So if you're presented with the case such as: a dead cashier with 5 shots on the head, an open register, 5 bullet shells on the ground, would you conclude that the scene was homicide or a robbery? What would be your reasoning using these 3 facts?I very often reverse engineer when trying to figure something out which I think lends itself quite well to deductive reasoning. ("Here is the end result...how do I get there?") Sometimes I look at facts and see multiple different directions in which they can be followed to find a conclusion. Come up with more than one hypothesis and test them.
When I was a kid I always did mazes backwards.
A homicide as the result of a robbery :laughing:So if you're presented with the case such as: a dead cashier with 5 shots on the head, an open register, 5 bullet shells on the ground, would you conclude that the scene was homicide or a robbery? What would be your reasoning using these 3 facts?
*Facepalm*A homicide as the result of a robbery :laughing:
So this would sort of explain the ISTP's exceptional ability to come up with new explanations based on observable phenomena that they encounter.The ISTP I know always backs up his reasoning with facts learned by experience. He spends his time playing with radios and putting them in between metal objects and stuff to see what happens and tries to draw conclusions from what he notices. Labs in science, he gets A++s in for being able to do this kind of thing.
Alright, serious answer...*Facepalm*
Ok, let me be more clear lol
Would you say that the suspect's original intent was to kill the cashier or to rob? Given that the reason was one of these two things.
Thank you, precisely the answer I was looking for.Alright, serious answer...
Money is missing and the cashier has been shot far more times than is necessary to simply be killed. Two possible conclusions-
A. The incident was intended as a robbery and the cashier was shot so many times as a result of the robber being prone to excessive violence, panicked, angered to the point where he became enraged and shot multiple times, on drugs, etc.
B. The robber had some type of grudge or pre-existing motive for killing the cashier beyond sheer monetary gain, but stole the money to conceal his true motive.
More investigation would need to be done to definitely prove one line of inquiry over the other.
Yes. My answers to these questions are almost identical to Proteus. In considering the murder/robbery scenario, I noted my thinking going in loops. I visualized the crime scene details, played it out as a murder, noted the details again, played it out as a robbery gone bad. Then I ran out of details to work with, noted that I need more information and thought about how to get it. My default position is in the theory, and the details are there to support and revise it.And vice versa, would you say that INTP's Ti function works in accordance with a deductive reasoning level: Starting from a general theory and working down to the details?
As are mineMy answers to these questions are almost identical to Proteus.
They both dominate using the same funciton, so how they make decisions will be identical. Ne and Se are both used to take in information. The only difference is one will look at the information literally (a primrose at the slopey side of a river bed is merely a primrose) and not look for threads of meaning or inferences (ISTP). The other will do the same thing, but have the propensity to look for threads of meaning and inferences.I had a question for fellow INTP's and ISTP's out there:
Would you say that ISTP's Ti function works in accordance with an inductive reasoning level:starting from the facts in front of you and gathering up all the information to come up with a general theory?
And vice versa, would you say that INTP's Ti function works in accordance with a deductive reasoning level: Starting from a general theory and working down to the details?
Would this be an accurate assumption?
