There you go. That's much more me.

There is also an interface with physical reality, where it triggers a lot of abstracted emotion due to the sublime perfection of natural law.

I wish you would have been that explicit originally.
It seems a fairly easy thing to state, once you finally decided to answer the question.

Does that make sense? I tend to process feelings (especially Fe-based ones) abstractly with fairly acute sensitivity, but tend to be sort of cold/oblivious to concrete feelings.

I don't think that's an NF vs NT thing, my impression is that it's you personally, and it would be a mistake to extrapolate outwards.

Oh, yeah, that was the general principle. You figured it out!

F-dominant NFs: Tend to process feelings in an NF manner, and logic in an ST manner.

N-dominant NFs: Tend to process feelings in an NF manner, and may express logic in an ST or NT manner.

T-dominant NTs: Tend to process logic in an NT manner, and feelings in an SF manner.

N-dominant NTs: Tend to process logic in an NT manner, and may express feelings in either an SF or NF manner.

T-dominant STs: Tend to process logic in an ST manner, and feelings in an NF manner.

S-dominant STs: Tend to process logic in an ST manner, and may express feelings in either an NF or SF manner.

F-dominant SFs: Tend to process feelings in an SF manner, and logic in an NT manner.

S-dominant SFs: Tend to process feelings in an SF manner, and may express logic in either an NT or ST manner.

Basically, the theory is that perception dominant types are less naturally confined in the domains they can use their dominant function in.

I'll think more about this one, it's worth a scan.
But I'm not voting in the poll.

 

[BlahBlahNounBlah]

This pretty much hits home that you process emotions concretely. You have this focus on the individual and the short term. You're clearly not applying N to F, because if you were, you'd see that in the big picture, the benefit and positive feelings to everyone over time outweigh the interim costs. You know, with revolution comes sacrifice. People who feel in present-oriented ways always hold back progress... sigh.



Ah, ditsy sense of amusement... definitely not NF. Sorry.

*exiting thread*

 

[Athenian200]

Geez. That's what you meant? That's sort of... meh.

I get some good feelings by that... but not a ton.



There you go. That's much more me.

There is also an interface with physical reality, where it triggers a lot of abstracted emotion due to the sublime perfection of natural law.

Okay, you probably don't fit the theory then. Thanks for sharing.

I wish you would have been that explicit originally.
It seems a fairly easy thing to state, once you finally decided to answer the question.

It seemed quite obvious to me, honestly. I mean, there's the idea of abstract and concrete, we use those ideas here daily. Then, you use those ideas as filters to divide the concept of feelings into two groups, and there's the example. Coming up with it on your own makes it easier to find instances in your own life that are relevant to the division rather than focusing on my specific examples. It just makes me feel like I'm being asked to communicate in a way that forces me to put more arbitrary restraints on the boundaries of my concept than I really see a need for. But then, I should probably remember that most people don't jump to conclusions as much as I do.

 

[Orangey]

It seemed quite obvious to me, honestly. I mean, there's the idea of abstract and concrete, we use those ideas here daily. Then, you use those ideas as filters to divide the concept of feelings into two groups, and there's the example. Why couldn't you come up with that on your own? I guess it's just frustrating that people always expect me to walk them through the obvious steps, especially since coming up with it on your own makes it easier to find instances in your own life that are relevant to the division rather than focusing on my specific examples. I feel like I'm being asked to communicate in a way that forces me to put more arbitrary restraints on the boundaries of my concept than I really see a need for.

In all writing the use of examples to clarify ideas is an advisable thing to do if increased clarity and understanding among your audience is what is wanted. And since your goal was to get people to participate in the poll, it behooves you to make yourself as explicit as possible so as to minimize errors in understanding that could potentially skew your results.

 

[onemoretime]

This pretty much hits home that you process emotions concretely. You have this focus on the individual and the short term. You're clearly not applying N to F, because if you were, you'd see that in the big picture, the benefit and positive feelings to everyone over time outweigh the interim costs. You know, with revolution comes sacrifice. People who feel in present-oriented ways always hold back progress... sigh.

Of course, you can't see your big plans through to the end when someone's decided to put a bullet into your head because you've pissed them off too much in the interim.

Practicality. It's not all bad.

 

[Matthew_Z]

(@ Athenian) You're forgetting one thing in your calculations:

T-dominants don't have feelings.

PS: There's an entire concept in socionics that roughly deals with what you're talking about in this thread: Blocking of Functions.