Ti+ embodied by LSI
1. Command Function +L — Structural Logic
She thoroughly delves into matters that she is engaged in. She stubbornly and persistently collects information in order to fully master a situation. As a collector or bibliophile, she is especially interested in reference literature. She’s a supporter of strict order and a well- functioning system; everything that does not fit into that system, she rejects as illogical. In business she is interested in, she regularly checks in and controls the progress. Equilibrated and fulfilled, she demands the same from others. She respects subordination and does not take into account personal preferences when it comes to business. Her items are placed in strictly designated places. She does not tolerate when someone takes without asking or shifts her things.
Ti- embodied by LII
1. Command Function —L — Structural Logic
She is able to express her thoughts logically and convincingly. She constructs schemes and concepts, clearly separating the main points from secondary issues. Having developed a general system, she makes it concrete and brings it closer to practice. The pure theorizing, philosophizing, and reasoning that are separated from the realities of life are of little interest to her. The correctness of the system is determined by its internal logical consistency; she easily modifies the formal framework of the system. She prefers compact, extremely compressed information, although she can also expand it to the required volume. She easily sees the possibilities of systems, formal models and concepts. She gives an objective, often impartial assessment of their potential. She is able to tie specific details in with the whole.
Ti+ is called Logic of uniform structure, so it’s essentially linear thinking. It’s adhering to the structure that is proven to work and rejecting all other structures that don’t fit to be incorrect and thoroughly following through with principles. LSI and ILE.
Ti- is called Logic of fractal structure, so it’s essentially polymorphic thinking. It encompasses contradictions and paradoxes. Allowances for multiple explanations of the same object. LII and SLE.
I don’t think it matters whether it’s Te or Ti, inductive or deductive can be used for both modes of thinking functions.
Example: SGF is LSI so he has Ti+ and he said he uses inductive thinking. I also have Ti+ but I use deductive thinking. If anything, I think the +/- of the thinking functions gives more insight into who thinks more “objectively” or “subjectively.”
I thought about this, too. I mainly use deductive thinking and I’m good at physics (although it’s boring) and I’m not sure why I’m good at the concepts but it’s really easy for me to grasp and economics. My mom is SEE and I’m pretty sure she uses deductive thinking too and she has MS in economics and MBA. I went to law school. My dad is LSI is a mask design engineer but I think he’s inductive thinking, which is probably why he never understand how me and my mom think. But then again, maybe that’s how it is with supervision, the differences between inductive and deductive.
Induction is actually impossible. It's deduction in disguise.
To summarize:
Induction = observation > generalization
Deduction = premise > conclusion
The proof is in that you'd have to explain how you ought to generalize something, which must have some sort of a rule or a premise (which can be arbitrary and explanation-less) and therefore deductive.
If you were to categorize something, where did that rule of categorization come from?
Long story short, induction is explanation-less generalization. Or deduction where the premise is hidden. An observation is a kind of an explanation, but it's not yet turned into an analyzable language.
An example is that Mendeleev's Periodic Table in chemistry is not induction but deduction. He did not observe the chemical elements first, then categorized them. He first came up with a mathematical rule or explanation for it, then he categorized the elements accordingly. According to his deductive reasoning, it was impossible that there wouldn't be Gallium (which he named eka-aluminium) below Aluminium in the periodic category and so on. That's why he could put unobserved elements such as Gallium in the category, and hence he could predict the existence of yet-to-be-observed Gallium. That's how you make predictions.
The biggest hints in science are given by knowing what is impossible. Newton thought it was impossible that objects would fall to the ground or planets would orbit around the sun without there being a law that attracts objects together, which is why he came up with the law of gravitation. Darwin thought it was impossible that there would be an organism without there being a previous state that precedes it (which denies sudden logical "jumps" or sudden creation), which is why he came up with the theory of evolution. Einstein thought it was impossible that the speed of light would stay constant for all observers without creating a paradox, which is why he fused time and space together and made time relative instead. And of course there's the example with Mendeleev.
