Are you a "logical person"?

[xkj220]

What do people usually mean when they refer to others or themselves by this set of words? Is this related to the T-F dichotomy? Can feeling types be "logical"? By consequence, could thinking types be "illogical? Thoughts?

[1981slater]

What do people usually mean when they refer to others or themselves by this set of words? Is this related to the T-F dichotomy? Can feeling types be "logical"?

No T-F, it's about controlling your emotions, not about being smart in maths. Ethicals are good at dealing with people and unhealthy logicals, while "good at maths" can't handle any small conflict

[jason_m]

No T-F, it's about controlling your emotions, not about being smart in maths. Ethicals are good at dealing with people and unhealthy logicals, while "good at maths" can't handle any small conflict

I think that's a good explanation of the difference. What's weird is that I fit both of the unhealthy aspects that you speak of! I don't know how to handle even the smallest conflicts in my personal life that come up... OTOH, internally, I can feel such anger if someone mistreats me or others, but I never actually act on these emotions... It seems like both of these are related: if someone mistreats me I just "shut down", experiencing a lot of anger, which is neither acted on to hurt the situation nor acted against to remedy it.

Jason

[717495]

I don't consider or pride myself in being all that logical. I think I tend to deal with information in a more so impersonal way and probably naturally revert to what makes logical sense, even if I might not be all that focused on it at first. I'd say an ethical type has a chance to be more logical than me anytime, but they generally found most of their reasoning on ethics, say for instance the ESI who uses role Ti. I don't think it's strongly type related, for instance I don't see Ti as being more logical than Te, but surely much better at some things that Te types wouldn't bother with, and I can see of this a sort of a blind-spot/problem for the Te type, and visa versa.

I should also say that my ethical side is probably the most reflective, where as Si role is kind of shallow and of the moment. I don't tend to deal in ethics in normal situations, but deep down I ponder my emotions strongly and reflect on them. With that note, I have seen the same sort of pattern for ethical irrationals. One logic function is PoLR, and the other one is more deeply reflected upon than comfortably expressed, it seems. Rationals seem the most comfortable casually talking about both logic and ethics, and irrationals seem the most comfortable casually talking about both intuition and sensing. HA is a sincere means and a deep reflection, role is more on the surface, casually automatic and impulsive. I also have no reason to believe that PoLR can't be expressed coherently from time to time, especially in very casual circumstances. Super-ego functions have a lot in common.

[Gilly]

I think I am a "logical" person in that my worldview is rationally coherent, and that I do what I need to do to get what I want. However sometimes my emotions and impulsiveness get in the way of always doing what I know to be the best thing for myself.

[DirectorAbbie]

IMO, it's about T/F first, then j/p, then S/N, then I/E.

[Hot Scalding Gayser]

It's innately confusing because they are speaking from their egos, a fragmented perception of who they really are- so you try to use *your* ego to try and understand theirs and it's just what we in the gay community call a 'hot ****** mess' really.

Thoughts and emotions, you cannot dichotomize them. Whoever did it, was one of those sad people who couldn't have any sort of 'normal' human relations with anybody, so he tried to analyze human behavior with his ego.

How you think is always connected to how you feel, as there is an underlying emotional resonance/vibration in everything. Even mathematics. Some people like that one kid I saw in 20/20, can see how numbers actually feel. I believe everybody has the potential to tap into these energies, although we are all kinda born with natural magical powers.

Gulenko erotic attitudes are also bullshit too, by the way.

[JRiddy]

Thoughts and emotions, you cannot dichotomize them. Whoever did it, was one of those sad people who couldn't have any sort of 'normal' human relations with anybody, so he tried to analyze human behavior with his ego.

How you think is always connected to how you feel, as there is an underlying emotional resonance/vibration in everything. Even mathematics. Some people like that one kid I saw in 20/20, can see how numbers actually feel. I believe everybody has the potential to tap into these energies, although we are all kinda born with natural magical powers.

I was gonna say this, but you already did.

Now, that's not to say it's totally meaningless to describe a particular individual as a "logical" person, but it's only a descriptive appellation. And while it's certainly more complicated than the T/F divide, I think there's something to the notion that T-types generally perceive themselves as people who trust their analytical faculties and that F-types generally perceive themselves as people who trust their ethical sensibilities, but exceptions abound. At best it's only a very rough heuristic.

