1. ## Logic & Birds

Extraverted Logic:

Introverted Logic:

2. It seems the top image synthesizes, it has an origin and branches out to find more inclusions. The bottom image classifies and puts the birds into categories.

I'd say accurate, but still not exhaustive.

3. They're both examples of Ti, actually. Ti is one that deals with the categorization of objects and ideas; Te deals primarily with motion, methods of doing things, efficiency of action, etc.

4. Not really sure if I understand your example, but in the case of inductive vs deductive reasoning, it looks backwards.

Here's another simplistic example to demonstrate what I'm referring to:

- If it is true we are in a forest, I therefore deduce that there must be owls.

- There is a tree, and more trees around it. It grows darker, I see an owl, and look, a bridge. I induce that we've arrived at the southern end of forest.

deals with facts first, and secondarily may eventually find an common principle. deals in principles first and foremost, and is able to come across facts to support them. All people can do either, but what you should notice about egos is that initial principles don't mean as much, as its more efficient to induce a larger picture or principle from all the facts and details they're already accustomed to, where as with egos, facts don't mean as much, as its more meaningful to deduce facts and details from a larger original picture or principle.

5. Originally Posted by Krig the Viking
They're both examples of Ti, actually. Ti is one that deals with the categorization of objects and ideas; Te deals primarily with motion, methods of doing things, efficiency of action, etc.

6. Well damn, my calculations were wrong.

Damn birds.

Back to the drawing board.

7. timeless, these picture things are fun, i'm interested to see what you come up with next.

Originally Posted by polikujm
Not really sure if I understand your example, but in the case of inductive vs deductive reasoning, it looks backwards.

Here's another simplistic example to demonstrate what I'm referring to:

- If it is true we are in a forest, I therefore deduce that there must be owls.

- There is a tree, and more trees around it. It grows darker, I see an owl, and look, a bridge. I induce that we've arrived at the southern end of forest.

deals with facts first, and secondarily may eventually find an common principle. deals in principles first and foremost, and is able to come across facts to support them. All people can do either, but what you should notice about egos is that initial principles don't mean as much, as its more efficient to induce a larger picture or principle from all the facts and details they're already accustomed to, where as with egos, facts don't mean as much, as its more meaningful to deduce facts and details from a larger original picture or principle.
i like this.

8. Deductive/Inductive is better correlated to Process/Result:
Process types

1. Do things sequentially, from the beginning to the end.
2. Immersed to a process and tends to single-tasking.
3. Focus between the beggining and the end of processes.
4. More inclined to read texts on books or computer from beggining to the end.

Result types

1. Do things randomly, seemingly doing them from the end to the beginning.
2. Detached from processes and tends to multitasking.
3. Focus on the beggining and the end of processes.
4. More inclined to read texts on books or computer randomly, maybe reading random paragraphs or chapters.

# The process IM types are : ILE, SEI, EIE, LSI, SEE, ILI, LSE, EII.
# The result IM types are : ESE, LII, SLE, IEI, LIE, ESI, IEE, SLI.

9. Originally Posted by laghlagh
i like this.
Thanks. I don't think the examples are very good, but I needed something to explain the idea and compare the two.

10. Originally Posted by polikujm
Thanks. I don't think the examples are very good, but I needed something to explain the idea and compare the two.
tbh, i don't even get the difference b/w deductive and inductive (it looks like there's confusion about it w/ people here anyway?) but i actually really liked the examples, they worked for me. /shrug. but the Te one seems "better" to me so i wonder what a Ti valuer might say or if i just liked it cos of bias or something.

11. I think the format of the example is good, though the particular elements need to fit the definition better:

Induction is the same thing as going from the concrete details to the abstract picture, and deduction is going from the abstract picture to the concrete details. So "this is the southern forest" was just an example I used because we were using silly examples but there are better ones.

12. First we find out what it means to "deduct" and to "induct" and how they are dissimilar but both "conclude".

Induct - to introduce
Deduct - to take away
Conclude - to determine by reasoning

========

So:
inductive reasoning introduces a new idea to the situation
deductive reasoning extracts an idea from a situation

========

deductive reasoning makes a conclusion of an idea that did exist, but has been singled out

Deductive:
1. All men are mortal (general)
2. Socrates is a man (specific)
3. Therefore, Socrates is mortal (conclusion)

"Socrates is mortal" has been extracted from a synthesis of facts 1 & 2, therefore making it also a fact, as long as both premises are true.

