Truth for Ti is not a tangible practical thing in outside reality. Let alone "useful" on its own. It can be very useful when applied, of course but not really its main point to be useful like Te. It only focuses on usefulness for its own ends which are less tangible than Te's agenda.
Ti with Se will of course have a more practical bent and it will apply on objects in tangible reality and be more directly useful in this way than Ti with Ne but it still has this fundamental quality and difference from Te.
I care if something is true or not and matches reality. Ti has no agenda, nor does Te. It is only people who have agendas, not elements.
As far as what Ti and Te are and how people use them: Take any large system of data, and Ti is your own understanding and interpretation, your consistent system and the connections you make between the items in the data set. Do they all fit? How do they relate to each other, and does it make sense? Is anything out of place? These are concrete connections (in contrast to Fi connections,) Te on the other hand is the general consensus and conclusions, the established facts based on the data. Rules that you memorize and apply are Te, not Ti, because remember Ti is your own understanding of something. Te sees how the data functions, what it does. Ti sees how it is related to other parts and interconnected.
So, for the logic test Aylen posted - all the questions asking how A is related to B is related to C - those questions can be solved through application of Ti. Also, analogies, solving algebraic-type equations, etc all lend themselves to be solved by using Ti. It's all seeing how something is connected to something else, how they all fit together. Whether you include the real, physical world and the properties of that world in your data set as points of reference for making connections and sense of things may be related more to Se vs Ne, or maybe not, but you can certainly include the real world and still use Ti.
Sure I care too if something is correct and maps to reality logically.
Also, I'm ok with just focusing on the logic separately too, like in this test, where the words were just (formal) logical objects and nothing else.
"Agenda" was a specific term here, not the dictionary definition for everyday language.
Well Te sees how objects function, not simply just data. That's its extraversion. Rules can be seen both via Ti and Te, with Ti the reasoning behind the rules is also part of them.As far as what Ti and Te are and how people use them: Take any large system of data, and Ti is your own understanding and interpretation, your consistent system and the connections you make between the items in the data set. Do they all fit? How do they relate to each other, and does it make sense? Is anything out of place? These are concrete connections (in contrast to Fi connections,) Te on the other hand is the general consensus and conclusions, the established facts based on the data. Rules that you memorize and apply are Te, not Ti, because remember Ti is your own understanding of something. Te sees how the data functions, what it does. Ti sees how it is related to other parts and interconnected.
Analogies, uhh, from my Ne PoLR pov, it's Ti only if they are fully matching logical maps. Ti with Ne would probably see it a bit more loosely as the analogies can be good analysis material via Ne.So, for the logic test Aylen posted - all the questions asking how A is related to B is related to C - those questions can be solved through application of Ti. Also, analogies, solving algebraic-type equations, etc all lend themselves to be solved by using Ti. It's all seeing how something is connected to something else, how they all fit together. Whether you include the real, physical world and the properties of that world in your data set as points of reference for making connections and sense of things may be related more to Se vs Ne, or maybe not, but you can certainly include the real world and still use Ti.
Solving algebra equations is like with the rules above (both Ti and Te in the same fashion).
I never said you can't Ti in the real world. I said you can without applying it in the real world, too.
So, my original point was that there is such a thing as proving something as true in logic while not applying it for a practical use. The logical truth on its own has its own separate existence, abstracted away from objects. That's where I disagreed with your original post.
Last edited by Myst; 01-04-2017 at 08:48 AM.
If you have done truth tables, dabbled with group theory then this should be easy.
I think I'll refresh my skills in truth tables.
OUR ANALYSIS (Vertical line = Average)
You scored 37% on Validity, higher than 87% of your peers.
You Are Rational.
You scored 37 out of 45.
I have had some sort fatigue for some time. It is hard to concentrate on things like this. On the other hand logic is just a tool. Admit it you LxIs!
Anyways basing logic purely on statements is just foolish because it blindfolds you (extroverted attitude?). The rational label? Don't know about that. I like to think irrationally by entertaining different possibilities and discover. On the other hand I have had some extensive education around this area.
Purely rationally logical stuff happens only in logical circuits. If you speak hardware then you should become some kind of processor engineer or low level programmer (as in assembly and stuff). Ugh...
You should assemble together predictions from incomplete data, take into account randomness. Physics is filled with examples how some simple abstractions becomes impossible to solve exactly and how lack of controlled initial conditions will make things truly chaotic.
Last edited by The Reality Denialist; 01-20-2017 at 09:20 PM.
MOTTO: NEVER TRUST IN REALITY
Winning is for losers
Sincerely yours,
idiosyncratic type
Life is a joke but do you have a life?
Joinif you dare https://matrix.to/#/#The16Types:matrix.org
OP: It sounds more like your own personal insecurity than anything... of appearing stupid to others.
Most humans aren't logical. Not even T types. They learn to be logical. If you are even a little bit logical, then you are better/more logical than most.
O_o I don't think you need any of that to do this test.
Hahahah. Well for Leading function it isn't just a tool, it gains its own agenda. This is a big point in this theory.I have had some sort fatigue for some time. It is hard to concentrate on things like this. On the other hand logic is just a tool. Admit it you LxIs!
It's ok to feel tired btw.
The statements usually have content that does still come from actual tangible reality, hopefully. My pov, anyway. In this test they didn't come from there, lol.Anyways basing logic purely on statements is just foolish because it blindfolds you (extroverted attitude?). The rational label? Don't know about that. I like to think irrationally by entertaining different possibilities and discover. On the other hand I have had some extensive education around this area.
I've actually done such programming.Purely rationally logical stuff happens only in logical circuits. If you speak hardware then you should become some kind of processor engineer or low level programmer (as in assembly and stuff). Ugh...
Leaving that up to you ILEs. Enjoy your speculations!You should assemble together predictions from incomplete data, take into account randomness. Physics is filled with examples how some simple abstractions becomes impossible to solve exactly and how lack of controlled initial conditions will make things truly chaotic.
I didn't explicitly learn any of this. Anyway, no, not claiming that anyone would be always 100% logical. That's just not how the human brain/mind works anyway. It has several systems working together beyond just logical evaluations.
I've been reading a bit about cognitive styles lately and formal logic, which this test measures was equated with causal-deterministic thinking:
Causal-Determinist cognition is known under synonymous names as formal logic or deterministic thinking, both of which emphasize its rigid nature. Speech in this cognitive style takes shape with aid of the connectives "because", "therefore", "consequently" (causal conjunctions). The mental process consists in constructing chains of cause and effect, reducing explanations to deterministic mechanisms.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 will touch its advantages. First, it is perceived by society as the most authoritative, most convincing, and singularly correct. In mathematics, it is formalized as the deductive-axiomatic method. Use of it requires great intellectual stamina. Second, attributes of greater clarity and concentration are inherent to this style. The type most characterized by singular concentration is LSI. However, the irrational SEE argues quite soundly, deriving one consequence from another, implying focus on the chain of events.
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.
I actually am considering IEI heavily for you lately. You seeing your supervisor as skilled huuummm. Though socially it would only be their extraversion where they'd have an advantage over an IEI.
And btw, nah, I don't think either is that extremely skilled. They are social, extraverted and all that, sure. But that's it.
I understood you originally, but I find this idea too twisty, that is, I don't see the point in redefining what "logic" means. It was actually really weird, the idea itself (of redefining it), hence my asking if you were doing some Socionics stuff there.Sigh, no, I just explained poorly. I was trying to say:
I can accept A therefore A as illogical (albeit true) given: You must alter the premise in some way in order to claim you've used logic
Sure it's twisty, since truisms are generally.. well.. true
This is directly relevant to the problem because iirc one of those "incorrect" solutions could be rewritten A therefore A.
(I wasn't calling truisms "twisty".)
And no, you remember wrong, that incorrect solution cannot be rewritten as "A therefore A". I'll try explaining more as to why.
I don't understand your question/issue.Okay I get why one and four are wrong..if you recall I wound up explaining this in chatbox to someone recently.
And three is apparently the correct answer despite being the most outlandish
But if you don't equate someone with "I" in the premise then what is that same I doing in the conclusion
The premise is this: "Someone says, "I killed all of the Gormagians"".
The incorrect answer (NOT a truism) we are discussing is this: "It's logically true when I kill all of the Gormagians".
The "someone" in the premise is equated with "I" in that same premise since they are talking about themselves. The incorrect answer does not have "I" stated in a way that would clearly refer to this "someone".
You can also consider it in this way: premise being "someone killed all the Gormagians" and incorrect conclusion being "I killed all the Gormagians". Clearly, "someone" is not necessarily "I".
(Also, of course, when in my previous post to you I said "2. This requires equating this someone with "I"", I meant to refer to the conclusion only, not to the premise.)
Does this help?
I was responding to your question on "Why did you not, instead, set them on a boat with red sails or make them wear funny hats?". Indicating that no one ever claimed that that option had to be excluded.that was kinda my point? Then I mean I could justify three, but it'd be a stretch when A because A is right fucking there in number two. I mean unless it's a tense thing?
