Quote Originally Posted by Encrustacean View Post
Iirc this was the only question I got wrong. The reason I brought it up was that I can employ what I assume is "formal logic" (systems logic) with little or no effort relative to social endeavors in which I struggle despite considerable effort. You pointed out that Bain did well too, but his relative social performance noticeably exceeds mine...
How exactly do you imagine his social performance "noticeably" exceeds yours? He had a rigid normative Fe role. He was ok, normal, about as social as @totalize for example (another 2D Fe type). But for godssake, don't set him as the example for refined social behaviour.


IOW, it's only through the comparison of my competency:effort that I see some evidence of logics ego in myself. I realize I don't come off as highly logical, even projecting a public face of "ditzy female"...yet this is just an example among many of evasive character (let me know if you find anything in typology that excuses my evasive qualities btw~)
I see you as overthinking when in analytical mode.


Now back to the stupid question:

I can accept the truism as a logically incorrect answer provided logic forms a bridge between the premises and the sensible conclusion—in a truism, no logic is required: it is simply a reassertion of the premises
This is a bit er, twisty. Are you doing socionics here?

In any case, it's not a truism. See below.

(Put the original quiz question and the possible answers in spoiler.)

If someone says, "I killed all of the Gormagians," when is it logically true?

1. It's logically true when all of the Gormagians are dead.

2. It's logically true when I kill all of the Gormagians.

3. It's logically true when Gormagians never existed.

4. It's logically true when I kill the last Gormagian.


The problem with the alternatives:

1. This requires the assumption that the Gormagians are dead only if you kill them.
2. This requires equating this someone with "I".
4. This requires the assumption that if you kill one Gormagian, this applies to all of them. (And again, "I".)


Yet under this provision, you killing all the Gorblobs cannot be seen as a sensibly deduced outcome of their never existing because you killing all of them is only one of many possible outcomes given their purely theoretical nature. Why did you not, instead, set them on a boat with red sails or make them wear funny hats?
With the Gorblobs not existing, the red sails option does not exclude the other one.


So that answer would also be false UNLESS you are implying that you have killed the idea with the same language you used to generate it, as follows:

"The gorblobs" (by naming a concept you have brought it into existence) "never existed" (and killed it in the same breath)
That the statement is about killing them isn't because of stating also that they never existed.

No, naming a concept isn't the same as stating it exists in a specified area.


In a way this forms a paradox unless it's logical to create absence (which is why I referred to it as a "stillborn idea" in chat
I don't know what you mean by creating absence.

(Regardless of this logic debate, I used your "stillborn idea" expression for something else recently. Well, not the "idea" part but the "stillborn" part. I liked the combination of that expression with other things )


Any way you slice it, if the gorblobs never existing is a logical premise, then the truism is too. Either there are no good answers or there are two and the truism is preferable for obvious reasons
Don't agree, see above, let me know if it still doesn't make sense.


Wow I think I just convinced myself that I'm not Ti based...not that my logic sucks (I think if you examine it you'll find it solid though I maybe could have explained more clearly) but Ti bases are beholden to the logic rather than using it in service of a quite irrational function
Don't tell me you still had Ti base as an option for your type

Not saying your logic sucks, just, yeah, what you write is not consistently Ti type of information, it includes a lot of Intuition mixed in.