Types with the least amount of "logic"

[Iwantpeace]

What types have the least amount of logic?

[Bertrand]

this is a stupid question that is going to devolve into subjectivist accusations of which type is considered the dumbest, when that's not really what logic means not to mention whether one values Te or Ti is going to heavily skew the answers. the bottom line is the answer has already been given in that ethical types all have the same combined total dimensionality of logical aspects. thus they're all the least equally logical, its just how people weigh that based on their preferences. you might say "aha! but some have thinking polrs and others have perceptual polrs" but realize that polr means its a conscious function, and if someone misses the base perception that frames a logical scenario it has similar consequences. in a certain sense Ni distorts logic as much as Ti polr does, etc. the bottom line is not that one type is more or less logical, its in how

[at sirac son of sirac]

What types have the least amount of logic?

In theory ESE, or ESI would qualify with their low levels of Ti and Te. But I do think ESE and ESI communicate with some "logic" that we gather from our sensing functions.

Perhaps Se and Si can lend to us being more realistic and grounded and this might appear logical.

Depends.

Sensing types typically have to rely on specific information and facts, so you can have an S type ethical seemingly, or indeed, actually, being really knowledgeable about subjects, like how to get things done at work, because S builds on experience too. Add this factual experience accumulation (experience) to a decent to good brain and you can have someone who is good with 'T' aka logics.

So yes, I agree, looks like you answered it better than me in your OP anyway haha

[Sol]

From the point of base T, all F types have similar issues in logic, often by thinking reminding children.
There are individual differences due to education and IQ.

[Not A Communist Shill]

Those who maximize pleasure are the most logical.

[Not A Communist Shill]

@sorrows

I think there are likely to be an infinite number of ways of defining what is logical.

[at sirac son of sirac]

Being 'T' really means being able to process/make decisions based on the facts only without taking into account sentiments/emotions etc. For most things in life, only being able to do that is a liability. Of course some things have to be made with 'hard' decisions, but life is about the softly approach.

[Velvet]

ESI is the most logical ethical type. Also most of people here just misunderstand what an ESI is. And some have that personal war against them... I wonder where it comes from.

[The Reality Denialist]

Dynamic types with low logic according to my experience.

[FDG]

EJ and EP generally have a more impulsive approach to life compared to IPs and IJs.

IJ is by far the most logical temperament.

In my experience, all the democratic-extraverts (thus positivists) have a fairly impulsive approach to decision-making. I would thus vote ESFx and ENTx types as the least logical.

Reminder: logics in socionics is related to attitudes towards life decisions / interaction with the environment, not especially related to how good you are at maths.

[Bertrand]

I'm a wizard, harry

[Exodus]

Are secretly an SLI ?

The problem is that maximizing pleasure in the present often creates pain in the future.

Logic in the everyday sense is somewhat more like Ti, so I'd say ethical extroverts.

[Raver]

IMO, probably all ethical subtypes of ethical types due to weaker logic. However, every type is really weak at something whether that be logic, sensing, intuition or ethics and as a result suffer in their own way.

[Bertrand]

The problem is that maximizing pleasure in the present often creates pain in the future.

Logic in the everyday sense is somewhat more like Ti, so I'd say ethical extroverts.

i like this characterization of the logic of ESE, because its precisely their poor sense of time that leads to the "logic" of maximizing present Fe Si which does tend to create problems later. The thing is, their dual understands well that time isn't real and doesn't hold it against them, but for everyone else it does seem illogical, but mainly on the premise that time is apparent and easily cognizable. thus, like I said in my first post, it is not that one type is more or less logical, but rather the heirarchy we reflect by stating such things is just based on our own values, such as time, Ti/Te, etc "more or less logical" is a sort of mirage created in our mind by our own focus being on some aspects vs others, with the bright line being only between logical/ethical types in general

[Skepsis]

This is a difficult question to answer. First, one would have to objectively determine type, which so far is not possible. Then administer a standard logical reasoning exam. Last, see if there is a correlation as the theory suggests.

Or just call people weak T because you feel they are a type that is theorized to be weak logically. This is way easier and is the common approach for socionicists and armchair philosophers who do not have the understanding of controlled experimentation to help differentiate the hypothetical from actuality.

[Bertrand]

sometimes I think chains and singularity are the exact same person

[Cosmic Teapot]

I fuckin knew it @Chains. Shame on you

[chrys]

IEE and IEI maybe

[idontgiveaf]

This is really stupid question lol

Everyone has logic we just have different approaches in dealing with it

[Cosmic Teapot]

When you say "amount of logic" it sounds like a capacity to me. Which makes me think of Ti-Polr types who exhibit a low threshold for Ti- related processes and issues. However I'm leaving Te completely out of the equation and since logic seems to be up for interpretation (according to some posts here) I don't insist on being right about your question. Just a viewpoint. Also your question isn't stupid at all. We have similar threads about intuitive functions, so why not discuss the capacity for logic?

[Olimpia]

Least amount of Logic?

Depends on what kind of logic we are talking about.

Generally, SEE-Fi and ESE-Fe are often seen to be the least logically competent or "intellectual", due to weakened Logic (especially Ti) and the lack of Intuition (in the eyes of many people, higher Intuition compensates for a lack of logic, or makes someone appear more "logical" than they truly are).

After them come ESI-Fi and SEI-Fe, for very similar reasons as above, just with weaker Te instead.

[Exodus]

Least amount of Logic?

Depends on what kind of logic we are talking about.

Generally, SEE-Fi and ESE-Fe are often seen to be the least logically competent or "intellectual", due to weakened Logic (especially Ti) and the lack of Intuition (in the eyes of many people, higher Intuition compensates for a lack of logic, or makes someone appear more "logical" than they truly are).

After them come ESI-Fi and SEI-Fe, for very similar reasons as above, just with weaker Te instead.

Hmm idk about that...although they might be seen as more intellectual or "smart", IEIs are often going on about otherworldly things that make even less sense

[Bertrand]

thread is stupid because it invites every sort of wrong interpretation of socionics, in how the question was framed. its just going to be a bunch of people talking past eachother ignoring the psychological presuppositions their view is based on which is precisely what socionics aims to elucidate, which sort of makes a cruel mockery out of the entire concept while creating a circus of pseudo engagement with the socionics idea

[Olimpia]

Okay that's fair...but ESE-Fe has 2.5D Ne. Not too shabby in terms of intuition.

Yeah, but their Ti is quite weak. And I am assuming that the kind of "logic" you are talking about here is mostly Ti-related.
And their Intuition is not strong enough to compensate for that, like it would be the case with IEE.

[Spermatozoa]

thread is stupid because it invites every sort of wrong interpretation of socionics, in how the question was framed. its just going to be a bunch of people talking past eachother ignoring the psychological presuppositions their view is based on which is precisely what socionics aims to elucidate, which sort of makes a cruel mockery out of the entire concept while creating a circus of pseudo engagement with the socionics idea

The counsel for the defense is among us. See how he obfuscates and goes off on tangents?

Watch and learn, folks.