The Laws of Thought : Psychology + Logic

The Laws of Thought : Psychology + Logic.

Suppose someone tells you a statement which is new to you and you comprehend well - say - John is highly intelligent.

The first point, in my view is - why does this statement get registered/impacted in your head? 1) Is it because of the word "John"? Say, you are pre-interested in John 2) Is it because of the word "intelligent"? Say, you are pre-interested in intelligence. 3) Is it because of both the words - "John" and "intelligent". Say, you have a fascination for both John and the concept of intelligence.

In case 1 - If I am pre-interested in John, what will get registered or impacted in my mind is 'intelligent' because 'John' is something I already know about, but today I came to know that he is highly intelligent. The new part is the "intelligent" (that he is intelligent), and the 'John' is already something I am used to in some ways (since I was pre-interested in him and hence knew some things about him). The 'intelligent' is the new part in contrast with all that I knew till now about John. So "intelligent" is the impact word.

Case 2 - Similarly, if I am pre-interested in intelligence, "John" is the impact word.

Case 3 - If I am pre-interested in both 'John' and 'intelligent', then the association 'John-intelligent' will get registered/impacted in my mind. Think of one and you think of the other!

Now, if I now come to know something more about intelligence, then in case 1, I will be "drawn to" deductive reasoning from the given statement since intelligent has stayed in my mind and in the very heat of that moment I hear something about intelligent. Hence I will quickly connect John to that new information I have just jumped to (or just been freshly exposed to) about 'intelligence' - say, intelligent people are introvert - and draw the inference that 'John is introvert'. There is a high chance that I will do deductive reasoning.

If I come to know something more about John (say, The Smiths are John's parents), then in case 2, I will be drawn to do abductive reasoning that 'the Smiths must be smart'. This is because John is what has gripped the mind and any new information about John, in the heat of that gripping, would lead the mind to link the impact-word 'John' to the freshly consumed new information about the impact-word itself. Yes, the mind has used an additional information 'intelligent people give birth to intelligent children', but that additional information is general commonsense information floating in the mind  and came in as one of the things you know about the pre-interested topic 'intelligence'. 

I haven't been able to cast the third case into any appropriate logical reasoning format. Probably, inductive reasoning since "one comes along, by default, with the other, always". Yes, probably inductive...