SJs are only interested in theories if they have a realistic practical application. If the theory is still in the "up in the clouds" mode, then the SJ isn't that interested in it because it's suspect to change. That's still situational though. If I'm working with something, and a better version of it is being theorized, there's a good chance I'll look at it just to see what might be possible. I'll take it with a grain of salt though that it could change.
Is that the difference between an ESxJ's view of theories and abstractions and an ISxJ's view of them? The ESxJ ignores them because they have a harder time understanding it, but the ISxJ has more patience with it, and only rejects it once it begins to lack a practical application? That's how I view a lot of things. I just can't understand how someone would want to discuss something that doesn't relate to something happening in the real world. It just makes no sense. It's like a waste of time.