Deductive reasoning can show us what is possible and impossible, while inductive reasoning is just limited to what is possible. Inductive "reasoning" is just one of the possibilities of deductive reasoning, and therefore, is deductive reasoning in disguise. It's just that the premise of induction is hidden.
Conclusion: science is deductive, not inductive. Induction is not only false but impossible. Knowing what is impossible by the laws of nature is the starting point for science. We can only know that via deduction/logic.
Abductive reasoning just applies probabilities to truth values, which must be false because there's no such thing as something being "70% true", for example. Logically, something is either 100% true or 0% true. The probability of anything being true is 0, because everything must eventually be proved wrong.
Well if you have two theories that are false, then the probability of either theory being true isn't 50% but 0%. If you have to make a decision, then the probability of the decision being made the right decision is still either 100% or 0%. But that's only revealed after the fact in hindsight. If you thought that the probability was 70% right or likely, then you've only subjectively justified the decision before you made the decision.
Does the fact that you think that something is 70% true, make it any more or less likely to be true in reality? What we personal know, what personal knowledge we have shouldn't affect anything being true or false in reality.
That's the thing about probabilities - it's a subjective estimate. The only objective type of probability is the frequentist interpretation of probability.
Deductive
Something I can answer with great certainty. If induction is impossible, then a lot of people are idiots for believing in induction.
https://www.livescience.com/21569-de...induction.html
Here's a link on inductive reasoning. Deductive reasoning is related to if then statements. All men are mortal, if I am a man, I am mortal. There are different formats of which you can apply it, but the if then statement is my preferred and most understood.
Inductive reasoning is is used in complex patterns such as chess. Your goal is to take complicated data and put it to a general rule. All men seem to die, and I seem to be a man, therefore it seems I will die. But I don't know that for a fact, as I am not aware of ever having died before.
This is the formal definition and example. I don't know if socionics has a special definition, but.
Your reasoning is flawed, I/O, as if you use inductive reasoning to create a general trend, you can use that general trend for deductive reasoning, and you can create a rule with deduction, but it's of limited usefulness when there is a lack of information. The big point of induction is that there is a lack of information. So you have 3 people. They're all white. What color is the next person most likely to be? That's an example of induction where deduction would fail. It looks similar, and you can say it in similar form, if the most common person is present, then the next person should be that. However it's not deduction, it's induction. I just used the rules of how induction works in the statement I wrote to create an if-then statement.
In conclusion, induction looks like deduction, but is not. Induction has to do with lack of information necessary to create a deductive statement.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phrenology
An optimist - does not get discouraged under any circumstances. Life upheavals and stressful events only toughen him and make more confident. He likes to laugh and entertain people. Enters contact with someone by involving him with a humorous remark. His humor is often sly and contain hints and double meanings. Easily enters into arguments and bets, especially if he is challenged. When arguing his points is often ironic, ridicules the views of his opponent. His irritability and hot temper may be unpleasant to others. However, he himself is not perceptive of this and believes that he is simply exchanging opinions.
http://www.wikisocion.net/en/index.php?title=LIE_Profile_by_Gulenko
Deductively, to answer that question, you'd have to make a guess. The pattern could be white-white-white... Or it could be white-white-purple-white-white-purple... Or it could simply be purple. And I could be right or I could be wrong. It's just a guess.
Inductively, you would say that the pattern is going to be white-white-white... because that's all that has been observed before. Which is the same as the deductive answer, except that it's more limited in scope. So it's really just deduction in disguise.
Yes, you can use the inductive "method" to inspire a deductive answer. But it means that inductive "reasoning" didn't actually happen.
In reality, the answer is going to be white-white-X... where that X is a variable where anything is a possibility, as long as it's not impossible. We can narrow down the answer by coming up with what is impossible. And we can't inductively know what is impossible, since induction can only know what is possible, or what has already been observed.
