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

[Athenian200]

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.

The problem is that the kind of idea I want to express benefits more from vagueness. The more specific it's made, the less relevant it is and the easier it is to render it inapplicable.

I suppose the problem could be, overall, that I was trying to express a concept that was more vague than could be put into words unless the person was willing to make a lot of assumptions about my meaning. The irony is that when I made the concept more specific, I ended up arbitrarily narrowing it so that I could provide examples, but there were several other ways of viewing it that I didn't have time to include, which might have completely changed how people responded to it.

I suppose what's frustrating to me, is that I can think of so many ways to view the same concept without prompting, while everyone else can't even seem to think of one way without someone else providing it, and then they end up sticking to that one way of looking at it unless someone shows them another that seems more compelling.

I guess basically, I'm frustrated that not everyone is Ni dominant and willing to make crazy assumptions.

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.

That's true, that's true...

Yeah, I'm exaggerating a little when I go off on tangents like that... I would really pay more attention and try to figure out who I was pissing off if I were to actually implement anything. I was saying all that stuff with the assumption that someone else would handle the details and develop the technology.

 

[Matthew_Z]

Ouch. My sense of anti-oversimplification is in pain.

N =/= abstraction
S =/= concrete
T =/= logic
F =/= feelings (note feelings, not feeling)

If you're going to discuss your novel new idea, create your own vocabulary that doesn't already have a well-defined context. You could even put it in Latin or whatever language comes to mind. While your idea may be valid, the words you use express a most invalid concept.

 

[Two Point Two]

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.

Using intuition does not mean seeing only the big picture as the big picture and refusing to contemplate the situation of the individual. It also means viewing the pig picture as a big picture composed out of its parts, and where those parts include suffering, that sullies the whole, to an extent. Is the end result likely to be good if AI is developed? Quite possibly. Will the end result be better if AI is never developed? Again, quite possibly - because there will have been a lot of suffering avoided, and no specific harms done. (There are arguably harms - the smaller progression of humanity, the non-becoming of a new kind of sentient life. But whether these outweight the suffering AI will bring (to AI) is something that has to be seriously considered).

Using N might also involve realising that from every individual perspective, there is an entirety, a big picture. Indeed, the big picture is arguably contained entirely within your own perspective. So it's one thing to say that by considering the individual, I'm not thinking on a big scale - but that individual contains an entire world. When you hurt someone, it's no small harm you're doing if it's an entire reality that you're injuring.

I'm also pretty sure that what we have here isn't the difference between applying N or S to F (although you're slipping again into the alternate interpretation of your initial question - earlier you indicated that what you were primarily interested in was whether we apply F to N or to S), but rather that we're coming at it from different theoretical perspectives. You seem to be holding a kind of utilitarianism that holds it to be that thousands of suffering entities now don't matter in the long run if they guarantee some other good, like moral progression for humanity. I'm taking a form of utilitarianism that holds individual suffering to be among the greatest of evils, certainly not to be outweighed easily by other goods.

If anything, your approach looks to me like applying a T-conception of morality to an N-conceived situation, while mine is closer to applying an F-conception of reality to an N-situation...which is weird.

I think that taking 'the big picture' to generalise so far that it eliminates things - things of significant moral importance - is a massive mistake. And I don't think one has to step outside of intuition to do that.

But, if the S-approach to morality and emotions involves caring when other beings suffer and hesitation to bring about states of affairs in which other beings suffer, and the N-approach to morality and emotions means dismissing all such considerations in the name of a distant 'big picture', then, well, sign me up to the S-kind of morality/emotions any day.

 

[onemoretime]

I think what you are trying to ask is

Do you get emotional over concepts? (abstract)
Do you get emotional over situations? (concrete)

 

[Athenian200]

Using intuition does not mean seeing only the big picture as the big picture and refusing to contemplate the situation of the individual. It also means viewing the pig picture as a big picture composed out of its parts, and where those parts include suffering, that sullies the whole, to an extent. Is the end result likely to be good if AI is developed? Quite possibly. Will the end result be better if AI is never developed? Again, quite possibly - because there will have been a lot of suffering avoided, and no specific harms done. (There are arguably harms - the smaller progression of humanity, the non-becoming of a new kind of sentient life. But whether these outweight the suffering AI will bring (to AI) is something that has to be seriously considered).

Using N might also involve realising that from every individual perspective, there is an entirety, a big picture. Indeed, the big picture is arguably contained entirely within your own perspective. So it's one thing to say that by considering the individual, I'm not thinking on a big scale - but that individual contains an entire world. When you hurt someone, it's no small harm you're doing if it's an entire reality that you're injuring.

