u/Kaboke69

I think that, within what's actually happening in our brains (regardless of what the logical structure of a problem might say, which could be 100% theoretically deductive), inductive reasoning is always more prevalent, regardless of having a supposedly "deductive" task to be executed

TL;DR: "During real cognitive execution of reasoning tasks, the dominant inferential burden is usually the inductive-integrative reconstruction of a usable representation, while explicit deduction is comparatively downstream and lighter."

Example: "All men are mortal; Socrates is a man -> Therefore, Socrates is mortal."

you're taking the minor premise "Socrates is a man" as an obviously specific premise, and then getting to a general conclusion with the major premise "All men are mortal", unless inductive reasoning strictly happens when not having any information beforehand, which wouldn't make sense knowing that we even use long term memory/short term memory for inductive reasoning, and working memory (in this case) shouldn't be discarded either if I'm not being dumb.

It'd be called "integration" in this case, being essentially mostly inductive reasoning and also already studied to actually be the most prevalent cognitive process when dealing with any "deductive" stuff.

“the hardest part cognitively is gaining the representational structure that allows the deduction to happen." Basically what I said but with better wording (I think)

To add stuff, remember that the cognitive process of any induction requires previous knowledge, especially that "all **men**; are mortal", from which you can derive an inductive conclusion due to the procedure implying a direction to the "prevalence of men that are mortal" which, redundantly, would be inductive **from** the concept of men acquired, of "mortality", and of prevalence, which would be the hardest part cognitively, because you finally got the part that lets you apply that Socrates is a man, therefore mortal, (which is, effectively, the deductive part...).

"Even when a general rule is externally provided, the brain still internally reconstructs/generalizes a coherent relational model from partial specifics in order to operationalize that rule." Basically what I said but with better wording (I believe)

In GM, for example, induction is still most likely more prevalent/heavier

You also have to see the second graph (specific, no answers) and then remember what the first graph (general, with answers), was to apply the rules, which is the hardest part there because you're actually actively trying to check the second graph as an **incomplete representation of the first, which you would have to complete and reason through it to finally get to a general conclusion from those two.**

Remember that the applicance of the rule is just when you know and have a defined interpretation from actively checking the second graph as an incomplete representation of the first, so, in reality, you're trying to figure out **where the points in the graph are placed as an incomplete represetation of the first (specific) to come to a general conclusion (finally knowing where the points in the graph are placed).**

And then deductive comes because you actually apply that knowledge (general; that could be wrong from the previous inductive interpretation), to setting each point on the second graph (specific)

Also, this is cognitively

Because when talking about the logical structure it's effectively mainly deductive

But you're trying to measure *g*, that is cognitive, every FRI task should be labelled mainly inductive

So Wechsler FRI is probably all that matters, for example.

When dealing with Graph Mapping, you're trying to derive Premise 1 you do it from the General figure (being a premise too in a certain cognitive instance, and "Premise 1", being a conclusion in that certain cognitive instance too, because in the real Graph Mapping you actually do not possess any specific value for the non-unknowns, you just have black dots as them and colored dots for the unknowns, so you gotta see what are the specific premises to recheck what are the general conclusions (induction; checking that you're actually getting the dots in the correct position relative to the general figure, so it's specific -> general, being an essential, subtle but extremely loaded (in induction) inferential step, with **memory, that is absolutely inherent while doing anything, and in this case, because you cannot check the second graph (specific) with the first graph (general), if you don't possess even a singular one to even reason about it, so logically, both are needed and both make induction and deduction, which the former is always the strongest not only because it's more g-Loaded, but it also creates the essence for even imagining the options and different logics with trial and error to solve anything, because gaining consciousness about those rules must be inductive, and even if we see the option first-try, it was part of that trial and error.**))

*You're trying to check subconsciously by trial and error that the position of the arrows/points/and specific points are equal to the general one, so it becomes specific premises to general conclusions

Because of memory

Without it you wouldn't be able to do anything

And to explain it even further, it's like when you get to the specific conclusion from the general premise (graph 2 from graph 1 respectively), with memory, you're trying to reconstruct that by seeing specific premises to general conclusions (graph 1 to graph 2), and even if it doesn't seem like induction at first because you already can check the general conclusions, you're always actively trying to check that the specific premises match the general conclusion, which also happens in types of induction that are structurally inductive.

Example:

1 White has fallen down

2 Whites have fallen down

3 Whites have fallen down

Will all whites fall down?

You infer that yes, based on probability

Because you're inferring a general conclusion

But that general conclusion isn't there, so how do we classify the former as inductive with probability and checking that the specific premises match the general conclusion?

Because we rely in our memory to reconstruct the general conclusion again, and then we're able to check it as an "answer sheet", if we decide to recheck it, although that's the hard part, because it's not explicit, so it also becomes an inference by that logic, also based on probability because we rely on memory.

Regarding the inductive example, you could also be wrong because you assume that all the whites will fall down, but something similar also happens with graph mapping

Since you could be wrong merely because you assumed a specific premise from a certain instance, leading to an incorrect general conclusion, an incorrect induction and therefore an incorrect deduction.

Also, I'm not saying that memory or probabilistic stuff made it inductive by themselves, I was saying that memory plays a crucial role to make it mainly inductive, not that memory or probabilistic stuff IN THEMSELVES made it mainly inductive

I searched about this, and it seems to be something called "integration" (which would extend to arithmetic, Sudoku, etc., and that every single "purely" deductive exercise is accompained of that integration, which would cognitivwly make it mostly inductive, somehow), which is essential to inductive and deductive reasoning, and from the stuff I saw, I realised that integration, within itself, is mainly inductive, along with other, less prevalent factors that aren't purely inductive.

Integration -> (which comprises both) mainly induction and other less influential factors (Mainly inductive when dealing with the heaviest/hardest part)

“the central inferential engine driving integration during difficult fluid reasoning tasks is inductive/model-generative.” Basically what I said but with better wording (Maybe)

Also, it'd most likely mean that when trying to measure mainly deductive reasoning psychometrically with any task, it'd "regress" to a mainly inductive measure, but still measuring a bit more of deduction than in tasks like Matrix Reasoning.

"Many deductive failures originate upstream in representational/ inductive-integrative failures." Better wording I guess

So, my question is, that if I'm misunderstanding anything from anything I said, if I'm being autistic, etc. Again, not saying this in the sense of the formal structure of a problem, but referring to what's actually happening in our brains.

*“By ‘inductive,’ I mean cognitively generative/model-constructive rather than formally inductive in the logical sense.” Another redundant clarification, just in case

(And yes, I did use ChatGPT for those sentences with "better wording". xD)