It's also interesting to note that a lot of logicians throughout history were very temperamental and emotional people. These people had a clearly visible passion for delving deep into the delights of logic and trying to divine definite laws about it.

[discojoe]

There is a sharp distinction between being skilled at logic and being logical.

Being logical has more to do with rationality, while having skill at logic means that you are good at critical thinking. A rational person can be terrible at critical thinking, yet still consciously or unconsciously endeavor to make decisions based on sound logic.

[Nexus]

Yes, I am. I believe that being logical has to do with consistency, to have a consistently applied reasoning for your decisions (one that has been thought out). If your explanations involve logical fallacies, like circular reasoning or ad hominem, then you are not being logical (or perhaps not truthful).

[ArchonAlarion]

Logic: 1 a (1) : a science that deals with the principles and criteria of validity of inference and demonstration : the science of the formal principles of reasoning (2) : a branch or variety of logic <modal logic> <Boolean logic> (3) : a branch of semiotic; especially : syntactics (4) : the formal principles of a branch of knowledge b (1) : a particular mode of reasoning viewed as valid or faulty (2) : relevance, propriety c : interrelation or sequence of facts or events when seen as inevitable or predictable d : the arrangement of circuit elements (as in a computer) needed for computation; also : the circuits themselves


Logic is something that transcends type.

T egos will come across as more structural, systematic, analytic, etc but that has more to do with the nature of external judging elements. I don't believe any type has a propensity to actually be more logical, but T types will often cling to the idea that they are so because of the parallels they find between their thought process and "logic".

[Azeroffs]

Logic: 1 a (1) : a science that deals with the principles and criteria of validity of inference and demonstration : the science of the formal principles of reasoning (2) : a branch or variety of logic <modal logic> <Boolean logic> (3) : a branch of semiotic; especially : syntactics (4) : the formal principles of a branch of knowledge b (1) : a particular mode of reasoning viewed as valid or faulty (2) : relevance, propriety c : interrelation or sequence of facts or events when seen as inevitable or predictable d : the arrangement of circuit elements (as in a computer) needed for computation; also : the circuits themselves


Logic is something that transcends type.

T egos will come across as more structural, systematic, analytic, etc but that has more to do with the nature of external judging elements. I don't believe any type has a propensity to actually be more logical, but T types will often cling to the idea that they are so because of the parallels they find between their thought process and "logic".

I don't think the use of "logic" as it is traditionally known is type related... however..

log·i·cal (lj-kl)
adj.
1. Of, relating to, in accordance with, or of the nature of logic.
2. Based on earlier or otherwise known statements, events, or conditions; reasonable: Rain was a logical expectation, given the time of year.
3. Reasoning or capable of reasoning in a clear and consistent manner.



I do think the nature of what is meant by a "logical person" will tend to be logical types. By logical, I don't mean someone who uses traditional "logic" necessarily, but someone who prefers the use of systematic judgments.

[ArchonAlarion]

The forceful and abstract communication of logical types may have colored our understanding of what logic is like.

[Satan]

there's one guy i used to kind of know .. and i call him a logical person .. it just sits with me for him.

but me, myself, i don't really consider to be logical.

i often kind of go on impulses not reasoned out logic.

then i do patterns, and i don't reason out the patterns, it's just the way things are.. i don't really "back up" my actions logically - i just do them ..

[Satan]

I don't think the use of logic as it is traditionally known is type related... however..

log·i·cal (lj-kl)
adj.
1. Of, relating to, in accordance with, or of the nature of logic.
2. Based on earlier or otherwise known statements, events, or conditions; reasonable: Rain was a logical expectation, given the time of year.
3. Reasoning or capable of reasoning in a clear and consistent manner.



I do think the nature of what is meant by a "logical person" will tend to be logical types. By logical, I don't mean someone who uses logic necessarily, but someone who prefers the use of systematic judgments.

see i do number 2, but i don't consider it "logic".

whereas 3 i do. i do'nt even know what the fuck #1 is meant to mean.

[JRiddy]

Yes, I am. I believe that being logical has to do with consistency, to have a consistently applied reasoning for your decisions (one that has been thought out). If your explanations involve logical fallacies, like circular reasoning or ad hominem, then you are not being logical (or perhaps not truthful).

I think you're confusing functional autism with logical reasoning.

[Nexus]

I think you're confusing functional autism with logical reasoning.

Excuse me? I think you have mistaken your for .

[energystar]

...