[Jungian Cognitive Functions] What does concrete mean to you?

[Snow Turtle]

Ni does require a stable internal reality, but that reality is not the same thing as what Si has. Ni is not concrete, it sees and needs patterns. Stability here doesn't mean no change in the environment but that the system must fit the internal pattern. Which means if change is consistent with the pattern, Ni dominants are okay with change.

I get stressed out when I need to switch from one pattern into another. For example I'm in science but I've always enjoyed web design. It took me several years to work up the guts to try making the switch. I had no way of judging my suitability for design, not sure if I am/will be good enough to making a living out of it. Too many variables and unknowns for Ni to make any reliable guesses.

What does concrete mean to you?

 

[Habba]

Well, to me it could be something that is real. Whereas Ni sees patterns, Si sees results.

Ni asks "Why?"
Si asks "What is it good for?"

I guess.

 

[nightning]

Ni is looking for "pattern" or the basic principles behind how things work. It doesn't care about the concrete things. Form doesn't matter, substance only a little bit, how form and substance interact is what Ni focus on. That is the pattern.

This is what I mean by pattern... relationship between weight, caloric intake and exercise is similar to that for a buffering system.

I don't know of any "scientific" measurement for weight setpoint. But it's the theoretical weight you should be at given you eat a balance diet and get some exercise.

The easiest way for me to explain this is through an analogy... If you know about chemistry, how a buffering system works. The pH of the solution stays near constant near pKa of the buffer. Within this buffering range, you can add acid or base to the system and the pH of the solution changes very little. However if you add enough acid to move beyond the buffering capacity of the system, pH rapidly changes.

The figure isn't very good but you can see the dip in the S-shaped curve.

Your weight is like pH... instead of adding acid or base, you're changing your caloric intake and energy you burn through exercise and that affects your weight.

Concreteness is the oppose. What something "is" as in form and substance. Something is related to Si means they share similar properties... things you can physically see or are inherent within the object. Interactions between things is not a property and thus it's not something Si really look at.

So you can say Ni is inductive reasoning and Si is deductive reasoning.

 

[Snow Turtle]

Ni is looking for "pattern" or the basic principles behind how things work. It doesn't care about the concrete things. Form doesn't matter, substance only a little bit, how form and substance interact is what Ni focus on. That is the pattern.

This is what I mean by pattern... relationship between weight, caloric intake and exercise is similar to that for a buffering system.

That's an interesting way of going about explaining the situation. You've definitely cross-referenced something totally unrelated... I see that's a pattern that I personally wouldn't make as I'd focus totally on the subject matter. Guess it's the reason I don't really do analogies.

Concreteness is the oppose. What something "is" as in form and substance. Something is related to Si means they share similar properties... things you can physically see or are inherent within the object. Interactions between things is not a property and thus it's not something Si really look at.

So you can say Ni is inductive reasoning and Si is deductive reasoning.

This is the part that confuses me...
Personally I don't feel that is an accurate description of Si, or perhaps I'm utilising other functions without realising it. Hope someone can help me out here.

To me. Thought is concrete and has form/substance. Therefore it should make sense that systems that don't deal with the tangible would also have an element of concreteness behind it. Bleh that's well contradictionary sounding. I can't really explain it well.

Si
- Collecting data.
- Have massive database
- Creating systems.
- Store system in database.
- Extrapolating based on current data/models.

 

[nightning]

To me. Thought is concrete and has form/substance. Therefore it should make sense that systems that don't deal with the tangible would also have an element of concreteness behind it. Bleh that's well contradictionary sounding. I can't really explain it well.

Well thought is a difficult thing to pin attributes to. Your thought pattern is likely different than mine. So we don't have a common basis for comparison. Sometimes you can say my thoughts are like hyper little kids. They jump around from idea to idea and aren't very solid. As I'm typing this up right now, I'm trying to figure out whether parts of my thought could be concrete or not. I guess I don't know until I've written it up. And while I'm writing I'm changing my stance and where my writing is heading.

Si
- Collecting data.
- Creating systems.
- Extrapolating based on current data/models.

Can you give an example of how you extrapolate something? Si is my weakest function and your strongest... so perhaps we use them differently.

 

[Quinlan]

Getting smacked in the face with a baseball bat.

 

[Snow Turtle]

Well thought is a difficult thing to pin attributes to. Your thought pattern is likely different than mine. So we don't have a common basis for comparison. Sometimes you can say my thoughts are like hyper little kids. They jump around from idea to idea and aren't very solid. As I'm typing this up right now, I'm trying to figure out whether parts of my thought could be concrete or not. I guess I don't know until I've written it up. And while I'm writing I'm changing my stance and where my writing is heading.

