Inductive or Deductive Reasoning...

[Hope]

Which one do you use for understanding and learning?

INDUCTIVE (SPECIFICS TO GENERAL)
DEDUCTIVE (GENERAL TO SPECIFICS)

[Northstar]

Inductive.

[myresearch]

Inductive

[ooo]

both ?

[Sol]

Facts (Te) is about specifics, general is about a category (Ti).
Examples (S) is about specifics, general is about an abstraction (N).

for LSE a deduction should be more expressed

[eiemo]

Inductive mainly

[The Reality Denialist]

Deduction. I'm pretty much top to bottom thinker. Details are annoying because I have to have inner struggle to reach those in the most atomistic manner.

[The Reality Denialist]

Deduction is the best tool ever:
All policemen are instruments of law. (First premise)
The piano is an instrument. (Second premise)
Therefore, all policemen are pianos. (Conclusion)

QED

Things such as above feeds my fantasy life.

[lkdhf qkb]

Neither. I find formal logic or thinking in little boxes pretty much a waste of my time.

Holographical-Panoramic Cognition
In cognitive theory, the third cognitive form is the least studied: it is analytic, negative, and inductive. The provisional name of this style is Holographical-Panoramic. 'Holograph' originates from the Ancient Greek words holos "entire, whole" and grapho "write". This name is derived from the Holographist's ability to densely pack information via method of 'like to, similar' analogy. Sociotypes possessing this form are SLE, LII, IEE, ESI.

When trying to "understand"(ie trying to mentally represent external processes), I do prefer a systems thinking approach. Example:

Deduction is the best tool ever:
All policemen are instruments of law. (First premise)
The piano is an instrument. (Second premise)
Therefore, all policemen are pianos. (Conclusion)
QED

Let's assume "~" means "interact")

1. Man~Piano=>music
2. Man~music=>musician
3. Musician~piano=>pianist

The deductionist would say: "Therefore, pianist=man~music~piano=2(man~piano)" which doesn't make that much sense. I think the whole is more than the sum of parts; that interaction is creation; that understanding is an art, not a technique.

[Number 9 large]

Neither. I find formal logic or thinking in little boxes pretty much a waste of my time.



When trying to "understand"(ie trying to mentally represent external processes), I do prefer a systems thinking approach. Example:



Let's assume "~" means "interact")

1. Man~Piano=>music
2. Man~music=>musician
3. Musician~piano=>pianist

The deductionist would say: "Therefore, pianist=man~music~piano=2(man~piano)" which doesn't make that much sense. I think the whole is more than the sum of parts; that interaction is creation; that understanding is an art, not a technique.

sorry did i ask u something?

[lkdhf qkb]

sorry did i ask u something?

No, but my post wasn't an answer either. Just my thoughts. I feel like you're on the defensive, while I'm just interested in open discussion and contribution....

[Hope]

sorry did i ask u something?

[The Reality Denialist]

Neither. I find formal logic or thinking in little boxes pretty much a waste of my time.



When trying to "understand"(ie trying to mentally represent external processes), I do prefer a systems thinking approach. Example:



Let's assume "~" means "interact")

1. Man~Piano=>music
2. Man~music=>musician
3. Musician~piano=>pianist

The deductionist would say: "Therefore, pianist=man~music~piano=2(man~piano)" which doesn't make that much sense. I think the whole is more than the sum of parts; that interaction is creation; that understanding is an art, not a technique.

To me induction seems a lot like harnessing. Somehow they do not see origins of the source and take it as given whereas deductionists are like "solution found and whatever". LIE seems extremely inductive the way he/she plows the road (with tools made available).

[The Reality Denialist]

I hope it only feeds your fantasy life and not your reality because right after your second premise you destroyed all chances of making this realistic by deliberately using logic to make policemen pianos. I can imagine (and vividly remember) how some people are able to debate such and such through that line of thinking and bask on the laurels that they aren't supposed to get. Who knows how many such people roam the streets?

