Logic

[akash]

I did well and I think to a certain extent this is just intuitive for some people. Some people already think like this so it's natural to answer the questions correctly.

Reference to socionics:
Causal-Determinist cognition is known under synonymous names as formal logic or deterministic thinking, both of which emphasize its rigid nature.

This is ILE,LSI,SEE,EII.

[Myst]

I wonder if some of the questions had more than answer... Also, my problem is that I simply cannot pick up on things by rote: I would say that I'm at the exact opposite pole of rote learner. I can't help but wonder if some of the things I had to know came from rote learning, something LSIs would probably not have a problem with...

I don't like rote learning either. I can organize any detail in my head and remember that organization but that isn't rote learning. And I learn best when I understood enough in my own way.

And no, none of the test requires rote learning. Btw that would be more Te than Ti, if learning formal logic that way, IMO.

I had studied logic a little bit in computer science and philosophy, but some of the questions were technical, making me wonder if you need more than just a broad introduction to logic to be able to handle this test...

Which ones did you see as technical? Just out of curiosity.

The test was strictly about formal logic, and some of the "correct" answers were only correct under those terms while other answers were more correct otherwise. Memorizing the rules of formal logic is not related to being a logical type, and imo Ti types are seldom interested in doing so as they don't really need it.

If you mean that it wasn't asking you to use sloppy everyday language, sure, yes. I get it that you (or most people) are not as "anal" (lol) as this test needs one to be to answer everything correctly. But the test doesn't require memorizing rules of formal logic.

For those who are good at the test, have you learned formal logic?

I got more than half the answers right, but I have not studied formal logic. The ones I got right corresponded to things I learned in order to solve certain math and probability problems. Without learning those principles elsewhere, I would have gotten very few answers right.

No, I didn't study formal logic closely though I read a fun maths book when I was a teenager. But again that was mathematics, not a formal logic book.

I got one answer wrong (not the gormagian one) on first try (and I still think my answer for that question where I lost points was right too lol). That maths book did talk about the stuff necessary for getting that gormagian one right, I still remember my own insight of logic that I got out of that. But it wasn't very advanced mathematics and this isn't actually required to get the question right, if you are just "anal" enough to exclude the three other options for the answer.

Other than that, most of the questions I just answered by simply being "anal", not thinking by sloppy everyday language and not even paying attention to the words themselves in the sentences (especially when they were ridiculous random nonsense words lol), just the logic between them if that makes sense. (Call it pure Ti, lol.) I suppose that was one less distraction that way.

[golden]

No, I didn't study formal logic closely though I read a fun maths book when I was a teenager. But again that was mathematics, not a formal logic book.

I got one answer wrong (not the gormagian one) on first try (and I still think my answer for that question where I lost points was right too lol). That maths book did talk about the stuff necessary for getting that gormagian one right, I still remember my own insight of logic that I got out of that. But it wasn't very advanced mathematics and this isn't actually required to get the question right, if you are just "anal" enough to exclude the three other options for the answer.

Other than that, most of the questions I just answered by simply being "anal", not thinking by sloppy everyday language and not even paying attention to the words themselves in the sentences (especially when they were ridiculous random nonsense words lol), just the logic between them if that makes sense. (Call it pure Ti, lol.) I suppose that was one less distraction that way.

Taking your response together with @squark's, it seems that for some people this kind of thinking and problem solving comes more naturally. I find it interesting that you refer repeatedly to "sloppy everyday language" -- I mean, I think get it. Everyday language is ambiguous. I suppose that I find the ambiguities revealing; that's where people open windows into their unconscious motivations, their suffering, their point of view, their humor.

Over time, I've grown to appreciate logic a great deal, too, even if it's not my strength. I have to acquire the knowledge deliberately, though.

[squark]

Someone linked me to this earlier today, found it interesting bc while I might not agree with everything said, they draw some of the same conclusions that I have:

The following fact is interesting and important for type identification: logic in ethical types is normative, and therefore they are highly concerned with "logicalness" of their thoughts and actions. In order to substantiate their actions, they frequently rely on elements of formal logic by making references to "authority", laws, rules, and other "indisputable" sources [10]. Let us note that formal logic is the most easily accessible "logical tool", and for this very reason it enjoys great success with the more "advanced" ethical types. ..

A logical type frequently has no need in relatively primitive formal substantiations for his actions; he uses meaningful, substantiated logical arguments, and relates critically to authorities.

Generally speaking, the identification of this dichotomy is complex, since the majority of intellectually developed people in mature age acquire many qualities of the opposite pole of this dichotomy (logical types develop their ethical side, and vice versa). Out of the entire Jungian basis, Logic/Ethics dichotomy is the most diluted during typing and maximally subjected to developmental advancement or partial reprogramming.

From: http://wikisocion.org/en/index.php?t...hov_and_Tsypin

[Myst]

I've never taken a single formal logic class or learned it in any way, which is how I knew that some questions probably required it (for example I had no idea what bivalence was.) I solved the ones I did just by thinking through them. I got 37/45 and it gave me this comment at the end which further suggested that it was more about what you had studied/learned than what you could figure out on your own:

Oh the "bivalence" word was actually pretty technical yes. The thing though is that that part of the question could be safely ignored. Other than that word, to me every other word in the test was familiar.

And I think it was not simply about what you had studied/learned but more about the way of thinking, formally logical enough or not. With which of course some studying I'm sure helps, if someone doesn't find it natural to go into that mode of thinking.

I'm really not interested at all in spending time studying formal logic. I'd rather figure things out on my own than study what someone else already figured out.

