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

[Zarathustra]

...its probability

No, it's not.

It's a logical truism.

It has nothing to do with probability.

You shouldn't be condescending when you don't know what you're talking about.

 

[Poki]

No, it's not.

It's a logical certainty.



You shouldn't be condescending when you don't know what you're talking about.

You want logic cetainty

IF all men are mortal and socrates is a man THEN
socrates=mortal;
ELSE
socrates=immortal;
END IF

 

[Poki]

No, it's not.

It's a logical truism.

It has nothing to do with probability.



You shouldn't be condescending when you don't know what you're talking about.

now that its changed to Truism
Truism - A truism is a claim that is so obvious or self-evident as to be hardly worth mentioning...sorry I had to mention it

 

[Zarathustra]

You want logic cetainty

IF all men are mortal and socrates is a man THEN
socrates=mortal;
ELSE
socrates=immortal;
END IF

now that its changed to Truism
Truism - A truism is a claim that is so obvious or self-evident as to be hardly worth mentioning...sorry I had to mention it

None of this matters, and adding a wink at the end doesn't make it any smarter.

Congratulations on writing a few lines of code and pasting a definition of truism from the dictionary.

It has nothing to do with probability, and your definition of deduction was actually just a form of induction and/or abduction.

Once again, the smartest thing you've written in this whole thread was above:

Intellectual - intelligence = lots of thought + no sense

Unfortunately you don't understand how aptly it applies to you.

 

[Poki]

None of this matters, and adding a wink at the end doesn't make it any smarter.

Congratulations on writing a few lines of code and pasting a definition of truism from the dictionary.

It has nothing to do with probability, and your definition of deduction was actually just a form of induction and/or abduction.

Once again, the smartest thing you've written in this whole thread was above:



Unfortunately you don't understand how aptly it applies to you.

Actually...those definitions were copy and pasted from a google search. You werent arguing with me, I was just a proxy I have no clue what the definitions of any of this crap. The smartest things I said were directly from me LOL

 

[Zarathustra]

Actually...those definitions were copy and pasted from a google search. You werent arguing with me, I was just a proxy I have no clue what the definitions of any of this crap is.

Well, then the google search was wrong.

And I'd recommend knowing what you're talking about before pasting erroneous information.

 

[Poki]

Well, then the google search was wrong.

And I'd recommend knowing what you're talking about before pasting erroneous information.

I used wiki which is the same source you used for inductive reasoning.

 

[Red Herring]

Yeah, I didn't read the third definition and just skimmed over the post. That doesn't make this thread any more insightful. *sigh*

 

[Poki]

Well, then the google search was wrong.

And I'd recommend knowing what you're talking about before pasting erroneous information.

Deductive arguments are attempts to show that a conclusion necessarily follows from a set of premises or hypotheses. A deductive argument is valid if the conclusion does follow necessarily from the premises, i.e., the conclusion must be true provided that the premises are true.

If your premise is screwed up your deduction is wrong....but you know what your "deductive reasoning is sound"

Yeah, I didn't read the third definition and just skimmed over the post. That doesn't make this thread any more insightful. *sigh*

Comon' you shoulda corrected me awhile back

 

[Zarathustra]

If your premise is screwed up your deduction is wrong....but you know what your "deductive reasoning is sound"

This is actually wrong as well.

A deductive argument is sound when the conclusions follow from the premises, and the premises are true.

A deductive argument is valid when the conclusions follow from the premises, but the premises may be true or untrue.

 

[Poki]

This is actually wrong as well.

A deductive argument is sound when the conclusions follow from the premises, and the premises are true.

A deductive argument is valid when the conclusions follow from the premises, but the premises may be true or untrue.

That would actually be an argument of definitions...whats sound and valid to me is different then you have used...not about whats right or wrong, but how I percieve things.

edit: just one of those things where I have my own definition of "sound".

 

[Zarathustra]

That would actually be an argument of definitions...whats sound and valid to me is different then you have used...not about whats right or wrong, but how I percieve things.

That's fine.

I'm just telling you the actual definitions.

You can go to any logician or philosophy class or book around the entire world, and this is how these terms are (properly) used.

 

[Poki]

That's fine.

I'm just telling you the actual definitions.

You can go to any logician or philosophy class or book around the entire world, and this is how these terms are used.

Cool, I wont remember them. I am so strong on deductive reasoning or what ever reasoning, I dont feel like going back and figuring it out that definitions dont mean a whole lot to me. I generally start with a concept and or theory not a definition.

 

[Zarathustra]

Cool, I wont remember them. I am so strong on deductive reasoning and that path that definitions dont mean a whole lot to me. I generally start with a concept and or theory not a definition.

Usually it's the Ti doms who are in need of starting off by agreeing on the definitions, not the TJs.

Definitions are a type of axiom (i.e., premise). They are often concepts in themselves, but they can also lead to more complex concepts and theories, which are more complex types of axioms. In order to perform deductive reasoning, you must first agree on the axioms.

I wonder if this is a difference between ISTPs and INTPs. Si is also a stickler for definitions, and seeing as how ISTPs use SeNi as opposed to the INTPs' NeSi, and that Ni is the function often most resistant to definitions (as its more inductive form of reasoning likes to move towards the axioms, as opposed to deductive reasoning which likes to start with axioms, and then move away from them), perhaps you guys don't work quite the same way. I could see this explaining why I don't think you guys are very good at talking about concepts, and why you guys tend to prefer very hands-on kinda stuff. The "definition", in this sense, would be the object right in front of you (SeNi), and you guys know how to work with that "definition" just fine. Never should ask you to explain it, though.

 

[Poki]

Usually it's the Ti doms who are in need of the definitions, no the TJs.

In order to perform deductive reasoning, you must agree on the axioms.

Definitions are axioms. They are often concepts in themselves, but they can also lead to more complex concepts and theories, which are more complex forms of axioms.

They are shortened versions of axioms, I generally build definitions on the fly, based on context from the other person, and use them as the other person uses them. Its part of understanding someone at there level of definitions.

edit: we are as smart as the smartest and as dumb as the dumbest...we dont hold judgement in that way. Its all about understanding.

 

[Poki]

Usually it's the Ti doms who are in need of starting off by agreeing on the definitions, not the TJs.

Definitions are a type of axiom (i.e., premise). They are often concepts in themselves, but they can also lead to more complex concepts and theories, which are more complex types of axioms. In order to perform deductive reasoning, you must first agree on the axioms.

I wonder if this is a difference between ISTPs and INTPs. Si is also a stickler for definitions, and seeing as how ISTPs use SeNi as opposed to the INTPs' NeSi, and that Ni is the function often most resistant to definitions (as its more inductive form of reasoning likes to move towards the axioms, as opposed to deductive reasoning which likes to start with axioms, and then move away from them), perhaps you guys don't work quite the same way. I could see this explaining why I don't think you guys are very good with concepts, and why you guys tend to prefer very hands-on kinda stuff.

LOL, we are as good with concepts as you are with feelings LMAO...tertiary function for the win

 

[INTP]

You stand corrected.

Again.

I believe you're mistaking induction for deduction.

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

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. Wether they are the same thing or not is debatable.

Lol noob :------DDDD

 

[Nicodemus]

I think it is possible to construe abductive arguments as a deductive arguments from usually unnamed and often unconscious premises. If not so construed, I find it hard to regard abductive reasoning as having anything to do with logic. It really is just guessing.

 

[entropie]

The emphasis is on the can, indeed !

 

[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.