[NT] NT abstract conversation starters

[wrldisquiethere]

Give me some ideas. As an NT, what are some good conversation topics that you find particularly stimulating?

 

[Owl]

Topics in philosophy of mind are good for light-hearted discussion. It's always fun to discuss the logical possibility of philosophical zombies.

Philosophical skepticism is good stuff too, but you have to find someone who takes it seriously--i.e., people who aren't practically oriented.

 

[Not_Me]

I prefer topics dealing with "how and why" rather than "who and what".

 

[Usehername]

given the predicted food shortages, water shortages, etc. that are near-universally predicted by experts, what do you predict the global state of affairs will look like in 30 years? It stands to reason that within a few short decades there will be a distinct shift in the priorities of many nations, and likely far more global conflict over resources than there currently is. With different priorities comes a more distinctly different world. I imagine a sort of lightning-fast Darwinian evolution of careers being fueled by the new environmental needs and constraints--far quicker than what happens naturally.

What are your thoughts?

 

[Matthew_Z]

given the predicted food shortages, water shortages, etc. that are near-universally predicted by experts, what do you predict the global state of affairs will look like in 30 years? It stands to reason that within a few short decades there will be a distinct shift in the priorities of many nations, and likely far more global conflict over resources than there currently is. With different priorities comes a more distinctly different world. I imagine a sort of lightning-fast Darwinian evolution of careers being fueled by the new environmental needs and constraints--far quicker than what happens naturally.

What are your thoughts?

That's NT conversation pr0n if I've ever seen it.

As a little note for your question, a J will be more interested in talking about the real-world application of ideas and concepts, while a P will be more interested in the idea or concept, not it's real-world application. To give you an example of how this plays out, a P would rather talk about how things have a tendency to decay over time and how this fact is universal and applies to all areas of existence, while a J would talk a little more about how society is going downhill and is destined for disaster, possibly destruction.

Off hand, I can't think of a good conversation starter, but Usehername's seemed pretty good. It would catch my attention.

 

[mortabunt]

"Strange, isn't it?..."
That can get me going. Just try it, and steer me into N, if I don't do that myself. I will sometimes manipulate conversations entirely away from their premise just so that I can use my N to talk.

 

[Willfrey]

I prefer topics dealing with "how and why" rather than "who and what".

I think I am with you on this. Abstract notions never interested me, I need things more deeply rooted to reality.

 

[proteanmix]

If you want to go with the "traditional" abstract conversations starters then I suppose science and philosophy is fine.

I've personally found anything can be abstracted. Some of my friends and I were talking about McDonald's new coffees in comparison to Dunkin Donuts, 7-11, and Starbucks and by the end of the conversation we were talking about the fair trade movement and micro lending. I find that most Ns would probably check out hearing people talk about coffee and not stick around till the course of the conversation changes to a more satisfying topic.

You can abstract a conversation about a mechanical pencil as far as I'm concerned.

 

[Totenkindly]

You can abstract a conversation about a mechanical pencil as far as I'm concerned.

I don't think they have souls or free will.

(Although technically, I guess we just wouldn't know -- so what processes could we use to discover and quantify aspects of the mechanical pencil?)

... unless of course, there is no pencil.

I think I am with you on this. Abstract notions never interested me, I need things more deeply rooted to reality.

I branch between abstracted topics and concrete ones. (Sort of the difference between philosophy vs engineering, which can both be NT-style areas of expertise.)

Concrete ones can be really interesting, if it's the sort of topic wherein you can use logic + imagination in order to build connections and drag in ideas and data from other disciplines to help you form an explanation or solution. NTs seem to enjoy making rational connections that run outside the box (and therefore help expand it).

 

[Eruca]

I think I am with you on this. Abstract notions never interested me, I need things more deeply rooted to reality.

I'm the opposite. If the subject isn't abstract I can quickly become bored.
I do not understand the pleasure in discussing concrete subjects. It seems to me such conversation is nothing more than glorified data-sharing. Neither party is thinking about nor learning anything. If one wants to learn facts, surely the internet or a book would be much more reliable.

 

[proteanmix]

I branch between abstracted topics and concrete ones. (Sort of the difference between philosophy vs engineering, which can both be NT-style areas of expertise.)

Concrete ones can be really interesting, if it's the sort of topic wherein you can use logic + imagination in order to build connections and drag in ideas and data from other disciplines to help you form an explanation or solution. NTs seem to enjoy making rational connections that run outside the box (and therefore help expand it).

I still don't understand what an abstract conversation is vs a concrete one. How do you distinguish between the two? Oftentimes it's dependent on someone's sphere of knowledge...if they know about something then they can talk about it but if they don't then what quality of abstractedness and/or concreteness would enter the conversation regardless of the content or topic? The only thing I can think of is the "how" and the "why."

 

[Totenkindly]

I still don't understand what an abstract conversation is vs a concrete one. How do you distinguish between the two? Oftentimes it's dependent on someone's sphere of knowledge...if they know about something then they can talk about it but if they don't then what quality of abstractedness and/or concreteness would enter the conversation regardless of the content or topic? The only thing I can think of is the "how" and the "why."

