Good answer. My layman's take is that Inductive logic is the gathering of facts before action and deductive logic is the discovery of pattern in those facts that are predictive. Those patterns dictate action - Smart Train whistle blowing, crossing lights blinking, bells clanging, barrier down is inductive. Don't cross the tracks is the deduction. The problem is the Pavlovian end of this inductive-deductive caduceus when the deduced principle is associated with some pain input - you witness some poor sot who tried to beat the train to the crossing, got hit and you get sick to your stomach. That trauma is forever associated with the various perceptual inputs of the instant, so next time you go to ride the train you feel nauseous and can't get on. Your interpretive framework is now hard wired and subject to reflex knee jerk reaction. Neither logic nor new data is allowed to modify that reflex because reflexes are instinctive reptile brain stuff, not normally accessible to control; we have been programmed by the deduced principal.
We perform reflex thinking, which really isn't "thinking", in a thousand different ways a day based upon all the trauma we have experienced, childhood trauma being foundational. People who have had a lot of childhood trauma are more prone to reflex thinking such as phobias or compulsive neurotic patterns of thought - their deductions are wired to their Pavlov survival reflex circuits, and evidence, new data, that shows the deduction to be faulty or in need of update, is rejected. Reflex circuits, unmodifiable templates, can then control our conclusions, opinions, define who we are.
I'm not a behaviorist, humans are far more than their instincts and reflexes and can overcome their trauma programming. But it ain't easy if you don't see that you are programmed to begin with. The trick is to emphasize induction - the allowing of facts to speak for themselves, to self-organize. This is made difficult by fear and insecurity which makes us want to cling to habitual reactions. Tavares exacerbates this fear factor and makes us want to cling to her. This is why tyrants need to keep the fear factor high among their subjects- fear is reflex, emergency action. Induction requires the ability to suppress fear and consider many inputs, alternative paths of action, not just the ones that dictate escape at any cost.
Humans are complex and highly individualized when observed at high resolution, i.e., with lots of detail, but they still answer to some not so complex basic survival impulses. It's a digital world out there, we are inundated with data to a degree never before experienced by our species, it seems overwhelming. We desperately need interpretive frameworks/templates, that are updatable, that allow new data to be considered, that are inductive. This is why I oppose fear mongering and demonization which are rampant today, even among demographics that should know better, that should be able to detect the mechanisms of influence wielded by tyranny. Possibly the wisest words ever spoken - "The only thing we have to fear, is fear itself".