# Thread: Why INTJs -can- be more intellectual than INTPs

1. And how many have you abducted already ?

2. Originally Posted by entropie
And how many have you abducted already ?
I have, but only once

3. rrrr

5. I understand that intelligence is not your strong suit, so let me just spell this all out for you:

Originally Posted by INTP
25175173 + 34223614 = 59398787

Voila, i made a new truth via deduction(okay maybe someone did come up with that before, but i cba to add more numbers to that, since this should prove my point already).
Wrong.

Originally Posted by INTP
Another bit less simplified example would be jungian typology(yea yea someone might disagree with its validity, but just an example).
Wrong again.

Originally Posted by INTP
How do you think many of the scientific discoveries are made? First there is a hypothesis that is made using deduction, then the hypothesis is tested and validated. The new truth was made via deduction before the validation, even tho it might had not been proven true before, but nevertheless it was true and was made up by deduction.
Wrong a third time.

Originally Posted by Zarathustra
I believe you're mistaking induction for deduction.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inductive_reasoning
Right.

Originally Posted by INTP
Actually now that you mentioned, its abductive reasoning, i thought abductive was some subclass of deductive and didnt think it as something separate.

You said it was inductive, but its abductive.
Wrong.

Originally Posted by INTP
In logic, three kinds of logical reasoning can be distinguished: deduction, induction and abduction. Given a precondition, a conclusion, and a rule that the precondition implies the conclusion, they can be explained in the following way:

Deduction means determining the conclusion. It is using the rule and its precondition to make a conclusion. Example: "When it rains, the grass gets wet. It rained. Therefore, the grass is wet." Mathematicians are commonly associated with this style of reasoning.

Induction means determining the rule. It is learning the rule after numerous examples of the conclusion following the precondition. Example: "The grass has been wet every time it has rained. Therefore, when it rains, the grass gets wet." Scientists are commonly associated with this style of reasoning.

Abduction means determining the precondition. It is using the conclusion and the rule to support that the precondition could explain the conclusion. Example: "When it rains, the grass gets wet. The grass is wet, therefore, it may have rained." Diagnosticians and detectives are commonly associated with this style of reasoning.
What about your statement that I corrected pointed specifically to abductive vs. inductive reasoning?

It was ambiguous as to whether it was inductive or abductive.

Furthermore, as the definitions from wikipedia point out, induction is the style more commonly associated with science, while abduction is more commonly associated with diagnosis and detective-work, and the example you described, and which I said you were mistakenly calling deduction, when it was really induction, had to do with science.

Which, finally, brings me to my broader point: that what are now known separately as abductive and inductive reasoning for hundreds of years of the scientific method were both known simply as inductive reasoning. As such, I, and many other people smarter than yourself, consider the two present-day concepts to be subclasses of what used to be known simply as inductive reasoning. It is not an inaccurate way to use the terms, as say, it is to use deductive reasoning to signify abductive or inductive reasoning.

You're the noob who thought it was all just deductive.

6. Originally Posted by Zarathustra
I understand that intelligence is not your strong suit, so let me just spell this all out for you:

Wrong.

Wrong again.

Wrong a third time.

Right.

Wrong.

What about your statement that I corrected pointed specifically to abductive vs. inductive reasoning?

It was ambiguous as to whether it was inductive or abductive.

Furthermore, as the definitions from wikipedia point out, induction is the style more commonly associated with science.

And, to the broader point, what are now known separately as abductive and inductive reasoning for hundreds of years of the scientific method were both known simply as inductive reasoning. As such, I, and many other people smarter than yourself, consider the two present-day concepts to be subclasses of what used to be known simply as inductive reasoning. It is not an inaccurate way to use the terms, as say, it is to use deductive reasoning to signify abductive or inductive reasoning.

You're the noob who thought it was all just deductive.
Wrong.

I and many other people smarter than you think that abductive and inductive are different things.

7. Originally Posted by INTP
Wrong.

I and many other people smarter than you think that abductive and inductive are different things.
Wrong a fifth time.

I know that the two modern-day concepts can be delineated as two separate things. I just consider them each to be subclasses under the broader umbrella of what was once, and for a long time, considered just one concept. You, though, apparently lack the capacity to understand why people put them under the same broader conceptual umbrella.

It's cool, though, man. Everyone reading this knows that you're wrong.

8. Originally Posted by Zarathustra
Wrong a fifth time.

I know that the two modern-day concepts can be delineated as two separate things. I just put them as subclasses under the broader umbrella of what was once, and for a long time, considered just one concept.

It's cool, though, man. Everyone reading this knows that you're wrong.

Game. Set. Match.
Only cry cuz crappeur :-----DDD

Induction means determining the rule

Abduction means determining the precondition

9. Rather fittingly, this whole exercise has become a performance piece showing how INTJs can be more intellectual than INTPs.

You're welcome, @Mycroft.

10. Originally Posted by Zarathustra
Rather fittingly, this whole exercise has become a performance piece showing how INTJs can be more intellectual than INTPs.

You're welcome, @Mycroft.
Lies. You are only showing the irrational egoistic nature of yourself.

For example black swans are mistakes in induction, but have nothing to do with abduction, since abduction doesent try to predict rules, but looks for probable causes.

Easy served(by a noob) XD

#### 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