I recently said that I hope ILEs don't find their duals due to my annoyance of them, but I'm not annoyed anymore. I now understand why we have to lock ILEs in high institutions and give them SEIs to make them dormant. You really have to lock them up in a tower because of absurd claims like this. Next time I meet another ILE I'll provide them all the food and comforts they need so that hopefully they don't have to convince me or anyone of similar things as above, which they always tend to do specially to me because most people unlike me are okay with shit like this and can just stop taking what ILEs say seriously.

It takes a huge leap in faith to believe in reality in the first place.

[Alomoes]

It takes a huge leap in faith to believe in reality in the first place.

This is actually an example of inductive reasoning.

[The Reality Denialist]

This is actually an example of inductive reasoning.

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

[The Reality Denialist]

Hasn't this position mostly to do with the ego identifying with one's thoughts? I mean you must assume that your beliefs and thoughts are "more real than reality" or at least valid a priori to think in terms of "leaps of faith" towards something else. The whole "I think thus I am" stuff... But maybe it's your thoughts that are the illusion that keep you from accepting reality(=that nothing makes complete sense ever?)? What gives you faith in those?

See @one, one can turn the gaslighting in any sense one wishes!

Well, what is given and what is not. We could even think that everything we can experience including thoughts are synthetic. Hence it would make solipsist's stance bit laughable. Can there be truth without reality? Yes.

[The Reality Denialist]

You probably have been spending too much time in your high tower and talking only to similar people who can afford not to believe in it. I’d say some people expose themselves to reality everyday that they have no reason to doubt it. Just because you can afford to avoid it doesn’t mean it’s not real.

But what do I know, maybe Alphas are meant to be in Alpha lands.

Give me a proof. People can interact fully with the world if he they it is a simulation or something else.

[Number 9 large]

Causal-Determinist Cognition
Let us now examine the first cognitive form: It is analytic, positive, and deductive. We will call this style Causal-Determinist. Its carriers are Sociotypes ILE, LSI, SEE, EII.


Dialectical-Algorithmic Cognition
The second cognitive form is of particular interest: it is synthetic, negative, and deductive. The working name of this style is Dialectical-Algorithmic. Representatives of this style are Sociotypes EIE, ILI, LSE, SEI.


Holographical-Panoramic Cognition
In cognitive theory, the third cognitive form is the least studied: it is analytic, negative, and inductive. The provisional name of this style is Holographical-Panoramic. 'Holograph' originates from the Ancient Greek words holos "entire, whole" and grapho "write". This name is derived from the Holographist's ability to densely pack information via method of 'like to, similar' analogy. Sociotypes possessing this form are SLE, LII, IEE, ESI.


Vortical-Synergetic Cognition
The fourth cognitive style: it is synthetic, positive, and inductive. Its most appropriate title is Vortical-Synergetic. This form flows in Sociotypes ESE, SLI, LIE, IEI.

The almighty G has spoken

[Hope]

Causal-Determinist Cognition
Let us now examine the first cognitive form: It is analytic, positive, and deductive. We will call this style Causal-Determinist. Its carriers are Sociotypes ILE, LSI, SEE, EII.


Dialectical-Algorithmic Cognition
The second cognitive form is of particular interest: it is synthetic, negative, and deductive. The working name of this style is Dialectical-Algorithmic. Representatives of this style are Sociotypes EIE, ILI, LSE, SEI.


Holographical-Panoramic Cognition
In cognitive theory, the third cognitive form is the least studied: it is analytic, negative, and inductive. The provisional name of this style is Holographical-Panoramic. 'Holograph' originates from the Ancient Greek words holos "entire, whole" and grapho "write". This name is derived from the Holographist's ability to densely pack information via method of 'like to, similar' analogy. Sociotypes possessing this form are SLE, LII, IEE, ESI.


Vortical-Synergetic Cognition
The fourth cognitive style: it is synthetic, positive, and inductive. Its most appropriate title is Vortical-Synergetic. This form flows in Sociotypes ESE, SLI, LIE, IEI.

The almighty G has spoken

I actually don't agree with this. At least if G understand it as it is (I've read some pages in English where ppl confuse the meanings and concepts of Deductive and Inductive).

Ti is inductive, while Te is more Deductive by nature. Also all types use both but values one over the other (usually thinks the overuse of the other is wrong).