I don’t really think that inductive reasoning could be used on any grand scale, unless it’s building concepts that aren’t anchored in reality (such as religion) since that will accommodate possibilities while ignoring/disregarding probabilities. Otherwise, deductive reasoning is the default and that’s how your mind draws conclusions in order to decide.
I'm definitely more of a deductive thinker. When you are building something professional, inductive seems much more Te & better for that- but deductive is how you see through Te's bullshit and arrive to the 'beyond the veil' conclusion that you always knew was true anyway. Inductive reasoning seems very blue pill while deductive is more red/black pill. Deductive thinking is too stereotypical and vague/general and doesn't sell well at times because rich people are pretentious and enjoy snowflakes- but inductive thinking totally ignores generalities you know are true just to be refined & stable. "I'm not like that!" - even though you really are, but it wouldn't be good professional etiquette to admit it.
MOTTO: NEVER TRUST IN REALITY
Winning is for losers
Sincerely yours,
idiosyncratic type
Life is a joke but do you have a life?
Joinif you dare https://matrix.to/#/#The16Types:matrix.org
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phrenology
An optimist - does not get discouraged under any circumstances. Life upheavals and stressful events only toughen him and make more confident. He likes to laugh and entertain people. Enters contact with someone by involving him with a humorous remark. His humor is often sly and contain hints and double meanings. Easily enters into arguments and bets, especially if he is challenged. When arguing his points is often ironic, ridicules the views of his opponent. His irritability and hot temper may be unpleasant to others. However, he himself is not perceptive of this and believes that he is simply exchanging opinions.
http://www.wikisocion.net/en/index.php?title=LIE_Profile_by_Gulenko
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phrenology
An optimist - does not get discouraged under any circumstances. Life upheavals and stressful events only toughen him and make more confident. He likes to laugh and entertain people. Enters contact with someone by involving him with a humorous remark. His humor is often sly and contain hints and double meanings. Easily enters into arguments and bets, especially if he is challenged. When arguing his points is often ironic, ridicules the views of his opponent. His irritability and hot temper may be unpleasant to others. However, he himself is not perceptive of this and believes that he is simply exchanging opinions.
http://www.wikisocion.net/en/index.php?title=LIE_Profile_by_Gulenko
I don't like to make guesses unless I feel I have a general understanding. But can I ever really know that I have a general understanding, and that I am not merely infering from a severely limited sample?
Bayesian reasoning would tell you that if you see a municipal bus with the number 5 and that is the only bus you have seen, you should guess that there are 9 buses. Is that inductive or deductive reasoning? (Bayesian reasoning may be deductive in theory, but can be inductive in practice).
Improving your happiness and changing your personality for the better
Jungian theory is not grounded in empirical data (pdf file)
The case against type dynamics (pdf file)
Cautionary comments regarding the MBTI (pdf file)
Reinterpreting the MBTI via the five-factor model (pdf file)
Do the Big Five personality traits interact to predict life outcomes? (pdf file)
The Big Five personality test outperformed the Jungian and Enneagram test in predicting life outcomes
Evidence of correlations between human partners based on systematic reviews and meta-analyses of traits
OK. I would think it like this. "Can you believe what you see" thinking is in the continuum of perceptual position. "This can't be real" [hence we have proven a creationist God - there must be something out there that built this for us] or "is this real" [wait a minute if these conditions apply and so on and things what they tell me... who to believe].
top
^
|
|
|<------Your position?
|
|
˅
bottom
MOTTO: NEVER TRUST IN REALITY
Winning is for losers
Sincerely yours,
idiosyncratic type
Life is a joke but do you have a life?
Joinif you dare https://matrix.to/#/#The16Types:matrix.org
MOTTO: NEVER TRUST IN REALITY
Winning is for losers
Sincerely yours,
idiosyncratic type
Life is a joke but do you have a life?
