Results 1 to 20 of 20

Thread: inductive vs deductive reasoning

  1. #1
    Joy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    TIM
    SEE-Se
    Posts
    24,501
    Mentioned
    57 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default inductive vs. deductive reasoning

    I know there was a topic about this before, but I'd like to start a fresh conversation about it.

    Any ideas about how tendencies to one more than the other are related to type?

    I definitely tend to use inductive > deductive reasoning. Not sure what it's related to though.
    SEE-Se, 852 sx/so

    Check out my Socionics group! https://www.facebook.com/groups/1546362349012193/

  2. #2
    Joy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    TIM
    SEE-Se
    Posts
    24,501
    Mentioned
    57 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I liked this explanation of the differences between the two, btw: Deduction & Induction
    SEE-Se, 852 sx/so

    Check out my Socionics group! https://www.facebook.com/groups/1546362349012193/

  3. #3
    Hot Message FDG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Freiburg im Breisgau
    TIM
    ENTj
    Posts
    15,624
    Mentioned
    155 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I thought that result, dynamic tend towards inductive; process, static tend towards deductive. Combinations of the traits will probably have no preference.
    Obsequium amicos, veritas odium parit

  4. #4
    Ti centric krieger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    5,983
    Mentioned
    80 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Everybody likes to call themselves the inductive thinkers because it is the more advanced and less restrictive of the two.

  5. #5
    Hot Message FDG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Freiburg im Breisgau
    TIM
    ENTj
    Posts
    15,624
    Mentioned
    155 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by labcoat View Post
    Everybody likes to call themselves the inductive thinkers because it is the more advanced and less restrictive of the two.
    Ah, really? I though each mode had its own advantages in specific realms of knowledge. Inductive, for example, is worse than deductive when dealing with pure mathematics. Deductive is worse in natural sciences, esp. of course the more experimental branches.
    Obsequium amicos, veritas odium parit

  6. #6
    Ti centric krieger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    5,983
    Mentioned
    80 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Deductive is the one with the more obvious practical merit. The one the success of which is more obvious in concrete results. People are naturally wired to find excuses for their inability to get results in life. They jump on the chance to call themselves the less "practical" and "result oriented" of the two alternatives because this allows them to rationalize their failures and sail on the comfortable belief that they have these magical, unprovable positive qualities that will manifest in some way in the future and turn their fate around somehow.

  7. #7
    oh man, greed's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    alabamer
    Posts
    111
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    My guesses..

    could be related to deductive reasoning--breaking a whole into its requisite parts and forming a (potentially sequential) "mental model" of what's occurring. This kind of makes sense to me since my ISTj boss's brain is like a deductive reasoning machine

    Under inductive reasoning, one is looking for general patterns behind specific occurrences, so, possibly .
    IEE-Ne | ENFP | 4w3-6w7-9w1 so/sp/sx | sCoA|I| | Sanguine/Choleric | Benevolent Inventor

    birthday frog wishes you a happy birthday
    birthday frog will give you presents and a card on your birthday
    birthday frog is Fe incarnate

  8. #8
    Joy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    TIM
    SEE-Se
    Posts
    24,501
    Mentioned
    57 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    What about a possible rationality/irrationality difference?

    Peter is definitely deductive > inductive, fwiw.
    SEE-Se, 852 sx/so

    Check out my Socionics group! https://www.facebook.com/groups/1546362349012193/

  9. #9
    Hot Message FDG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Freiburg im Breisgau
    TIM
    ENTj
    Posts
    15,624
    Mentioned
    155 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by labcoat View Post
    Deductive is the one with the more obvious practical merit. The one the success of which is more obvious in concrete results. People are naturally wired to find excuses for their inability to get results in life. They jump on the chance to call themselves the less "practical" and "result oriented" of the two alternatives because this allows them to rationalize their failures and sail on the comfortable belief that they have these magical, unprovable positive qualities that will manifest in some way in the future and turn their fate around somehow.
    Uhm, so you think everybody likes to call themselves inductive because it provides more room for excusing one's own mistakes-faults?
    Obsequium amicos, veritas odium parit

  10. #10
    Jarno's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Netherlands
    TIM
    ILI-Te
    Posts
    5,375
    Mentioned
    30 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I'm clearly deductive.

    I'm skeptical about everything and I like to test and confirm things first before I believe them.

  11. #11
    Joy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    TIM
    SEE-Se
    Posts
    24,501
    Mentioned
    57 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jarno View Post
    I'm clearly deductive.

    I'm skeptical about everything and I like to test and confirm things first before I believe them.
    For me it's not as much about what I "believe" as it is about what's workable/useful. Or even simply interesting. Not much is really set in stone though.
    SEE-Se, 852 sx/so

    Check out my Socionics group! https://www.facebook.com/groups/1546362349012193/

  12. #12
    Ti centric krieger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    5,983
    Mentioned
    80 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    According to Victor Gulenko, Inductive reasoning is exhibitted by Result types and Deductive reasoning is exhibitted by Process types.

    I identify very strongly with Inductive.

    Inductive reasoning and deductive reasoning alternate eachother by definition. It is impossible to do one without the other. It is absurd to say that a person reasons inductively to the exclusion of deduction or vice versa. Whatever judgment you end up making is of a "more this than that" variety rather than an absolute distinction.

