# Ti vs Te (deductive or inductive??????????)



## cotti (Aug 24, 2014)

I am very confused at the moment. I read many articles saying Ti is inductive , many saying it's deductive. In my opinion Ti should be inductive as it has a tendency to coerce facts into agreement with the idea. Aristotele is said to be an xNTJ so Te must be deductive. Whatever i'll listen to your opinions. 

(I KNOW THAT BOTH INTROVERTED AND EXTRAVERTED THINKING AREN'T REDUCIBLE TO ONLY DEDUCTIVE OR INDUCTIVE REASONING) thanks :happy:


----------



## chani8 (Apr 7, 2015)

I'm an INTJ and WADR, I object to your description that the Ti would coerce facts into agreement. However, you're close. When faced with an idea (my own or others), I will gather facts that both support and reject that idea, and then make a choice to agree or disagree with the idea. I don't have emotions invested in my ideas, so therefore I have no interest in coercing facts to compromise the truth.


----------



## FakeLefty (Aug 19, 2013)

And on the other hand, I use Ti and while I COULD gather the facts if I wanted to, I prefer to connect the dots in my head and judge whether it makes logical sense. If I need to argue or discuss my point of view, my first preference is to explain my internal sense of logic (basically why it makes sense in my head), and use facts as the final nail in the coffin. *

*not sure if this is related to Ti, but that's how I roll. It could also mean that I'm lazy. And I am actually lazy. *shrugs*


----------



## ninjahitsawall (Feb 1, 2013)

I don't really get it either. 

Reading through this, it seems I do both: 

http://www.dartmouth.edu/~bio125/logic.Giere.pdf

Although, I would not necessarily be comfortable arguing something like, "All known planets are round, therefore, all planets are probably round" (depends on how many are known vs how many exist, is it possible for square ones to exist? etc), whereas I find I can easily falsify claims left and right (wait, is that what I just did with the square planets question? lol), especially if I'm in a critical mood.. which according to this is deductive. 

The floppy disk example makes more sense, though, because it seems like a waste of time to go through every single one of them to make sure they all don't work.. at that point I'd rather risk being wrong and just buy new ones.


----------



## cotti (Aug 24, 2014)

chani8 said:


> I'm an INTJ and WADR, I object to your description that the Ti would coerce facts into agreement. However, you're close. When faced with an idea (my own or others), I will gather facts that both support and reject that idea, and then make a choice to agree or disagree with the idea. I don't have emotions invested in my ideas, so therefore I have no interest in coercing facts to compromise the truth.


I don't know if that's completely true(it seems to fit me though), but i read that description of Ti in Gifts differing (isabel briggs myers). Anyway, I agree with your definition of Te, but i haven't understood yet if it's mainly deductive or inductive. I think i have to think about for a little time. Thanks for the answer!


----------



## cotti (Aug 24, 2014)

FakeLefty said:


> And on the other hand, I use Ti and while I COULD gather the facts if I wanted to, I prefer to connect the dots in my head and judge whether it makes logical sense. If I need to argue or discuss my point of view, my first preference is to explain my internal sense of logic (basically why it makes sense in my head), and use facts as the final nail in the coffin. *
> 
> *not sure if this is related to Ti, but that's how I roll. It could also mean that I'm lazy. And I am actually lazy. *shrugs*


Yea, that should be correct. thanks :happy:


----------



## cotti (Aug 24, 2014)

ninjahitsawall said:


> I don't really get it either.
> 
> Reading through this, it seems I do both:
> 
> ...


I got you. I was thinking about some philosophers and i got doubtful. For example how Aristotele is considered an xNTJ if he used sillogisms (which are clearly deductive) ?? This is just my opinion and it's still not clear but i think Ti starts with a "pure" statement: i mean, if you say "all men die, paul is a man, paul dies", the first statement (all men die) is something found out inductively (although it is a deductive reasoning the one i did). Not sure it makes sense though


----------



## ninjahitsawall (Feb 1, 2013)

cotti said:


> I got you. I was thinking about some philosophers and i got doubtful. For example how Aristotele is considered an xNTJ if he used sillogisms (which are clearly deductive) ?? This is just my opinion and it's still not clear but i think Ti starts with a "pure" statement: i mean, if you say "all men die, paul is a man, paul dies", the first statement (all men die) is something found out inductively (although it is a deductive reasoning the one i did). Not sure it makes sense though


The way I learned about syllogisms in college is that it can either be right or wrong, whereas an analytic statement has to be right. 

I think this is actually closer to how Kant defined analytic vs. synthetic statements. quine: terms explained

It appears this has nothing to do with inductive vs. deductive reasoning. Maybe Te is more comfortable making synthetic statements? I don't know.


