• 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

Nicodemus

New member
Joined
Aug 2, 2010
Messages
9,756
And yet is an important perspective to keep in mind so that NTJs don't fail to recognize the utility of the more deductive NTP-styled thinking, as they are wont to do when they are in the process of differentiating their more inductive, NiTe approach to thinking.
But in recognizing the utility of NTP-styled thinking, should we not recognize the utility of NTPs? They, too, need to have a purpose in life.

I also don't know that it's accurate to say that it's not at all what INTP had in mind...
Granted.
 

INTP

Active member
Joined
Jul 31, 2009
Messages
7,803
MBTI Type
intp
Enneagram
5w4
Instinctual Variant
sx
No, neither of these issues leave open the opportunity for new information from a deductive argument.

The first issue has no bearing on the question at all, for if new premises bring new conclusions, then it is because these premises contain new information. It is not the deductive reasoning that injects new information into the argument: the argument itself is new. The second issue does not prove INTP's friend's statement wrong if it is understood as I described above, for it only holds that all conclusions must necessarily follow from the information contained in the premises so that one may draw new conclusions from old premises, but not information that is not already contained in them. You can arrange the pieces in a new way, but the pieces remain the same.

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).

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

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.
 

Nicodemus

New member
Joined
Aug 2, 2010
Messages
9,756
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).

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

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.
The history of philosophy of science and I disagree.

But perhaps you are merely using a different definition of 'deduction' than most others.
 

Zarathustra

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

I believe you're mistaking induction for deduction.

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

Rasofy

royal member
Joined
Mar 7, 2011
Messages
5,881
MBTI Type
INTP
Enneagram
5w6
Instinctual Variant
sp/sx
I think we make our initial assumptions the same way INTJs do (on a lesser extent though), but we gotta take things one step further and generate models to explain the assumptions.
This need to have a model that accommodates every piece of information available, despite being slower, makes it easier to deal with new data.

tl;dr: INTPs win
 

Poki

New member
Joined
Dec 4, 2008
Messages
10,436
MBTI Type
STP
Instinctual Variant
sx/so
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.
:D Isnt this how everyone works?


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

Nicodemus

New member
Joined
Aug 2, 2010
Messages
9,756
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?
 

Zarathustra

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

King sns

New member
Joined
Nov 4, 2008
Messages
6,714
MBTI Type
enfp
Enneagram
6w7
Instinctual Variant
sp/sx
This forum is getting to be more of a yawn every day
 

Poki

New member
Joined
Dec 4, 2008
Messages
10,436
MBTI Type
STP
Instinctual Variant
sx/so
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
 

Zarathustra

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

INTP

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

Forever_Jung

Active member
Joined
May 23, 2009
Messages
2,644
MBTI Type
ESFJ
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.
 
Top