Those who are unfamiliar with the picture above may have initially read that sentence as “Paris in the spring.” A second glance will reveal that “the” is used twice. This illusion gives an indication of the limits of top-down reasoning (also known as deductive reasoning). Deduction occurs when a hypothesis is tested. In cognitive psychology, it is considered confirmatory. In the case of the illusion above, a reader forms a hypothesis about what is read and only disproves it with rereading. Bottom-up reasoning (also known as inductive reasoning) works the other way around. All the available data is collected and a pattern emerges as to what it indicates.
Like deduction, inductive reasoning also has its drawbacks. Peter Wason demonstrated these limits with the famous 2-4-6 experiment. University students were presented with the sequence 2-4-6. Their task was to determine the rule behind the sequence. They were allowed to guess sequences of three numbers and explain their reasoning afterwards. The rule was “three numbers in ascending order of magnitude”. Surprisingly, it took most students a very long time to guess the rule. 28% never discovered the rule at all.
This experiment reveals the limits of inductive reasoning. Many students, after forming an initial hypothesis, continued to test sequences that matched their original hypothesis. Their assumption was that the data given in the initial sequence was enough to determine the rule. So, they utilised inductive reasoning to regenerate the same hypothesis over and over again. If these students had tried to disprove their own hypotheses, they would have arrived at the rule more quickly.
From this, we can begin to see a clear distinction between hypothesis confirmation (deductive reasoning) and hypothesis generation (inductive reasoning). Instances in which all necessary information is already available favour inductive reasoning. Meanwhile, deductive reasoning is better suited to situations in which trial and error is required.
In ETI, these forms of reasoning correspond to introversion and extroversion. According to Carl Jung, introversion is subject oriented while extroversion is oriented towards the object. That which is not identified with is objective. Therefore, the extroverted deductive is likely to be of the opinion that external objects are mysterious and intriguing. They would seek to use trial and error to learn about the object. Meanwhile, introverted inductive reasoning would offer them an opinion of such an object according to their thoughts and feelings at the time.
In comparison, the introverted deductive may find themselves intrigued by themselves. There is a desire to test which aspects the self-image hold to be true. In some instances, this may extend to people and things that are close and identified with. Meanwhile, extroverted inductive reasoning assumes that the visible aspects of an object determine what it is.
When the inductive hypothesis is challenged, this triggers the shadow type. Confirmation bias often occurs in an attempt to repress that shadow. An introverted inductive may do this by seeking to justify themselves with external proof.
Example:
“I ate a grape in the produce section without paying for it. But, I’m still a good person because I donate to charity.”
In this example, stealing challenges the introverted hypothesis that the subject is a good person. So, they seek to justify themselves. An extroverted inductive differs by seeking to justify the external with internal proof.
Example:
“I ate a grape in the produce section without paying for it. But, I wouldn’t mind if someone stole one of my grapes.”
In this example, the subject is challenged by the objective damage that is done by stealing a grape. They consequently use introverted deduction to justify and mitigate the damage that is done. Naturally, neither of these justifications actually holds any logical weight. There’s no way to be completely sure of how much damage is done by stealing a grape. Likewise, donating to charity makes a person charitable but not necessarily good. Therefore, shadow work is required to avoid such confirmation bias.
The conscience type initially brings confirmation bias to the subjects attention. Seeking to disprove what is felt to be true causes the flipping of our spiritual and nihilistic functions in the stack. By switching the reasoning functions for those of the shadow, the subject begins to play devils advocate with themselves. They become their adversarial type. This allows for the generation of new hypotheses and deductive reasoning where inductive reasoning has failed.
If this is overwhelming, a subject may repress this information and become the fantasy type. Confirmation bias continues. But, spiritual and nihilistic functions change as a person begins to justify their beliefs with a different metaphysical perspective.
If the subject can withstand their own criticism but does not wish to change their mind, possession by the shadow type ensues. The subject begins to look for stronger, logically sound evidence for something they don’t believe in. This causes an outright rejection of the spiritual and nihilistic perspectives a subject held beforehand.
Finally, a subject may cling to their strongest metaphysical function. Regardless of whether the type is nihilistic or spiritual, doing so will remind them that, although they may be wrong, there is nothing intrinsically wrong with them as long as they embrace the truth. This is the hardest option. But, it brings the subject closer to their aspirational type. Hence, it is often the most worthwhile.
Comments