# Thread: Do Ti and Te map onto deduction vs. induction?

1. ## Do Ti and Te map onto deduction vs. induction?

I often try to avoid going through all the details of something, instead reasoning about why something must be true based on its similarity to something else. This kind of reasoning appeals to me because it's very efficient and effective. Why do all the hard work of a formal bottom-up proof when you can prove something using abstract principles? When I use this kind of reasoning with Te's they often tune me out because they think it can't possibly be that easy.

It reminds me of abstract nonsense in mathematics. What basically happened is that category theorists came around and demonstrated that they could simplify super detailed mathematical proofs into just a few steps. Many mathematicians didn't take kindly to this new development. But I love it! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abstract_nonsense

What do you think?

2. As for the title, probably not. But I've had the same thought myself. Why not look for clues in Jung?

As for Abstract nonsense, interesting notion. Category theory is one of my prized finds.

I'm a sucker for simple proofs.

3. Ti is better for deductive reasoning.
Te is better for inductive reasoning.

4. Double post.

5. I'm not sure, but for what it's worth, I remember finding deductive proofs much easier and more natural than inductive proofs.

6. They're both deductive. Induction is intuitive.

#### Posting Permissions

• You may not post new threads
• You may not post replies
• You may not post attachments
• You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO