The problem with using 'abstract' as a socionic term is that 'abstract' is one of those terms that has already been linked to -functions in opposition to +functions, a notation which in itself is misleading but the point being that naming "internal" "abstract" while true in the sense of meaning of the word is just asking for trouble because of overuse and misunderstanding of the word "abstract". "Not well-defined" is just another term for exactly the same idea as Augusta's "internal" but avoids all the stupid mixups with extroversion-introversion and +/- functions. You can't bring meanings of normal etymology into a discussion of socionics terminology and so most of your post is irrelevant.Originally Posted by Subterranean
@Niffweed
Yes, you are.ridiculous
@anndelise
The notation that SF is "involved" is good, but the opposite of that should be "detached" (or something to that effect) not "abstract". The overuse of the word "abstract" is just asking for trouble.
@labcoat
I can't see your main thesis for this thread working.
----------
Generally most of the discussion in this thread seems to be about conflicting uses of the word abstract.
The word abstract is generally in three different uses in socionics:
1. the quality of amount of detail/specificity in information (ST vs. NF)
2. the quality of personal contact with an issue (SF vs. NT)
3. the quality of cool/distant/ascending/searching aka -functions vs. warm/close/descending/asserting aka +functions
It is not incorrect in any of these cases but it is misleading in all of them and would preferrably be replaced with another term in all of these instances.
Carry on.