[NT] Do NTJ use evidence more?

[murkrow]

are NTJs more inductive while NTPs are more deductive?

 

[Litvyak]

I think it's the opposite, NTJs seem to be more deductive. Care to explain your theory?

 

[Salt n' pepper]

Agree with Lit. NTP seem much more inductive. Elaborate on your theory please!

 

[murkrow]

My idea seem to usually form from the collection of evidence.

Once evidence rises enough to support an idea, I recognize it and focus on it.

Isn't that inductive?

Am I NTP?

 

[SolitaryWalker]

I think it's the opposite, NTJs seem to be more deductive. Care to explain your theory?

Logic is deductive reasoning which is highly abstract.

NTPs are Ti types. Ti is introverted and more in tune with the realm of mind and abstraction. NTJs are Te types. Te is extroverted and more in tune with the physical world than with the realm of mind. One who is more in tune with the realm of mind tends to rely on abstract reasoning more than experiences with the physical world.

Ti types are more in tune with the world of abstraction than with the physical world, therefore they tend to use deduction more than induction. Te types are more in tune with the physical world and therefore use induction more than deduction, as induction is grounded in experience and observation more than a mere abstract reasoning process.

 

[EcK]

My idea seem to usually form from the collection of evidence.

Once evidence rises enough to support an idea, I recognize it and focus on it.

Isn't that inductive?

Am I NTP?

no that's deductive

 

[Jaguar]

Extraverted Thinking (Te) - Ordered, deductive logic based on objective criteria and hierarchies.

Deductive Versus Inductive Reasoning

 

[Feops]

Hang on, let me find a study to support or deny your claim.

 

[poppy]

It does seem to me that NiTe would lead one to move more from the general to the specific (deductive) whereas TiNe would lead one to move from the specific to the general (inductive).

Then again, it would not surprise me if NeTi moved from the general to the specific, and if TeNi moved from the specific to the general. Is it possible that intuition being primary or secondary to thinking could play a role?

EDIT: But wait...evidence...wouldn't "evidence" be used in both styles? Pardon me, my understanding of this is only rudimentary. Or are the rules and theorems presumably used in deductive reasoning, not considered evidence? Wait, yes, that must be it. Someone can correct me if I'm wrong.

 

[Jaguar]

Hang on, let me find a study to support or deny your claim.

Hang on, let me find a study to support or deny what an asshole is.

 

[laughingebony]

My idea seem to usually form from the collection of evidence.

Once evidence rises enough to support an idea, I recognize it and focus on it.

Isn't that inductive?

Am I NTP?

It all depends on the argument you construct from that evidence.

It does seem to me that NiTe would lead one to move more from the general to the specific (deductive) whereas TiNe would lead one to move from the specific to the general (inductive).

That is actually not the difference between deductive and inductive arguments.

A deductive argument is one in which the conclusion is claimed to follow with absolute necessity from the premises. Any added premises (whether true or false) have no effect on this necessity.

An inductive argument is one in which the conclusion is claimed to follow from the premises only with probability. This probability is a matter of degree, and this degree can change in light of new facts added as premises.

Although it is usually the case that deductive arguments move from general to specific and inductive arguments move from specific to general, both deductive and inductive arguments can move in either direction.

Here is an example of an inductive argument that moves from general to specific:

Most dogs have four legs.
Fido is a dog.
Therefore, Fido has four legs.

An example of a deductive argument that moves from specific to general...

I have three dogs whose names are Fido, Rover, and Champ.
Fido has four legs.
Rover has four legs.
Champ has four legs.
Therefore, all of my dogs have four legs.

But wait...evidence...wouldn't "evidence" be used in both styles? Pardon me, my understanding of this is only rudimentary. Or are the rules and theorems presumably used in deductive reasoning, not considered evidence? Wait, yes, that must be it. Someone can correct me if I'm wrong.

Possibly, but "evidence" is usually intended to refer to the premises of an argument. Rules and theorems set forth general properties of certain types of arguments or premises.

Now, as far as the OP goes, as an NTP, I use whichever form of reasoning seems to be most appropriate in light of the evidence I have acquired. The enjoyment I get from using each type is about equal.

 

[poppy]

^Thanks for clarifying

 

[AOA]

are NTJs more inductive while NTPs are more deductive?

I'm pretty sure NTJs are deductive...

 

[The_Liquid_Laser]

This discussion is pointless. Intuition is inductive and Thinking is deductive. All NTs are both inductive and deductive. The type of reason that a person relies on more has to do more with individual preference than type.

 

[Tyrant]

This discussion is pointless. Intuition is inductive and Thinking is deductive.

So both ENTJs and INTPs are more inclined to use evidence. GOTCHA.

 

[Feops]

Hang on, let me find a study to support or deny what an asshole is.

Tut. Such an overreaction.

 

[Jaguar]

Tut. Such an overreaction.

It was an observation.
You are what you are.

It's that simple.

 

[tinkerbell]

It was an observation.
You are what you are.

It's that simple.

hmm I wnder if that is a deductive argument or an inductive argument

 

[Jaguar]

^ aaaaaaaahaha clever!

 

[Metamorphosis]

We both obviously use it a lot. I think the difference is that NTJ's will make a conclusion first and then find the evidence, even if we do adjust accordingly after the fact.