I think you're doing great. The fact that you're even thinking in this way already puts you head and shoulders above 97% of the population. Most people are absorbed so deeply into the dopamine matrix that they don't even think about the opportunity cost of all their wasted time.
As an intuitive myself, I appreciate this reminder. Though I like to think I'm not as bad as others. My eyes glaze over on abstractions of abstractions. Maybe I'm just not smart enough to get it.
I think intuitive feelers are somewhat insulated from the more hyperabstract and overly technical way of approaching things. For us, the abstraction has to directly involve or apply to some relational or component or system. Notice that all of your writing tends to be about the organization and understanding of family. And your style is not some sort of company report that investigates the data or numerical trends within family systems. Nor it is a political treatise on the importance of family in a philosophical sense.
Analysts/Theorists (NTs) for sure. Particularly because their logic (T) is so powerful and their embodiment (S) is so weak. Catalysts/Diplomats (NFs) also have relatively weak S, but they are attuned to others (F) a way that makes up for it. Improvisers/Artisans (SPs), and especially the thinkers types are technical but in a concrete way; so they have less proclivity to be captured by alluring abstractions.
I think you're doing great. The fact that you're even thinking in this way already puts you head and shoulders above 97% of the population. Most people are absorbed so deeply into the dopamine matrix that they don't even think about the opportunity cost of all their wasted time.
As an intuitive myself, I appreciate this reminder. Though I like to think I'm not as bad as others. My eyes glaze over on abstractions of abstractions. Maybe I'm just not smart enough to get it.
Can't wait to read the big spicy article.
I think intuitive feelers are somewhat insulated from the more hyperabstract and overly technical way of approaching things. For us, the abstraction has to directly involve or apply to some relational or component or system. Notice that all of your writing tends to be about the organization and understanding of family. And your style is not some sort of company report that investigates the data or numerical trends within family systems. Nor it is a political treatise on the importance of family in a philosophical sense.
that makes sense. Then who do you think is prone to the most hyper abstract and overly technical approaches?
Analysts/Theorists (NTs) for sure. Particularly because their logic (T) is so powerful and their embodiment (S) is so weak. Catalysts/Diplomats (NFs) also have relatively weak S, but they are attuned to others (F) a way that makes up for it. Improvisers/Artisans (SPs), and especially the thinkers types are technical but in a concrete way; so they have less proclivity to be captured by alluring abstractions.