That does indeed sound extremely different to how my thoughts operate. Mine are much more linear and focused one thing at a time. (Then again that might be more to do with me being rubbish at multi-tasking thoughts.)

The only times I can bounce ideas is when I've written them down somewhere like a mindmap, otherwise I can easily lose track of them and my overall train of thought. The consequence is when I'm thinking about an issue with multiple sections is that I can end up going in circles rehashing ideas in an attempt to cover all aspects.

I'd love to know whether other SJs identify with this.

Can you give an example of how you extrapolate something? Si is my weakest function and your strongest... so perhaps we use them differently.

Hmm.
Hopefully I haven't used the term in the wrong manner. (Chances are I have.)
Usually I'm focused on other people though.

Example:
- Collecting information about the person by talking to them.
- Observing their actions.
- Reconcile the above using other data/understanding.
- Deriving a model about their personality and behaviour using all three.
- Attempting to guess how they might react to such a new scenario.
- Collecting more data after that point.

Going on the reasoning constantly thrown about in the geology department: The past is the key to the future.

 

[Snow Turtle]

Hm. I'm wondering if this extrapolation/prediction thing that I do with behaviour is a result of Ti as opposed to being a part of Si. Does Ti ever get confused with Ni though? Would have expected them to be totally different.

Suppose in my mind...
Observing the outcome displayed in Ni was a more about figuring out how things are likely to progress function. Rather than the idea that the outcome is just perceived without really doing anything (even if subconscious).

I do recall one major difference between me an a fellow INXJ.
I definitely focus only on the likely outcome if I'm doing predictions. Where as the other person mentioned they would deal with multiple outcomes even if they weren't very likely.

 

[countrygirl]

The only times I can bounce ideas is when I've written them down somewhere like a mindmap, otherwise I can easily lose track of them and my overall train of thought. The consequence is when I'm thinking about an issue with multiple sections is that I can end up going in circles rehashing ideas in an attempt to cover all aspects.

I'd love to know whether other SJs identify with this.

I can. This sounds right to me in how I think. Methodical and to the point or I've lost track of my inner dialog.

Hmm.
Hopefully I haven't used the term in the wrong manner. (Chances are I have.)
Usually I'm focused on other people though.

Example:
- Collecting information about the person by talking to them.
- Observing their actions.
- Reconcile the above using other data/understanding.
- Deriving a model about their personality and behaviour using all three.
- Attempting to guess how they might react to such a new scenario.
- Collecting more data after that point.

Going on the reasoning constantly thrown about in the geology department: The past is the key to the future.

I am focused on people as well (as most ISFJ) and the personal stuff about them.

 

[d@v3]

Concrete= Something tangible, something I can use one or more of my senses on. OR something factual.

 

[Snow Turtle]

Concrete= Something tangible, something I can use one or more of my senses on. OR something factual.

Can you hear your thoughts?

 

[maliafee]

What does concrete mean to you?

Umm, is it useful/can I use it/does it apply to reality?

 

[Apollanaut]

My NLP (Neuro Linguistic Programming) trainer gave me a wonderful definition of how to determine the difference between concrete and abstract.

Anything that's concrete can be placed inside a container of some sort. This can be very small, such as placing a placing a tiny droplet of liquid into a glass vial, or very large, such as driving a bus into a depot.

Everything else is abstract.

 

[Shadow]

Concrete = something tangible
Abstract = something imagined, an idea, a concept

But that's because I use those terms in a linguistic context most of the time.

 

[Shadow]

My NLP (Neuro Linguistic Programming) trainer gave me a wonderful definition of how to determine the difference between concrete and abstract.

Anything that's concrete can be placed inside a container of some sort. This can be very small, such as placing a placing a tiny droplet of liquid into a glass vial, or very large, such as driving a bus into a depot.

Everything else is abstract.

Well exactly

 

[wrldisquiethere]

The only times I can bounce ideas is when I've written them down somewhere like a mindmap, otherwise I can easily lose track of them and my overall train of thought. The consequence is when I'm thinking about an issue with multiple sections is that I can end up going in circles rehashing ideas in an attempt to cover all aspects.

I'd love to know whether other SJs identify with this.

I definitely do!

 

[Unique]

Concrete is good for building stuff yo

 

[Skyward]

Concrete is good for building stuff yo

Fo' REAL?

 

[Ozz]

What is this pattern thing you speak of? It is too abstract.

A math course that focuses on the steps of solving a problem is concrete. It is linear and I know what comes next.

A math course that focuses on the theory/proof is abstract. It is abstract because I can't relate to it. It is abstract because the next step I need to write down could be anything. I think people that do well in that immediately recognizes patterns from previous proof they have seen and just fill in the blank. When I look at the page, I see the the question and the blank page.

Keep me away from those courses.

 

[wildcat]

What does concrete mean to you?

Evil.