Joinif you dare https://matrix.to/#/#The16Types:matrix.org
Deduction increases complexity. Induction and abduction decrease complexity.
(My name is Yon Yonson,
I live in Wisconsin.
I work in a lumber yard there.
The people I meet as
I walk down the street,
They say "Hello!"
I say "Hello!"
They say "What's your name?"
I say: (My name is Yon Yonson...
All posts licensed under the GNU General Public License. Some rights reserved.
MOTTO: NEVER TRUST IN REALITY
Winning is for losers
Sincerely yours,
idiosyncratic type
Life is a joke but do you have a life?
Joinif you dare https://matrix.to/#/#The16Types:matrix.org
Yeah. That is why I see gammas as (partially non consensual) BDSM quadra. It makes them feel, viscerally.
MOTTO: NEVER TRUST IN REALITY
Winning is for losers
Sincerely yours,
idiosyncratic type
Life is a joke but do you have a life?
Joinif you dare https://matrix.to/#/#The16Types:matrix.org
Ti reasoning is apparently a proof. Bruh.
My proof is inductive. A simulation or emulation of the world would be indistinguishable from the world because there's no truth mechanism to tell the difference. For fun, try and get a computer to print out a true/false value on something it doesn't know without programming it to lie or know it.
I've concluded it is impossible to tell if the apple is red without knowing one of two things. An apple can be red, or this apple is red. Really that is just one thing. My reasoning is because if you don't know that the apple can be red, and I mean, to the point where you don't know red is a color, how would you answer red?
I don't know red is not a color, so I do answer red. If red was a programmed in color, IE fake, I would not know this, therefore I could not at all say that red is not an answer. I would have no idea the redness of our world is simulated. Still don't.
Gude pruf?
As stated, it doesn't matter. I enjoy these kinds of games though, I really have nothing better to do.
And come on, it's not that hard to do. Apparently people expect Einstein out of ILI. They're not gonna get it, but you can at least try to satisfy expectations. You should know all three options by now, excluding the fourth one, which is unknown.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phrenology
An optimist - does not get discouraged under any circumstances. Life upheavals and stressful events only toughen him and make more confident. He likes to laugh and entertain people. Enters contact with someone by involving him with a humorous remark. His humor is often sly and contain hints and double meanings. Easily enters into arguments and bets, especially if he is challenged. When arguing his points is often ironic, ridicules the views of his opponent. His irritability and hot temper may be unpleasant to others. However, he himself is not perceptive of this and believes that he is simply exchanging opinions.
http://www.wikisocion.net/en/index.php?title=LIE_Profile_by_Gulenko
Wiki is down. I forget what it's exactly related to, but there is a page on deductive/inductive processes related to socionics type. In essence, everyone has a mirror that is the opposite of them. INTp is deductive. ENTj is inductive. I thought that was what we were talking about.
Last edited by Alomoes; 03-05-2021 at 04:15 PM.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phrenology
An optimist - does not get discouraged under any circumstances. Life upheavals and stressful events only toughen him and make more confident. He likes to laugh and entertain people. Enters contact with someone by involving him with a humorous remark. His humor is often sly and contain hints and double meanings. Easily enters into arguments and bets, especially if he is challenged. When arguing his points is often ironic, ridicules the views of his opponent. His irritability and hot temper may be unpleasant to others. However, he himself is not perceptive of this and believes that he is simply exchanging opinions.
http://www.wikisocion.net/en/index.php?title=LIE_Profile_by_Gulenko
It's a joke. I've been told INTp is Einstein.
Second thing is someone boiled down Ti to the thing you use for mathematical proofs.
Third thing is, if you don't understand me, which is normal, TBH, you're probably theoretically not my contrarian who would theoretically understand and disagree with me on core principals. I'll snag a source. https://www.sociotype.com/socionics/...ships/Contrary
Wiki is down, so I can't link it, hopefully this source is acceptable.