I don't know what you mean by studying what someone else already figured out. If you like reading up on cognition (me too, btw), then you are studying what someone else already figured out. You just make sense out of that information for yourself. So how I see this is, building on what has already been figured out, as long as it makes sense to you personally, would get you further.

I am however interested in cognition in general. How people think is interesting to me. For example I was reading this yesterday and found it very interesting: http://smash.psych.nyu.edu/courses/s...ls/nisbett.pdf The ways in which culture can affect how people think is quite interesting. Also, regarding socionics type stuff in relation to that article based on the terms analytic/holistic I assumed oh I'm probably analytic, but by all measures of how they are defining the differences I am actually holistic. Looking more at how they're using these terms it's actually about objects/fields, and holistic fits Ti as a field function looking more at how things are related to one another than the objects themselves.

@jason_m You might also find that article I linked interesting. Something else you might be interested in is "The Rationality Quotient" by Stanovich and West if how people think and make decisions interests you.

Interesting article. With regard to that, in some aspects I'm analytic, in other aspects holistic. I recall there was a test about this same research subject online where I got holistic tho'. It was about reproducing lines with or without context and I was really really strongly context based with it, those tasks I was nearly perfect with even though I paid little attention (and just did the tasks very quickly instead).

I don't think the analytic/holistic terms entirely line up with Socionics definitions tho'.

[squark]

Taking your response together with @squark's, it seems that for some people this kind of thinking and problem solving comes more naturally. I find it interesting that you refer repeatedly to "sloppy everyday language" -- I mean, I think get it. Everyday language is ambiguous. I suppose that I find the ambiguities revealing; that's where people open windows into their unconscious motivations, their suffering, their point of view, their humor.

Over time, I've grown to appreciate logic a great deal, too, even if it's not my strength. I have to acquire the knowledge deliberately, though.

I like everyday language use also, a nice turn of phrase, subtle nuance of expression and so forth not only makes conversation richer and more interesting, but it often imparts more information and greater understanding as well.

[Myst]

Taking your response together with @squark's, it seems that for some people this kind of thinking and problem solving comes more naturally. I find it interesting that you refer repeatedly to "sloppy everyday language" -- I mean, I think get it. Everyday language is ambiguous. I suppose that I find the ambiguities revealing; that's where people open windows into their unconscious motivations, their suffering, their point of view, their humor.

Over time, I've grown to appreciate logic a great deal, too, even if it's not my strength. I have to acquire the knowledge deliberately, though.

Yeah I think you got it. Btw I don't have a problem with too much of everyday language if it's about simple stuff. I don't really analyze unconscious motivations tho' lol.

[Myst]

I like everyday language use also, a nice turn of phrase, subtle nuance of expression and so forth not only makes conversation richer and more interesting, but it often imparts more information and greater understanding as well.

Ohh that's no longer plain everyday language if someone talks in such a nuanced way But yah, I like cool styles.

[jason_m]

Actually, this is my real problem with logic:

http://amby.com/tests/clerical/pract_a.html

I struggle with this test like mad. In other words, I get answers in math/logic wrong because I overlook things and make stupid mistakes. It all has to do with the skills used in the above test. That's basically how sad I find the notion that I don't have 'good logic,' as that is a test of clerical ability, not higher mathematics. (Actually, let's just not talk about it anymore, shall we...)

[Myst]

Actually, this is my real problem with logic:

http://amby.com/tests/clerical/pract_a.html

I struggle with this test like mad. In other words, I get answers in math/logic wrong because I overlook things and make stupid mistakes. It all has to do with the skills used in the above test. That's basically how sad I find the notion that I don't have 'good logic,' as that is a test of clerical ability, not higher mathematics. (Actually, let's just not talk about it anymore, shall we...)

This test is made for stereotypical LSE

OK seriously though, I can do that sort of test fine and I have no problem doing such tasks but I don't see it as requiring all that much logic. Some, yes, sure, but the rest is just detail orientation.

The kind of logical thinking needed for the logic test that's the topic of this thread is still similar to the logic required for the one you posted now but it goes deeper.

[Myst]

I've hit on what it is: my logic is more nonverbal. On a test like this - https://www.123test.com/logical-reas...test/index.php - I don't make one mistake... The test in this thread uses a lot of terminology, etc. and so your score is highly dependent upon your verbal abilities... (And, yes, I realize that the test in the link I showed is easy, but I still screw up 'easy' questions for verbal logic tests like this one: http://www.think-logically.co.uk/lt.htm)

Noticed you posted these links too and went through them . I dunno if it's purely about verbal vs nonverbal abilities but the first link you posted maybe could be solved by Intuition too by intuitively perceiving patterns. The second link, it does require explicit reasoning (yes this would be verbal). I didn't use much Intuition to solve the tasks in the first (nonverbal) link, I mostly just used some explicit (and verbalizable actually) methods of mine to try and find the rules for the pattern shifts (worked perfect). Which questions did you screw up for the verbal one? Again that's not just "clerical ability" there, that's where I disagree.

I will say, this may go beyond Socionics's basic categorizations, too. But, intelligence is about how well you find your way around (adapting to the environment), you don't have to be strong on verbal logic for that in many cases, and in many other cases where that would be a disadvantage, you can still make up for it via other abilities of yours which if are strong would make up for it enough so as not to be truly disadvantaged compared to most people. Then there are the cases where the task is so specific to that kind of verbal logic that you can't make up for it with other abilities no matter how good those abilities are but you don't have to go for these situations and life is certainly not about having to live that way.

So all in all you don't need to be hung up on whether formal logic is a strong ability of yours or not. I hope this helps.

[ragnar]

http://www.helloquizzy.com/tests/the...-aptitude-test

Your result for The Logical Aptitude Test ...
You Are Rational.
You scored 37 out of 45.