abstract/NT: crack the code, then extract a general principle for how the code was cracked, so that methods can be created to crack future codes.
concrete/ST: use methods and experience to crack codes and circumvent problems using common sense? use specific occurrences rather than abstract principles to solve problems?
Generally speaking, I agree with this assessment. Though I think your description of NT/abstract thinkers is spot on, while the questions of ST/concrete thinkers requires some thought. Let me see if I can formulate it quickly.
In order to establish how different people think, it is necessary to establish how knowledge is obtained. There are two prevalent theories of epistemology: rationalism (based largely on rational calculation and logical syllogisms) and empirism (based primarily on empirical observation, experimentation, knowledge gained through the senses, and so forth). Most people use a mixture of both, but some may have a distinct preference for one or the other. It seems to me that the NT is more disposed to rational thinking while the ST is more disposed to empirical thinking.
In effect, the NT may come across as an arm chair philosopher who speculates, connecting bits and scraps of knowledge that fit together like a jigsaw puzzle according to their principles. In such a highly abstruse web of subtile reasonings and links between principles, one mistake is the necessary parent of another, and can lead to conclusions that are absurd and/or inconsistent with common sense at times. On the other hand, the ST is typically more grounded in the concrete world. In this view, the mind from birth is like a blank canvus, and experiences are painted on it. As one gains experience a picture is created. The picture is knowlege. How the colors of the picture are inter-related will help shape the person's worldview. In short, when the ST confronts a problem their main tool is common sense, empirical observations, and history.
For the ST, history and common sense can provide them with an empirical map that they can utilize when solving problems and making decisions. Of course intuition, history, syllogisms, and so on are important for the NT in rationalizing why things are the way they are. Moreover, for the NT a more holisitic approach is critical for a solid understanding, whereas for the ST, they need not understand the whole in order to begin working on a problem or to make a decision. The difference in thinking preference is epitomized in certain working environments where a boss deligates highly specific tasks without explaining the whole of what's going on. STs will just start working like little beavers, while the NT will demand to know what the broader implications are so that they can be more efficient.
In a nutshell, the difference between an NT and ST is comparable to two people looking at a Monet painting from different distances. The ST, standing very close, misses the bigger picture, while the NT steps back and sees the entire picture for what it is. The ST will understand the details well from being so close but miss the bigger picture, while the NT will understand the bigger picture but might overlook minute details. The NT is more disposed to the global, the ST to the local.
Of course, we are analyzing ST and NT while holding other variables constant. I, for instance, am an NTJ. The Jness in itself acts as an empirically grounding force to my NTness. In short, for a more holistic understanding it is critical to not just understand NT-ST differences, but also how they interact with other variables.