========

inductive reasoning makes a conclusion of an idea that did not exist in the situation before

Inductive:
All of the swans we have seen are white. (specific)
All swans are white. (General)

"All swans are white" has been introduced by the observer as a principle based on one single fact, that may or may not be true in itself and due to the initial "fact".

========

As Inductive Reasoning works on principles and generalizations we can conclude that is inductive. As Deductive Reasoning works with synthesis and extraction of facts we can conclude that is deductive.

Q.E.D.

13. Now that we understand Inductive Reasoning and Deductive Reasoning let's identify the process occurring in the visual aids.

Aid # 1, supposedly
The premise is "birds that are colorful".
The movement is then directed towards birds that are actually colorful / have color.
The movement is extraction rather than introduction.
The movement is therefore Deductive.

Aid # 2, supposedly
There is no premise.
Two birds, independent of one another, initially, are directed towards "Black birds".
The movement is introduction / addition rather than extraction or subtraction.
The movement is therefore Inductive.

14. Originally Posted by Crispy
Deductive/Inductive is better correlated to Process/Result:
Process types

1. Do things sequentially, from the beginning to the end.
2. Immersed to a process and tends to single-tasking.
3. Focus between the beggining and the end of processes.
4. More inclined to read texts on books or computer from beggining to the end.

Result types

1. Do things randomly, seemingly doing them from the end to the beginning.
2. Detached from processes and tends to multitasking.
3. Focus on the beggining and the end of processes.
4. More inclined to read texts on books or computer randomly, maybe reading random paragraphs or chapters.

# The process IM types are : ILE, SEI, EIE, LSI, SEE, ILI, LSE, EII.
# The result IM types are : ESE, LII, SLE, IEI, LIE, ESI, IEE, SLI.
I agree. In fact, Gulenko explores this connection in-depth in his Cognitive Styles article.

EyeSeeCold: LSI, a Ti type, pretty clearly uses deductive logic. They're notorious for "thinking in a straight line".

15. Here is an excellent article on inductive vs. deductive reasoning. To me, it seems like is deductive, whereas is inductive. gathers information and makes principles (inductive) whereas uses a premise and then collects information to confirm or deny it.

types work first with specifics, facts, while types work first with generics, principles.

Hm... maybe I'm wrong.

Damn. I have no idea. more research/ thought is required. Will be back when I learn more.

16. Originally Posted by Krig the Viking
I agree. In fact, Gulenko explores this connection in-depth in his Cognitive Styles article.

EyeSeeCold: LSI, a Ti type, pretty clearly uses deductive logic. They're notorious for "thinking in a straight line".
I've read the article. It describes complex forms of thinking which is far from pure deductive/inductive reasoning. At any rate, my position is based on and being discrete and exhaustive representatives of the reasoning of the psyche, which I most certainly agree they are not. It is just the position that is constantly being taken here when discussing the two.

What, exactly, does "thinking in a straight line" have to do with deduction? That sounds like literal thinking.

Originally Posted by nil
Here is an excellent article on inductive vs. deductive reasoning. To me, it seems like is deductive, whereas is inductive. gathers information and makes principles (inductive) whereas uses a premise and then collects information to confirm or deny it.

types work first with specifics, facts, while types work first with generics, principles.

Hm... maybe I'm wrong.

Damn. I have no idea. more research/ thought is required. Will be back when I learn more.
What kind of principles do you suppose makes?

I do agree claims a premise and collects information to confirm / deny but that's being scientific not reasonable. Is collecting information to confirm / deny necessary? Or do users go without confirming their positions?

I don't think you are wrong, it just seems you're taking it further than what was initially being discussed.

17. Originally Posted by EyeSeeCold
What kind of principles do you suppose makes?

I do agree claims a premise and collects information to confirm / deny but that's being scientific not reasonable. Is collecting information to confirm / deny necessary? Or do users go without confirming their positions?

I don't think you are wrong, it just seems you're taking it further than what was initially being discussed.
I think makes principles in the context of specifics. In other words, 'a' occurs when conditions 'x', 'y', 'z', etc. are met. (EDIT: I now think this is deduction rather than induction)

As to your second question, I'm not sure.

The OP's examples are not entirely clear to me, but it seems that the first example is more closely related to and the second to . I think that finds specifics uses principles, and forms principles from specifics. I could be wrong (I have a reasonable amount of doubt as to my own understanding), so if I think I am, then explain why it is you think I am. As for me, the lines seem somewhat blurred, so I think I will research and reflect some more.

EDIT: definitely wrong

#### Posting Permissions

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