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

1. Probability is employed, for example, in the following argument:
Every life form we know of depends on liquid water to exist. All life depends on liquid water to exist.
Isnt this like that thing we learned in elementary where you whisper something in someones ear and they whisper it in someone elses and at the end of the line its different then what started.

However, induction is employed in the following argument:
Every life form that everyone knows of depends on liquid water to exist. Therefore, all known life depends on liquid water to exist.
Isnt this how everyone works?

edit: one is true as of right now...the other one is true in a larger scale.

2. 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
So, how did you use abductive reasoning in your math example?

3. 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
Yes, abductive reasoning is actually a class of inductive reasoning, not deductive reasoning.

It is more or less the opposite of deductive reasoning.

As two stages of the development, extension, etc., of a hypothesis in scientific inquiry, abduction and induction are often collapsed into one overarching concept — the hypothesis. That is why, in the scientific method pioneered by Galileo and Bacon, the abductive stage of hypothesis formation is conceptualized simply as induction.
My inductive/adbuctive leap, which I have stated many times on here over the last several years, is that NTJ thinking is more suited to inductive/abductive reasoning, while NTP thinking is more suited to deductive reasoning. I also believe iNtuition seems to be more related to inductive/abductive reasoning, while Thinking seems to be more related to deductive reasoning -- hence, the more robust iNtuition of NTJs (perhaps ENTPs, with extroverted intuition in the dominant, could be considered second to INTJs, but greater than ENTJs, in this regard) leads them to be better at induction/abduction, while the more robust Thinking of NTPs (perhaps ENTJs, with extroverted thinking in the dominant, could be considered second to INTP, but greater than ENTPs, in this regard) leads them to be better at deduction.

I also hypothesize that NTJs tend to have a more empirical approach, while NTPs tend to have a more rationalistic approach, but I believe this probably has to do with the fact that NTJs primarily use Te and NTPs primarily use Ti, and is not directly related to the attitude of their iNtuition (except by extension thru definition).

4. Originally Posted by Nicodemus
So, how did you use abductive reasoning in your math example?
No that was deductive

5. Originally Posted by Zarathustra
Yes, abductive reasoning is actually a class of inductive reasoning, not deductive reasoning.
No its not, its separate from both

http://www.winpossible.com/postings/...568842873.aspx

6. This forum is getting to be more of a yawn every day

7. Originally Posted by shortnsweet
This forum is getting to be more of a yawn every day
Reminds me of the book Snot Stew I read as a child...

Is not...Is To
Is Not...Is To
iSnot...iSTo
Snot...Stew
Snot...Stew

8. Originally Posted by INTP
Actually, yes it is.

Study the history of the terms/concepts.

Before Peirce came along, what is now more specifically called abductive reasoning was known as inductive reasoning.

Both approaches are noted for going in the opposite direction of deductive reasoning.

9. Originally Posted by Zarathustra
Actually, yes it is.

Study the history of the terms/concepts.

Before Peirce came along, what is now more specifically called abductive reasoning was known as inductive reasoning.

Both approaches are noted for going in the opposite direction of deductive reasoning.
Actually we arent the first people arguing about this. It seems to be quite hot topic of discussion..

Its funny that you earlier denied what i said about INTJs making Fi judgment about wether a source of information is reliable or not, then blindly trusting or mistrusting the source. Still here you found some random bit of info frrom a source you saw as being trusted and blindly believed it

10. Originally Posted by Zarathustra
Actually, yes it is.

Study the history of the terms/concepts.

Before Peirce came along, what is now more specifically called abductive reasoning was known as inductive reasoning.

Both approaches are noted for going in the opposite direction of deductive reasoning.
Pfft typical INTJ meathead. Get some Ti, Z.

#### Posting Permissions

• You may not post new threads
• You may not post replies
• You may not post attachments
• You may not edit your posts
•