[Number 9 large]

I actually don't agree with this. At least if G understand it as it is (I've read some pages in English where ppl confuse the meanings and concepts of Deductive and Inductive).

Ti is inductive, while Te is more Deductive by nature. Also all types use both but values one over the other (usually thinks the overuse of the other is wrong).

this is what u get when u mistype yourself and use yourself as a standard for typology

[Hope]

this is what u get when u mistype yourself and use yourself as a standard for typology

I'm not using myself as standard but mb You and G do it. Also ofc You ar dumb SF what would ya know

[Number 9 large]

I'm not using myself as standard but mb You and G do it. Also ofc You ar dumb SF what would ya know

yOuRe dUmB SF, youre fuckin stupid

[The Reality Denialist]

Nah there is no such thing as inductive seeker/inventor. It makes no sense as the process does not hover around given toolbox but it is rather the opposite. As such it may seem opposite if a person can not grasp the level other person acts (ILE comes smashing down and ESI observes minute movements.) I was totally clueless that there are people like ESI's. I would have had huge obstacles to understand it if I had never read about it. Hence some ESI's see my style as inductive because it flies above their head. ESI's style flies above my head as well.

[Hope]

Nah there is no such thing as inductive seeker/inventor. It makes no sense as the process does not hover around given toolbox but it is rather the opposite. As such it may seem opposite if a person can not grasp the level other person acts (ILE comes smashing down and ESI observes minute movements.) I was totally clueless that there are people like ESI's. I would have had huge obstacles to understand it if I had never read about it. Hence some ESI's see my style as inductive because it flies above their head. ESI's style flies above my head as well.

If Ti focuses in Structural, Internal and system's logic then it would be more Inductive (specifical) than Deductive (general).

[Number 9 large]

If Ti focuses in Structural, Internal and system's logic then it would be more Inductive (specifical) than Deductive (general).

source?

[Hope]

source?

Not weird Gulenko theories ofc.

[Number 9 large]

Not weird Gulenko theories ofc.

u have no source

[myresearch]

If Ti focuses in Structural, Internal and system's logic then it would be more Inductive (specifical) than Deductive (general).

Positive or negative sign of same IE can effect a person's general understanding style. How do you think Ti+ differ from Ti- or Te+ from Te-? How does that distinction reflect on the preferred approach of a person in your opinion in the context of deductive and inductive styles?

[Hope]

Positive or negative sign of same IE can effect a person's general understanding style. How do you think Ti+ differ from Ti- or Te+ from Te-? How does that distinction reflect on the preferred approach of a person in your opinion in the context of deductive and inductive styles?

The plus minus signs are also part of the G model. And he changed them one or two times at this point. Besides that, + focuses in positive part of the element, - in everything, positive and negative. I don't know if that would have an impact like for changing the reasoning from Inductive to Deductive or the opposite. In any case + would be more into Deductive while - would be Inductive according definitions at least.

[myresearch]

The plus minus signs are also part of the G model. And he changed them one or two times at this point. Besides that, + focuses in positive part of the element, - in everything, positive and negative. I don't know if that would have an impact like for changing the reasoning from Inductive to Deductive or the opposite. In any case + would be more into Deductive while - would be Inductive according definitions at least.

I know G changed some signs of some IEs a few times. Besides G model, Reinin's positivist and negativist dichotomy also built according to IEs of base signs. I think it perfectly correlates with model G. I am only not sure about the signs of Si, it may be different for SXI types and their supervision, dual's supervison chain. Sign of IEs may be the second important aspect of socionics after position and effects of position of IEs in terms of explaining the differences in types. Ofcourse every socionist can make up their own model, we can make ours right now in a way that signs can be different or irrelevant. However, I think the classical or modern socionics models (Augusta, Reinin and Gulenko) got it right.

[The Banana King]

Nah there is no such thing as inductive seeker/inventor. It makes no sense as the process does not hover around given toolbox but it is rather the opposite. As such it may seem opposite if a person can not grasp the level other person acts (ILE comes smashing down and ESI observes minute movements.) I was totally clueless that there are people like ESI's. I would have had huge obstacles to understand it if I had never read about it. Hence some ESI's see my style as inductive because it flies above their head. ESI's style flies above my head as well.

