Skip to content →

Dominant Sensing as deductive, Dominant Intuition as inductive

By Kartikeya Chauhan

1. This may seem contradictory to the whole notion of Perception which withholds making judgements or organising information in addition to the common notion of Ti=deductive and Te=inductive but here, the focus is not on the organisation of perceived data (Judging) but the mode of perception itself by means of deduction and induction.

1.1. Since Perception is irrational, induction and deduction here do not seek to make sense of the Perceived data but only describe the method of flow of that data between Sensing and Intuition (or vice versa) without being affected or organised by the Rational processes (T/F).

2.0. Dominant Intuition, which neglects details in favour of the bigger abstract picture, is essentially inductive in that it goes from the whole to the parts, characterised by inferior and unconscious Sensing ultimately seeking grounding in reality but also providing material for dominant Intuition to intuit possibilities from, as a starting point.

2.01. Inferior Si provides the Ne dominant a personal impressionistic database of reality to form novel associations and connections in the external world.

2.02. Inferior Se provides the Ni dominant commonly observable reality to use and fill in the blanks to generate something completely new.

2.1. Then, Intuition, being inductive, first understands the overall picture and then proceeds to concrete reality and its details.

2.11. Dominant Intuition, being inductive, would then appear to be inconclusive as reality would be malleable depending on the overall picture generated but the overall picture would be infinitely more trusted which is why, seeking grounding in reality, the dominant intuitive would be inconclusive in the representation of reality.

3.0. Dominant Sensing, which neglects the bigger picture, is essentially deductive in that it goes from the parts to the whole, characterised by inferior and unconscious Intuition ultimately seeking to connect these sensations to generate the whole and thus forms the basis of their surety in trusting sensory data.

3.01. Inferior Ni seeks to get a brief idea of what is going to happen so that dominant Se can rush in, going all out, to save the day.

3.02. Inferior Ne is aware of all the unpleasant possibilities or alternatives so that dominant Si can stick with the safest and most consistent one, according to its impressionistic archive of reality.

3.1. Then, Sensing, being deductive, first understands the details/parts and then proceeds to generate the overall picture.

3.11. Dominant Sensing, being deductive, would then appear to be conclusive as only the conclusions would be malleable depending on the details observed/compared which would be trusted wholeheartedly and this makes the dominant Sensor less interpretative, more concrete and hence, conclusive as to their perception of reality.

4. Ironically, deduction, while being internally sound, can be disastrously incorrect if the basic premises are misused and in the case of dominant sensing, the basic premises are clearer if not more accurate than in the case of Intuition.

4.1. This is contradictory to the aforementioned propositions since the products of Sensing represent concrete reality but this contradiction is cleared away by reasoning that as long as Sensing is accompanied by Intuition (which it always is), it will always be interpretative in some sense (owing to subjectivity) and therefore, perception of total objective/concrete reality is impossible which is why the basic premises of Sensing (as a form of deduction), in the form of sensory input, can be misused to generate disastrously incorrect conclusions or paranoid viewpoints.



Published in Kartikeya Chauhan