• You are currently viewing our forum as a guest, which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community, you will have access to additional post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), view blogs, respond to polls, upload content, and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free, so please join our community today! Just click here to register. You should turn your Ad Blocker off for this site or certain features may not work properly. If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us by clicking here.

[NT] Why INTJs -can- be more intellectual than INTPs

Zarathustra

Let Go Of Your Team
Joined
Oct 31, 2009
Messages
8,110
I understand that intelligence is not your strong suit, so let me just spell this all out for you:

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.

Another bit less simplified example would be jungian typology(yea yea someone might disagree with its validity, but just an example).

Wrong again.

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.

I believe you're mistaking induction for deduction.

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

Right.

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.

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?

Answer: nothing.

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.
 

INTP

Active member
Joined
Jul 31, 2009
Messages
7,803
MBTI Type
intp
Enneagram
5w4
Instinctual Variant
sx
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?

Answer: nothing.

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.
 

Zarathustra

Let Go Of Your Team
Joined
Oct 31, 2009
Messages
8,110
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.
 

INTP

Active member
Joined
Jul 31, 2009
Messages
7,803
MBTI Type
intp
Enneagram
5w4
Instinctual Variant
sx
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
 

Zarathustra

Let Go Of Your Team
Joined
Oct 31, 2009
Messages
8,110
Rather fittingly, this whole exercise has become a performance piece showing how INTJs can be more intellectual than INTPs.

You're welcome, [MENTION=332]Mycroft[/MENTION]. ;)
 

INTP

Active member
Joined
Jul 31, 2009
Messages
7,803
MBTI Type
intp
Enneagram
5w4
Instinctual Variant
sx
Rather fittingly, this whole exercise has become a performance piece showing how INTJs can be more intellectual than INTPs.

You're welcome, [MENTION=332]Mycroft[/MENTION]. ;)

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
 

Zarathustra

Let Go Of Your Team
Joined
Oct 31, 2009
Messages
8,110
Induction means determining the rule

Abduction means determining the precondition

Yes, I know this.

Lies. You are only showing the irrational egoistic nature of yourself.

Jungian shadow projection.

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.

Yes, I already knew this.

Easy served(by a noob) XD

Wrong a sixth time.
 

INTP

Active member
Joined
Jul 31, 2009
Messages
7,803
MBTI Type
intp
Enneagram
5w4
Instinctual Variant
sx
Jungian shadow projection.



I already knew this.

I could say the same thing about the shadow projection with the you calling me stupid.

If you already knew that abduction is not induction, why were you arguing that it is? Stop contradicting yourself :----DDD
 

Zarathustra

Let Go Of Your Team
Joined
Oct 31, 2009
Messages
8,110
I could say the same thing about the shadow projection with the you calling me stupid.

Yes, you could.

But only one of us would be right.

(Hint [since you're slow]: it would be me.)

If you already knew that abduction is not induction, why were you arguing that it is? Stop contradicting yourself :----DDD

Once again, you're obviously not smart enough to get the point.

I'm done here; feel free to make up whatever delusions you want about this.

Everybody who reads it will know that you're an *****; feel free to keep making yourself look like one, tho.
 

INTP

Active member
Joined
Jul 31, 2009
Messages
7,803
MBTI Type
intp
Enneagram
5w4
Instinctual Variant
sx
Yes, you could.

But only one of us would be right.

And that would be me.



Once again, you're obviously not smart enough to get the point.

I'm done here; feel free to make up whatever delusions you want about this.

Everybody who reads it will know that you're an *****; feel free to keep making yourself look like one, tho.

Cant be so hard to figure out that im just poking at your ego :----DDDD . Oh wait, you didnt realize your enormous ego that inhibits you from seeing the truth and makes you say stupid things XD

Deductive - finding the effect, given the cause and the rule.

Abductive - finding the cause, given the rule and the effect.

Inductive - finding the rule, given the cause and the effect.
 

Zarathustra

Let Go Of Your Team
Joined
Oct 31, 2009
Messages
8,110
Cant be so hard to figure out that im just poking at your ego :----DDDD . Oh wait, you didnt realize your enormous ego that inhibits you from seeing the truth and makes you say stupid things XD

Excellent delusion there.

Hope it works out for you.

Deductive - finding the effect, given the cause and the rule.

Abductive - finding the cause, given the rule and the effect.

Inductive - finding the rule, given the cause and the effect.

This is accurate.

And, as you will see, both abduction and induction work by starting with the effect.

This is why they were originally collapsed under the same umbrella, until Charles Sanders Peirce delineated the difference.
 

INTP

Active member
Joined
Jul 31, 2009
Messages
7,803
MBTI Type
intp
Enneagram
5w4
Instinctual Variant
sx
Excellent delusion there.

Hope it works out for you.



This is accurate.

And, as you will see, both abduction and induction work by starting with the effect.

This is why they were originally collapsed under the same umbrella, until Charles Sanders Peirce delineated the difference.

Both ENFP and ENTP start with Ne, thats why they were originally seen as subgroups of extraverted intuitives, but that doesent mean that either one is a subgroup of another, they were separated onto two different things.

Easy owned by a stupid delusional noob :-----DDDD
 

Rasofy

royal member
Joined
Mar 7, 2011
Messages
5,881
MBTI Type
INTP
Enneagram
5w6
Instinctual Variant
sp/sx
Who's gonna give up first this time, INTP or Zarathustra?
Taking bets.
 

INTP

Active member
Joined
Jul 31, 2009
Messages
7,803
MBTI Type
intp
Enneagram
5w4
Instinctual Variant
sx
I'll take being right the whole time.

He can say whatever stupid thing he wants to get the last word.

Im not saying stupid things lol. You are just crying cuz you arent able to see the teuth behind your ego :)---DD)-/--<
 

Salomé

meh
Joined
Sep 25, 2008
Messages
10,527
MBTI Type
INTP
Enneagram
5w4
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
How is this the wrong forum? It's all about NTs and it's in the NT forum. Unless it was already moved before I asked this question.
He said it was "a fluff thread". This isn't the place for fluff.
Then again, fluff is supposed to be amusing, and this shit is old and dull and frankly, beyond pathetic.
 
Top