I wouldn't know what type you are, but it's easy to understand you, and hard to understand me. You can be Ni Fe, and I could be NeTi, but I don't have any reason to go with that hypothesis.
For the apple is red, I'm going over basic logic of how you know something is true or false. That there is logic. It is perfect, I took my time writing that out to make sure it was perfect. This is because the people above were talking about how you can/cannot know if the world is a simulation.
TL;DR You can't know if the world is a simulation or not. It's impossible.
Last edited by Alomoes; 03-05-2021 at 04:18 PM.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phrenology
An optimist - does not get discouraged under any circumstances. Life upheavals and stressful events only toughen him and make more confident. He likes to laugh and entertain people. Enters contact with someone by involving him with a humorous remark. His humor is often sly and contain hints and double meanings. Easily enters into arguments and bets, especially if he is challenged. When arguing his points is often ironic, ridicules the views of his opponent. His irritability and hot temper may be unpleasant to others. However, he himself is not perceptive of this and believes that he is simply exchanging opinions.
http://www.wikisocion.net/en/index.php?title=LIE_Profile_by_Gulenko
They're jumbled words to anyone. Actually I understand what Alomoes is saying, but he's misunderstanding inductivism.
I would think that "this apple is red" presupposes "apples can be red", so I would say that the former is redundant. It's just that the "apples can be red" on its own could be wrong. If apples cannot be red, then you'd never see a red apple. If apples can be red, then you're going to be seeing one. The "red apple theory" would eventually be proven either right or wrong.
But "apples can be red" can never be proven wrong, even if you'll never find a red apple. In the same way that "This world is a simulation" can never be proven wrong, even if there's no proof. So we go by principles like Occam's razor, which says "Does it create more problems than it solves?". We see no rational reason to make things more complicated than it is, by having more things unresolved than before. Is there a good reason to believe that this world is a simulation? What problem does it solve by saying that it is? And how is this world being simulated?
If you want "certainty", then you'd go with the "this apple is red" route. But then you wouldn't be able to predict anything with it. You can't know that there might be a green apple. You're just stating a fact. It's not a theory or a hypothesis. That's why science isn't inductive but deductive.
"Seeing" is a physical sensation, which means that it's something that's actually physically occurring in the real world. So if the mechanism of this "seeing" could be rationally explained, then it's possible to emulate it with another physical object. The human eye cannot see radio waves, infrared and other non-visible light, but you can still understand them and "see" them via the interpretations of specialized instruments that people had built. So a blind person could potentially create an instrument that can see and interpret visible light and "know" that the apple is red. And perhaps he could eventually augment it in his brain.
Induction says that "seeing is believing", but that is a prejudice. "Seeing" is simply a hidden mechanism of the eyes and consciousness that is yet to be explained. There's no limit to what you can rationally understand.
This is what I responding to. Also my conclusion is it creates no problems, and actually solves a ton. Because what if you want to break through reality to get to the truth? You can't even tell if there is a truth beyond your reality. It's a waste of time to try. So don't do it that way. The only way it'll happen is randomly.
Useful, because I can tell people to stop assuming stuff they don't know.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phrenology
An optimist - does not get discouraged under any circumstances. Life upheavals and stressful events only toughen him and make more confident. He likes to laugh and entertain people. Enters contact with someone by involving him with a humorous remark. His humor is often sly and contain hints and double meanings. Easily enters into arguments and bets, especially if he is challenged. When arguing his points is often ironic, ridicules the views of his opponent. His irritability and hot temper may be unpleasant to others. However, he himself is not perceptive of this and believes that he is simply exchanging opinions.
http://www.wikisocion.net/en/index.php?title=LIE_Profile_by_Gulenko
Deductive Reasoning - Rationality + Introversion OR Irrationality + Extroversion
Inductive Reasoning - Irrationality + Introversion OR Rationality + Extroversion