I'm also pretty sure that what we have here isn't the difference between applying N or S to F (although you're slipping again into the alternate interpretation of your initial question - earlier you indicated that what you were primarily interested in was whether we apply F to N or to S), but rather that we're coming at it from different theoretical perspectives. You seem to be holding a kind of utilitarianism that holds it to be that thousands of suffering entities now don't matter in the long run if they guarantee some other good, like moral progression for humanity. I'm taking a form of utilitarianism that holds individual suffering to be among the greatest of evils, certainly not to be outweighed easily by other goods.

If anything, your approach looks to me like applying a T-conception of morality to an N-conceived situation, while mine is closer to applying an F-conception of reality to an N-situation...which is weird.

I think that taking 'the big picture' to generalise so far that it eliminates things - things of significant moral importance - is a massive mistake. And I don't think one has to step outside of intuition to do that.

But, if the S-approach to morality and emotions involves caring when other beings suffer and hesitation to bring about states of affairs in which other beings suffer, and the N-approach to morality and emotions means dismissing all such considerations in the name of a distant 'big picture', then, well, sign me up to the S-kind of morality/emotions any day.

Yeah, that's all true... and the nuance and elaboration proves you definitely have some NF feelings. No heartless NT here.

I was actually trying to be humorous. Specifically, I was aiming for a kind of grandiose, narcissistic meta-joke.

 

[BlahBlahNounBlah]

*returning to thread*

I think what you are trying to ask is

Do you get emotional over concepts? (abstract)
Do you get emotional over situations? (concrete)

Now the answer is obvious. I get emotional over situations.


(N-dominant NT)

 

[Two Point Two]

Yeah, that's all true....

I was actually trying to be humorous. Specifically, I was aiming for a kind of grandiose, narcissistic meta-joke.

Cue huge sigh of relief and admission of total failure to pick up on that.

To my credit, I did figure you were joking about the ditz part.

 

[Athenian200]

I think what you are trying to ask is

Do you get emotional over concepts? (abstract)
Do you get emotional over situations? (concrete)

Yeah, I think that might have been what I meant. I suppose it just didn't occur to me to express it that way. I think you explained my own idea to me such that I now understand it better. That's extreme intelligence.

I get emotional over concepts, though I can also get emotional over situations if I feel personally threatened. I'm less inclined to do the latter, though.

Ouch. My sense of anti-oversimplification is in pain.

N =/= abstraction
S =/= concrete
T =/= logic
F =/= feelings (note feelings, not feeling)

If you're going to discuss your novel new idea, create your own vocabulary that doesn't already have a well-defined context. You could even put it in Latin or whatever language comes to mind. While your idea may be valid, the words you use express a most invalid concept.

Oh. Well, in that case, the request for clarification makes more sense.

 

[Orangey]

The problem is that the kind of idea I want to express benefits more from vagueness. The more specific it's made, the less relevant it is and the easier it is to render it inapplicable.

I suppose the problem could be, overall, that I was trying to express a concept that was more vague than could be put into words unless the person was willing to make a lot of assumptions about my meaning. The irony is that when I made the concept more specific, I ended up arbitrarily narrowing it so that I could provide examples, but there were several other ways of viewing it that I didn't have time to include, which might have completely changed how people responded to it.

I suppose what's frustrating to me, is that I can think of so many ways to view the same concept without prompting, while everyone else can't even seem to think of one way without someone else providing it, and then they end up sticking to that one way of looking at it unless someone shows them another that seems more compelling.

I guess basically, I'm frustrated that not everyone is Ni dominant and willing to make crazy assumptions.

Okay, say person X and person Y both vote in your poll. Person X thinks that by "concrete emotion" you mean the buying of gifts and tangible items for the object of one's affections, and person Y thinks that it means being impacted by concrete situations and reality. These would both be included among the myriad ways of viewing the same concept, but both are not collapsible into one another. The understandings of person X and Y with regards to the meaning of "concrete emotion" are very different, to the point that they are basically talking about completely different things. If your goal were to brainstorm the meaning of the concept, this would be perfectly useful. But since your goal is to see how many people agree with your idea via a poll, I'd think that making sure everyone's assumptions are the same would be top priority. Otherwise how can your poll be meaningful at all? How can the discussion be meaningful if we're all talking about different things?

I think what you are trying to ask is

Do you get emotional over concepts? (abstract)
Do you get emotional over situations? (concrete)

Very simple and accurate. I definitely agree that I am more emotional over situations than concepts (by a long shot).

 

[onemoretime]

That would make sense from a Dom-Tert spanning perspective, with a little Inf thrown in for good measure:

Ne-Fe: abstract concepts of things getting along well (even something as impersonal as a theory) and the change in meaningful relationships will arouse an emotional response (judged by Si, since aux Ti is out of the equation if there is an emotional response)

Ti-Si: concrete situations in which things are clearly right or wrong (particularly related to relationships) will evoke an emotional response (judged by Fe, Ne is absent since it would see past Si)