Induction corresponds with empirical reasoning. Thus, induction corresponds with Te.
Deduction follows strict reasoning and logic. Ti corresponds with applying logical principles. Thus, deduction corresponds with Ti.
Seems pretty simple to me.
Maybe too simple... I don't think the correspondences are quite that neat.
As an outwardly directed function interested in real world results, Extroverted Thinking is going to have a greater affinity for whatever is tried and true, explicit and measurable, but that doesn't rule out the use of deductive reasoning. In fact deductive reasoning appeals to the linear nature of Te.
Both forms of reasoning are employed by Ti, (often in a circle) though the process is usually less explicit and formal.
Lenore Thomson offers the following example of problem-solving using Te vs Ti: packing a bag of groceries. Te, she says, would require the use of a ruler, calculating the volume of the container and that of each item purchased, and then calculating the optimal arrangement of those items in the container. (This is actually a kind of deductive reasoning, no?)
Whereas Ti allows us to approximate the best spatial arrangement without explicit calculation or any application of formal logic (presumably based on experience which allows us to build mental models of the way the world works).
Another example is parallel parking. When I learned to drive, my instructor had bits of black sticky tape on the back window, and reverse parking was an exercise in lining up various markers. Of course, this only enables the trainee to park that particular car - put them in another car and those methods are useless. I find learning anything using shortcuts like those singularly frustrating. In order to do anything, I need to grasp the principles - the things that are unchanging and applicable to every situation, and then tailor my approach to specific circumstances.
Like I said. Go outside. Do you have any ESTP or ISTP friends? Are they really getting all egghead-ish and recalling models and systems before they hop into something? At least in my case, life has been more of an experiment. And I can't recall very many things where I explicitly calculated and abstracted a situation before getting involved. I didn't think of the correct parameters and form before jumping on a skateboard for the first time. Or if I saw a cute girl at a party, I didn't use a deductive process in approaching her, like some PUA dork. I just got involved with the situation.. this is Se.
I think ISTPs respond to the "logic" of a situation in a way that is similar but more instinctive than is the case for INTPs, who are always somewhat removed, detached, analytical and thus more conscious of the model-building process.
Ti is deductive in the sense that is concerned with structural possibilities. Its understanding of the world is built up from first principles. If x, then y. If x and y, then z, etc, etc. This is a mathematical kind of reasoning, but it is also apparent in sports, which use an intuitive (in the sense of instinctive) grasp of physics to, in the case of a tennis or snooker player, say, strike a ball in exactly the right way to achieve a desired result. Numerous lightning-fast calculations must be performed in order to do this, though the player is only conscious of his ability to "read" the situation and respond appropriately. "Reading" relies on Se, in this context, but the response part of the equation is (arguably) Ti. This kind of activity necessitates the construction of a mental map which models the physical parameters of the situation. "Inductive logic" is not going to help the player respond creatively and flexibly - because it will limit him to responding in ways that he has done before. In a "flow" state, he is able to anticipate and respond creatively, because his mental model of the structural possibilities is complete. His body knows "if I do this, that will happen", not because he has practiced that particular move over and over and over (no move is repeated exactly the same way twice) but because he has a deep, practical understanding of the physics at play (even if he could never put into words or formulate equations of what he knows). We all employ Ti in this reflexive way, in the sense of "folk physics". In this sense, it is not a strictly experimental approach (what happens if I do x?) it is more informed than that, but the "information" informs the whole body, instructs the fluidity of movement. However, in the early stages of learning anything, a more experimental approach is going to be called for, since we can only construct our mental models, ultimately, based on observation and experience, especially when we are talking about the kinds of behaviours that become reflexive.