    Uhm, so you think everybody likes to call themselves inductive because it provides more room for excusing one's own mistakes-faults?
    Yes, but there are several other social mechanisms at play. "Originality bias" is one of them: if everybody calls themselves inductive, the next person is going to want to call themselves deductive to be the "special" one. "Bias of disproof" is another: if I say everybody will call themselves inductive, people will want to proove me wrong because they like it when other people turn out not to be more powerful/knowledgable than them.

    The material is sufficiently vague that people can always find ways to justify a choice for either alternative. This means the biases determine to quite a large degree what they will choose. It's generally a good thing to stop and think about what might really be going on in their heads.

  13. #13
    Joy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    TIM
    SEE-Se
    Posts
    24,501
    Mentioned
    57 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I don't understand what the static vs. dynamic dichotomy would have to do with it.
    SEE-Se, 852 sx/so

    Check out my Socionics group! https://www.facebook.com/groups/1546362349012193/

  14. #14
    Hot Message FDG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Freiburg im Breisgau
    TIM
    ENTj
    Posts
    15,624
    Mentioned
    155 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Joy View Post
    I don't understand what the static vs. dynamic dichotomy would have to do with it.
    Extracting patterns from ever-changing data (dynamic) is a typically inductive process.
    Building, certifying, creating well-defined or not-well-defined relationships is typically a deductive process.

    That was my supposition. Obviously, by putting forth this type of reasoning I'm falsifying my own conclusions, since I'm reasoning deductively from the definition of dynamic and static. Thus, probably labcoat is right, it's a necessarily intertwined dichotomy.

    @labcoat: I still don't understand how inductive or deductive can truly have any embedded self-judgement of value. I've never heard or read anybody taking pride in either modus operandi. Mmmh.
    Obsequium amicos, veritas odium parit

  15. #15
    ._. Aiss's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    TIM
    IEI
    Posts
    2,015
    Mentioned
    19 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Another dichotomy that seems close is tactical/strategic. In inductive reasoning you know what you want to prove/explain, while in deductive reasoning you apply accepted methods to assumptions and see where it goes - interpolating vs extrapolating.

  16. #16
    Ti centric krieger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    5,983
    Mentioned
    80 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Building, certifying, creating well-defined or not-well-defined relationships is typically a deductive process.
    "Building" and "creating" are actually typically inductive. Induction is the establishment of laws from observed occasions. It is inherently something that "builds" up a model of what was observed.

  17. #17
    wants to be a writer. silverchris9's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    New York
    Posts
    3,107
    Mentioned
    14 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Deductive. Like most (all?) dichotomies, I find the deduction/induction dichotomy a little weak, because one could never make a theory completely independent of any observation whatsoever, and one could never derive anything at all from evidence without some degree of purely theoretical assumptions acting as framework. However, in the beginning stages of thinking about something, I tend more towards minimal observation and maximal theorization, which is (ideally, but not commonly) reversed in the later "confirmation" stages.

    Also, an advantage of pure deductive reasoning is that it yields necessary conclusions while inductive reasoning can yield only probable conclusions.
    Not a rule, just a trend.

    IEI. Probably Fe subtype. Pretty sure I'm E4, sexual instinctual type, fairly confident that I'm a 3 wing now, so: IEI-Fe E4w3 sx/so. Considering 3w4 now, but pretty sure that 4 fits the best.

    Yes 'a ma'am that's pretty music...

    I am grateful for the mystery of the soul, because without it, there could be no contemplation, except of the mysteries of divinity, which are far more dangerous to get wrong.

  18. #18
    Joy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    TIM
    SEE-Se
    Posts
    24,501
    Mentioned
    57 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by FDG View Post
    Extracting patterns from ever-changing data (dynamic) is a typically inductive process.
    Building, certifying, creating well-defined or not-well-defined relationships is typically a deductive process.

    That was my supposition. Obviously, by putting forth this type of reasoning I'm falsifying my own conclusions, since I'm reasoning deductively from the definition of dynamic and static. Thus, probably labcoat is right, it's a necessarily intertwined dichotomy.

    @labcoat: I still don't understand how inductive or deductive can truly have any embedded self-judgement of value. I've never heard or read anybody taking pride in either modus operandi. Mmmh.
    Makes sense.

    Quote Originally Posted by silverchris9 View Post
    Also, an advantage of pure deductive reasoning is that it yields necessary conclusions while inductive reasoning can yield only probable conclusions.
    I prefer probable conclusions. It's much less troublesome when they're wrong.
    SEE-Se, 852 sx/so

    Check out my Socionics group! https://www.facebook.com/groups/1546362349012193/

  19. #19
    wants to be a writer. silverchris9's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    New York
    Posts
    3,107
    Mentioned
    14 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Joy View Post
    I prefer probable conclusions. It's much less troublesome when they're wrong.


    True, though. Advantage is a relative term. I probably should've said "feature".
    Not a rule, just a trend.

    IEI. Probably Fe subtype. Pretty sure I'm E4, sexual instinctual type, fairly confident that I'm a 3 wing now, so: IEI-Fe E4w3 sx/so. Considering 3w4 now, but pretty sure that 4 fits the best.

    Yes 'a ma'am that's pretty music...

    I am grateful for the mystery of the soul, because without it, there could be no contemplation, except of the mysteries of divinity, which are far more dangerous to get wrong.

  20. #20
    Sauron, The Great Enemy ArchonAlarion's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    POOPLAIR
    TIM
    Alpha NT 5w4 so/sx
    Posts
    4,399
    Mentioned
    11 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Perhaps, the degree of "ductivity" is dependent on the functional dimensions?
    OPERATION POOPLAIR

    Now conscripting, for more information come here: http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin...48#post1003048

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •