Quote Originally Posted by squark View Post
I've been reading a bit about cognitive styles lately and formal logic, which this test measures was equated with causal-deterministic thinking: (...)

So, someone who argues quite soundly, and is good at formal logic can easily be Ti polr (SEE), and a person can be Ti lead (LII) and not think in this fashion. Anyone of any type of course could study and learn formal logic, I just mean as a natural mode of thinking.

I think the difference between CD with Ti-polr and Ti itself is in the ability to make connections beyond direct cause and effect, things like comparisons between two things, and how things can be related and classified, categorized and sorted in ways besides one leading to the next, it's an entire framework rather than simple links. It's literally a difference in dimensionality because you give them both the same information and the Ti-lead will fill in all the gaps themselves, they don't need as much information to draw conclusions. One sees a chain, and the other an entire web of connections. (A holographic Ti polr type works in a different way, but also doesn't see the connections) As far as polr goes I think you just don't know what you're missing. In practice this might look like irritation at someone leaving out too much information which appears as a logical leap to the CD Ti-polr, but I think an intelligent SEE could mistype as a logical type if they heavily identify with this thinking style.
You mean information where the Ti base type already has understanding in that area? I for sure am not going to try and fill in any gaps in entirely new topics. That would be unfounded speculation. Leaving out too much information there would certainly look like a logical leap to me and strictly speaking it would actually be that, a logical leap.

Anyway. Have you verified this idea of yours on actual SEEs?