----------



## aendern (Dec 28, 2013)

Ti is deductive. It considers all of the evidence and makes a logical conclusion about everything. Very slow-paced and non-committal about its conclusion.


Te is inductive. It sees important information and assumes that it must be correct and quickly skips to the logical conclusion. It's very fast-paced and efficient.


Ti appeals to subjective ideas and conclusions that it figured out itself.

Te feels uncomfortable playing around in this realm and refers back to actual, real information to stay grounded.

Ti feels uncomfortable in the realm of hard facts and data, which is where Te thrives.

Pierce has a great video on this.

If I were to sum them up succinctly:

Ti: Logic. Deduction. Subjectivity.
Te: Reality. Facts. Efficiency.







More summary:

Te is prone to making conclusions based on bad data. This can lead to well-intentioned but misguided decisions.

Ti is prone to making ungrounded conclusions that don't reflect reality. And can coerce facts to fit with their very subjective opinions they masquerade as reality.

You see Ti preferrers gravitating towards things such as anti-vaccination and other things that have no grounding in reality but have anecdotal evidence (the plural of which is not "data").

The founder of Raw Til 4 (mostly raw vegan diet/lifestyle based on 80/10/10 principles) is a Ti dom. There is _some_ data to support that this lifestyle is the best, but he believes in it passionately because it is based on his subjective logical conclusions and there exists TONS of _anecdotal _evidence to support his claims.

Anecdotal evidence is very much within the realm of extraverted feeling. And I think it has its place. Perhaps I'm too trusting, but I genuinely believe that most people are not complete idiots. And if someone says that they received x result when they began doing y, they probably fucking did :laughing:

Does it prove that x caused y? Not at all. But what if millions of people say the same thing? Now we're on to something . . .


----------



## 1000BugsNightSky (May 8, 2014)

emberfly said:


> You see Ti preferrers gravitating towards things such as anti-vaccination and other things that have no grounding in reality but have anecdotal evidence (the plural of which is not "data").
> 
> The founder of Raw Til 4 (mostly raw vegan diet/lifestyle based on 80/10/10 principles) is a Ti dom. There is _some_ data to support that this lifestyle is the best, but he believes in it passionately because it is based on his subjective logical conclusions and there exists TONS of _anecdotal _evidence to support his claims.


Although most of what you wrote is true to an extent, there is _a lot of bias in this post. You pretty much talked about how Te is better than Ti.
Ti is meant to take apart and analyze, create systems. Ti can be more accurate because it has the ability to be complex. (It can also be inaccurate because of faulty logic/ making sense out of things that are wrong, but that had already been explained in above post, so I'm not focusing on that here.) Te can be more error prone because it generalizes information, especially if information doesn't fit into their pre-existing ideas. 
Ti is subjective in that the systems are based on the user. The goal of Ti is not subjective though. In fact, it can be even more objective (in the way you used the words) at times because it is so based on logic. Ti can also be applied to real life. Istps are the mechanics. Intps have made a lot scientific discoveries. For example Darwin. His research is completely based on reality. It may not be in the same way as Te users do, but saying that Ti is completely unable to be applied to real life is just wrong.

And the quoted part above. What? Not all anti-vaccine supporters are Ti. I am not against vaccines and I'm certain that there are many Ti users who don't believe false information. I'm also certain there are a lot of Te users who are against vaccines and support other controversial causes too. A famous person is Ti so Ti users are likely to believe AND Te aren't? You are focusing only on how Ti is wrong to prove Te is better. But just by saying how some Ti users are wrong doesn't say anything about the validity of Te users.

This is an example of how Te logic can be different from Ti logic. Your explanation is based on what you already believe. And Ti logic finds that the deductions cannot be made how they were made.

And Ti can be super rambly so sorry for that. It's also super late here, so it's probably worse and I can't think that well right now._


----------



## aendern (Dec 28, 2013)

Moonious said:


> [. . .]


I don't know how you got such a value response from my non-value-based post. I never said either was good or bad. I was merely talking about facts and reality.



Did I spend more time talking about Ti? Yes.

It was never my intention to equally present both functions. (Pierce already did that--you should watch his video if that's what you want).

I was merely summarizing what I found interesting.


----------



## 1000BugsNightSky (May 8, 2014)

emberfly said:


> I don't know how you got such a value response from my non-value-based post. I never said either was good or bad. I was merely talking about facts and reality.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Ah, okay. It was probably because of the parts you chose to put, that it came off that way to me (haven't watched the video). Sorry.


----------



## aendern (Dec 28, 2013)

Moonious said:


> Ti is subjective in that the systems are based on the user.


Yes.



> The goal of Ti is not subjective though.
> 
> In fact, it can be even more objective (in the way you used the words) at times because it is so based on logic.


No, it is more subjective. It is based entirely on the logical interpretations of the user. This is subjective in Jungian terminology.



> Ti can also be applied to real life. Istps are the mechanics. Intps have made a lot scientific discoveries. For example Darwin. His research is completely based on reality.


For every "genius" who came up with an amazing theory or model to explain something in science, there are at least 10 other "geniuses" who came up with inaccurate models and theories to explain the exact same thing. Reflecting reality is not really the goal with Ti. It's to make sense of life. It's to come up with logical explanations.

Sometimes the logical explanations miraculously reflect life as it is and make great advances in our understanding of the world. Often times, they do not.

[hr][/hr]
I have noticed that Te most times does not at all care how something works. Te just wants to know WHAT works, what is it useful for, how does it benefit me, why do I need it?

Ti wants to know how something works, how it functions, how it interacts with other things, Ti wants to know the whole system of this thing inside and out. It cares purely about the knowledge and not about the applications of the knowledge like Te does.

Te often does things that work without even questioning why they are the way that they are--because Te doesn't care one bit. Whatever works works. Whatever makes the most money. Whatever requires the least labor or effort. It's all about streamlining the process and producing the most output for the lowest cost.

Ti and Te often work together in that Te relies on Ti for the knowledge and understanding in order to apply it to the real world.

In that way, I cannot say that either is "good" or "bad" because they are both vitally important.

Te makes no advancements without the breakthroughs of knowledge uncovered by Ti.
Ti gets nothing accomplished without Te caring to apply the knowledge and understanding.


----------



## cotti (Aug 24, 2014)

ninjahitsawall said:


> The way I learned about syllogisms in college is that it can either be right or wrong, whereas an analytic statement has to be right.
> 
> I think this is actually closer to how Kant defined analytic vs. synthetic statements. quine: terms explained
> 
> It appears this has nothing to do with inductive vs. deductive reasoning. Maybe Te is more comfortable making synthetic statements? I don't know.


I think it makes sense yea


----------



## cotti (Aug 24, 2014)

@emberfly I had already watched that video and it's very useful. My problem was that sillogisms are considered deductive, but Aristotele is said to be a Te user ( i know this might be just a rarity or an exception), what do you think?


----------



## Verity3 (Nov 15, 2014)

ninjahitsawall said:


> I don't really get it either.
> 
> Reading through this, it seems I do both:
> 
> ...


I think we all do both, but I tend to prefer deductive reasoning. :waves: Fi dom here, needing advice! (From anyone)

It's reasonable to make decisions based on inductive reasoning. Inductive reasoning is efficient, and often necessary (and I'm glad many people do it better than I do :tongue. What bothers me is when someone makes an inductive argument and then seemingly fails to notice the need for a qualifier like "probably." I usually don't make a big deal about it in situations where a qualifier can be inferred. But far too often, the person not only fails to qualify, but continues to speak in absolute terms, sometimes even adding words like "obviously" or "necessarily." :facepalm: Are people simply not noticing that they're overestimating the strength of their evidence, or are they overstating it on purpose?

It seems to me that when someone uses inductive reasoning to draw an absolute conclusion, this takes the argument outside the realm of weak/strong analysis and puts it squarely in the "falsifiable" category. Is this a fair assessment on my part? I mean, in some situations where the qualifier can be inferred, declaring the conclusion "false" could be petty. But in cases where the line between reasonableness and absolutism has been crossed, what are some of the better ways to respond, from a Te or Ti perspective?


----------



## Peter (Feb 27, 2010)

cotti said:


> I am very confused at the moment. I read many articles saying Ti is inductive , many saying it's deductive. In my opinion Ti should be inductive as it has a tendency to coerce facts into agreement with the idea. Aristotele is said to be an xNTJ so Te must be deductive. Whatever i'll listen to your opinions.
> 
> (I KNOW THAT BOTH INTROVERTED AND EXTRAVERTED THINKING AREN'T REDUCIBLE TO ONLY DEDUCTIVE OR INDUCTIVE REASONING) thanks :happy:


Deductive reasoning and inductive reasoning both have their place. What determines which one is used is not the function in your head but the information you start with and the goal we want to achieve.

Ti is focused more at understanding while Te wants to organize. In an INTJ for example, Ni tries to understand and Te then tries to organize that understanding into words. In an INTP, Ti tries to understand and Ne just keeps opening up new posibilities which tends to make INTP's go to the last little detail to understand.

Both types of reasoning are practical for both Ti and Te.


----------



## Peter (Feb 27, 2010)

chani8 said:


> I'm an INTJ and WADR, I object to your description that the Ti would coerce facts into agreement. However, you're close. When faced with an idea (my own or others), I will gather facts that both support and reject that idea, and then make a choice to agree or disagree with the idea. I don't have emotions invested in my ideas, so therefore I have no interest in coercing facts to compromise the truth.


I might be wrong, but from what you write here it looks like you´re defending Ti as if you´re an Ti user...... If you´re an INTJ, then Te is your T function, not Ti.


----------



## Dastan (Sep 28, 2011)

As always, it is not very clear what induction and deduction mean, especially induction. Sometimes it means the direction from special cases, observations to general rules. Sometimes it just refers to the uncertainty of a conclusion. This can also be the case in the general -> special direction if the general rule is uncertain. Deduction is more clear since certain conclusions cannot go from the special to the general. And the certainty often depends on how much you ignore external knowledge.

Also, the use of induction or deduction is very task dependent. If you do mathematical proofs you cannot use uncertain techniques, regardless whether Te or Ti.

Those who say Te is inductive because it is fact based should consider that this applies only to the part of Te that gathers knowlegde, not the one that applies and uses it and makes decisions. These thinking activities, in isolation, can be called deductive as they use general rules to decide in special cases. But again... some people would also call this inductive reasoning because there was induction at the beginning.


----------



## cotti (Aug 24, 2014)

Dastan said:


> These thinking activities, in isolation, can be called deductive as they use general rules to decide in special cases. But again... some people would also call this inductive reasoning because there was induction at the beginning.


Yes that's what i grasped. For example the first sentence of a sillogism ( so deductive reasoning) is often found out inductively, unless it is something like "quadrilaterals has 4 sides..etc"


----------



## ninjahitsawall (Feb 1, 2013)

Here's another source I found which says that Te goes facts --> theory --> facts while Ti goes theory --> facts --> theory. 

Why Te is Inductive and Ti is Deductive | CelebrityTypes

It says that neither function is 100% one or the other, which seems a little more reasonable. In the deductive example they give, in the case I want to figure out who the murderer was, I would need suspects - this is already "inductive." I would not start eliminating possibilities of who didn't do it without first gathering suspects (That makes no sense, and also sounds too illogical for Ti). Once I have suspects, I would likely try to figure it out through process of elimination, like in the deduction example (this is where alibis and such come into play). However, you'd need to use inductive reasoning to gather the suspects in the first place- these are your "specific facts" in solving a case. (is this specifically a Te process? Not sure about that. It's how justice systems work..)



Abraxas said:


> Isn't induction merely the process by which I reason from a specific experience to a general principle? For instance, I see a duck behave a certain way, so I presume that "ducks do X." Then I discover a duck that doesn't do X, and so my principle becomes refined.
> 
> If that is Ti and not Te, then I suppose I'm not an INTJ.


Yeah, this is probably also an example of Te being facts --> theory --> facts. 

I suppose INTJ's tend to be concerned with establishing first principles, which, as mentioned earlier in this thread, often require induction. Once that first principle is reliable enough to use deductively, it can be. The thing is, Te users often get closure from establishing these, and move on to something else, while maybe a Ti user is more likely to pick it up and do the deductions from there, apply Te's premise to specific cases. But I still think the link I posted above makes more sense than looking at it as either/or, and Te might stick with the established premise and also use it deductively (theory --> new facts).


----------



## Abraxas (May 28, 2011)

@ninjahitsawall,

Ah, I see. Yeah, that makes sense.


----------



## DAPHNE XO (Jan 16, 2012)

Verity3 said:


> I'm not sure if that's exactly it. That's how it was first explained to me, so I got the impression that inductive reasoning was equivalent to a form of proof-texting (searching for facts to support what you already believe). But I think a fairer distinction would be:
> 
> *Deductive: Having comprehensive facts searching for true conclusions.
> Inductive: Having limited facts searching for strong conclusions.*


I think you hit the nail on the head with this one. My biggest gripe with NTPs is that they make conclusions based on their own experiences/information at hand. They extrapolate a lot more than ENTJs do in a way that doesn't follow to me.

It's like they have information and come up with a conclusions that I would deem incorrect, though the arguments/facts that they use to come with the conclusion are valid.

And on the flip side, NTPs seem to be irritated by how I can seem so sure of my conclusions - because I haven't taken them through my reasoning/facts but once I do, they debate these with me to test how accurate they are.

That's how I've experienced it anyway.



> I think that covers both the good and bad applications of inductive reasoning. Sometimes you need to formulate a game plan with limited information (--> use inductive reasoning). But sometimes it would be advisable to wait for more information (--> collect more facts until all possibilities are accounted for, then use deductive reasoning).


This also fits with my experiences and gripes with Ti. It seems like pointless intellectual masturbation to me to theorise reasons for something that even though internally consistent, just plain irrelevant or wrong in the real world. And that's when the NTP tends to go, "ah yes, well it *could* be possible!"


----------



## Eset (Jun 7, 2016)

> Ti vs Te (deductive or inductive??????????)


Ti is deductive
Te is inductive


----------