ILE-Ne 'inventor' might not need induction that much, but what about ILE-Ti? ILE-Ti is described as an 'office scientist', and there seems to be more ILE-Ti in natural sciences than their Ne counterpart. Induction is the root of all science, drawing general principles from many individual observations. If ILEs couldn't do inductive reasoning then there wouldn't be any ILE scientist which I think is unlikely

[The Reality Denialist]

ILE-Ne 'inventor' might not need induction that much, but what about ILE-Ti? ILE-Ti is described as an 'office scientist', and there seems to be more ILE-Ti in natural sciences than their Ne counterpart. Induction is the root of all science, drawing general principles from many individual observations. If ILEs couldn't do inductive reasoning then there wouldn't be any ILE scientist which I think is unlikely

Not so sure. If you build a hard core system you'll need induction. When you hack into a system you'll need deduction. I think science from perspective of hacking.

[The Reality Denialist]

LSE's seem quite abductive.

[necrosebud]

both I guess

[The Banana King]

There's an interesting difference in the types of reasoning that might have a connection to Socionics:
Deductive Reasoning does not synthesize new information, it merely rearranges the pieces of the puzzle to 'uncover' the truth that is hidden. Inductive Reasoning on the other hand, synthesizes new information based on observations of some kind of repeating phenomenon.

P types spend more time perceiving than judging, and therefore suffer from information overload. J types spend more time judging, so they suffer from lack of information.
So it would make sense if P types use Deductive thinking more in order to alleviate the information load, and J types use Inductive in order to get more information.

You have to keep in mind that Deductive and Inductive reasoning aren't exclusive to each other. People use both all the time without realizing it. Maybe the difference is that one of the two is more 'consciously used' than the other.

In my case, my Ti is very strong vs my Te, and I use Deductive thinking most of the time. My speech seems to naturally follow 'if..., then...' logic chains.
I think Ne already gives you the general view on things and Ti starts drawing conclusions from these generalities. Deductive thinking is 'conscious' to me, so to speak. It's very easy for me to explain my trail of thought to others, premises and conclusions, logical leaps, etc. On the other hand, Inductive thinking is also happening all the time but on a very unconscious level. That might be Ne working behind the scenes. It feels unconvincing when I use inductive reasoning to explain some phenomenon, and people are always quick to point out some fringe case where the generality doesn't apply. But deductive reasoning feels very 'true' and others seem to take my word as gospel when I use it

There's this ISTp guy I knew who used deductive thinking a lot. Back then it surprised me because I always thought Ti = deduction and Te = induction. So I think Ti and Te types can have a preference for either type of thinking, the difference is the destination: Ti will apply either deduction or induction to create logical structures, Te will apply either of those to improve productivity, etc.

[myresearch]

There's an interesting difference in the types of reasoning that might have a connection to Socionics:
Deductive Reasoning does not synthesize new information, it merely rearranges the pieces of the puzzle to 'uncover' the truth that is hidden. Inductive Reasoning on the other hand, synthesizes new information based on observations of some kind of repeating phenomenon.

Good insight, I totally agree with this part and the fact that everyone uses both. J/P difference holds less importance than +/- of an IE in my opinion.

[SGF]

Inductive mainly.

[Lolita]

I think we do use both but cognitively have a preference for one or the other. Deductive Ti. I take the general structure and pick it apart and then apply to specifics. I don’t really care about finding “new” or more information. I think that’s a waste of time. If I am presented with sufficient amount of data that allows me to reason the action, then that’s enough. But then again, I’m normalizing subtype with developed Fi and Ti. I don’t think I’m good with Te even though it’s easy for me to take large amounts of information and condense it to a manageable amount for others (if I feel the need to necessitate it) but I do that on my own easily.

[Rebelondeck]

All types use both but to different extents; in a natural tendency sense, inductive is the more S-like (a bottom-up perspective) while deductive is N-like (a top-down perspective). I know that I have a tendency to go back to first principles to figure out specifics.

a.k.a. I/O

Edit: Where does abductive reasoning fit - starting with an incomplete set of observations and proceeding to the likeliest possible explanation? N-types seem to be better at interpolation but S-types tend to be better at application.