I think it's sort of like being able to talk about things in terms of objects/concepts (and still deal with them as rational and specific entities in themselves) vs on the level of concrete detail. Sensors commonly go back to the tangible detail and have to speak on that level, rather than in terms of the larger, vaguer object, as the building blocks for their knowledge; intuitives shuffle the objects around, almost like speaking in algebra.

(Sort of like in computer programming, if you are comparing object-oriented programming design to the old traditional styles of programming like Fortran or Basic.)

Set theory and logic language (I took it in late high-school / early college) is another way to describe the intuitive process of dealing with general concepts as if they were the specific details -- the concepts can provide the basic level of granularity, rather than being seen as vague. Objects can be mentally grouped, and yet the nuances are preserved.

 

[proteanmix]

I think it's sort of like being able to talk about things in terms of objects/concepts (and still deal with them as rational and specific entities in themselves) vs on the level of concrete detail. Sensors commonly go back to the tangible detail and have to speak on that level, rather than in terms of the larger, vaguer object, as the building blocks for their knowledge; intuitives shuffle the objects around, almost like speaking in algebra.

Some people can't generalize out to the general objects/concepts from the concrete details, then speak in terms of the general objects themselves as if they were tangible details.

(Sort of like in computer programming, if you are comparing object-oriented programming design to the old traditional styles of programming like Fortran or Basic.)

OK, well the first thing that popped in my mind regarding this is reading restaurant reviews or maybe some other type of review and seeing what aspects of the dining experience people concentrate on and how it's described.

And then I can see what reviews I thought were most helpful to get the information I find pertinent. Is it something like this?

 

[Willfrey]

I suppose everybody's idea of what exactly is abstract is different. One could think the concept of gravitational singularity in physics is an abstract one but I'd find it fascinating. On the other hand I'd get bored and frustrated if I were embroiled in a discussion on how the mechanical pencil yet another sign of man's dependence on machines. If it is left to individual interpretation abstract ideas don't interest me, yet if it is grounded in reality and/or practicality I have an easier time with it.

 

[Totenkindly]

OK, well the first thing that popped in my mind regarding this is reading restaurant reviews or maybe some other type of review and seeing what aspects of the dining experience people concentrate on and how it's described.

And then I can see what reviews I thought were most helpful to get the information I find pertinent. Is it something like this?

See my revised post.
(note: Never quote my post until 4 minutes have passed, I always edit it 2-3x after saving -- doh!)

 

[wrldisquiethere]

Thanks for the replies. Although I think I need an SJ to interpret most of this for me so I can actually understand it and put it to practical use. Hah.

I understand NF abstract conversation because I am Ne (tertiary) myself. NT is much harder for me.

 

[entropie]

quantum physics: You could start with a sentence like: "Well, well this all would look ridicoulus to Newton, if he just had known that he hasnt got the membrane"

 

[INTJ123]

It's all about imagination, just start your sentences off with, What If?.....Imagine that....Why would?

 

[sculpting]

OK, well the first thing that popped in my mind regarding this is reading restaurant reviews or maybe some other type of review and seeing what aspects of the dining experience people concentrate on and how it's described.

And then I can see what reviews I thought were most helpful to get the information I find pertinent. Is it something like this?

If we talked about that, I'd then bounce of that and think about why do we bother reviewing restaurants, what are the social implications of reviews of restaurants. what about reveiws in general and why do we feel the need to seek others guidance on what we choose to purchase?

What in evolution pushes us to seek the guidance of our peers? What benefit does this provide us as a species? Do some of us not seek guidance? What would they look like and how would they relate? How about animals, do they seek guidance of thier peers in a similiar fashion? Do the same biochemical principals that underlie love and social recognition also underlie our need for peer approval? Could the basics of the review process be based in watching our peers as they taste and try new items and somehow serve as social cues to guide us towards or away from dangerous foodstuffs?

At about this point the Ss are getting up and leaving me and the NTs to finsih eating together. It can be very hard talking to Ss conversationally as everything gets abstract for me very quickly.

 

[Shimmy]

Give me some ideas. As an NT, what are some good conversation topics that you find particularly stimulating?

You want to have a nice conversation or do you want us to talk as much as possible. If it's the first thing you want then start talking hobbies and stuff. I love to talk about places I've been, jobs I've had, people I met, skills I learned etc.. On the other hand once you get me going with a topic like meta-physics, social psychology, politics or the aestheticism of music I won't shut up ever again and the conversation tends to get a bit one sided and dull for the other person after a while.

Set theory and logic language (I took it in late high-school / early college) is another way to describe the intuitive process of dealing with general concepts as if they were the specific details -- the concepts can provide the basic level of granularity, rather than being seen as vague. Objects can be mentally grouped, and yet the nuances are preserved.

MBTI is a good example of this.

See my revised post.
(note: Never quote my post until 4 minutes have passed, I always edit it 2-3x after saving -- doh!)

You do that too?