This isn't logically relevant here. Otoh, if you want, you could talk to me about this topic regardless of the formal logic issue being discussed here. (I do find it interesting.)not gonna open this can of worms not when societal self-awareness and new ideologies can so often be traced back to origins in fictional writing...not when all the progressive dictionary writers who are willing to include neologisms would disagree... No no no
Great I feel like I opened it
Lol ok.can't remember? Let's assume I was being a fuckwit
ah me too man, so many things dead from conception
I did find the paradox reference interesting originally though.
See, I am seeking your Ni+Fe
I have trouble typing myself as anything rational
agree
What truism conundrums? I see no conundrum.
Last edited by Myst; 01-27-2017 at 11:54 PM.
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?
I type both of them as LIEs.
If you are ILI then you may be appreciating their Fe role vs your Fe PoLR.
I have never seen @Bane showing the very fine understanding of character or of forum dynamics beyond what Ni creative is capable of. @oldwhiskey has a similar fine Ni understanding.
Thanks, because if it isn't a truism my argument falls apart
Wording matters.Yeah, I guess. Hinges on wording...creepy question. What kind of logic is this, that twisted around itself until it stopped making sense
OK.Don't have time right now, but remind me? I can probably think up some good examples in classic literature, at least from my country
I explained it before, I don't know how to explain better, yes, if you want to state something about something not existing, you can deduce anything, and no, it's not going to lead to anything neat, but the point here is precisely that you are allowed to state anything about the not-existing object, hence that conclusion in the test is logically true in that sense. Lol I get it why you find that crazy though. You can look at it as a really ironic statement, at least .I think it was just a perspectives thing? Like if you grow up in a place where nobody is rich and you don't have television, you don't desire wealth.. but then with the advent of globalization, people begin to desire... Want can be created, as in imposed, but it's never more than a void, a new yearning with no hopes of being sated: hence creating absence
I'm still thinking of logic as a deductive/inductive process and the third answer can't do any better than Least Illogical, but it's this thing, you're talking about something that never existed and the assertion you make is "welp I committed genocide" ..creating a dead species is like creating a void? (it made sense at the time)
You're fineYEAH YEAH
By the power vested in me by Dunning and Kruger I hereby question my worldview, which has some roots in my supposed intelligence. Augh what if I'm a moron this entire time
I didn't drop the ILI consideration either. You aren't all that prosaic but ILIs can be poetic too.By the way, I'm probably not IEI. Maybe I'm a stupid ILI, or an SEI/LSE who's incompetent at taking care of herself, let alone others, but I think I have an explicit function in my ego block, at least one. I'm too prosaic for Beta NF, got very little inclination towards high art or anything that's not purely hedonistic and self-interested, purple prose makes me squirm...and I just feel somewhat competent in the practical world, considering my incompetence..there are so many things I miss, about situations and people...IEI should be master of implicit fields
I don't know what you mean by purple prose. I don't know what things you miss about situations/people, either. IEIs can be somewhat competent in the practical world by way of lots of effort put into it. Relate to that?
If only you hadn't put the word "almost" in this sentence.Eg, I don't know anything about law, but I'd almost be more comfortable making a chilly "legal" argument than I would making some type of personal appeal. Both SEI and ILI may have trouble asking for things but IEI should at least know how(even if they employ the skill judiciously)
Hahaha.. like that, sure.
Well I don't know if the context in my post for that wasn't clear for you or what, the issue with that conclusion was that the Gormagians could be dead because someone else killed them, not that person who claimed it originally.
If it's just nitpickiness for you in terms of not confusing two people for each other, well... I did say before in this thread that I'm anal enough for this test though =)
One of the downfalls of strict CD thinking. It's not always factually accurate/true, or even reasonable, even though it's followed all the rules.
At the same time, Causal-Determinism has its drawbacks. It is primarily the most artificial and removed from the laws of functioning life. Its efficacy extends to the 'logical' formulation of already existing results, the construction of operating mechanisms, but not fundamentally new discoveries. The first dead end which formalization risks is scholasticism, i.e. pointless albeit logically impeccable reasoning. The second intellectual dead end faced by sequential Determinists is the trap of reductionism, which they fall into on account of fragmenting wholes into their component parts. This deficiency was noted even by the ancient skeptics, as well as in modern times by Hume, who doubted that any event could be dictated by strict reason.
Indeed, in building a long chain of cause and effect, it is difficult to avoid the danger of circularity, the risk of falling into circulus vitiosus—a vicious circle in the proof. Kurt Gödel's theorem on the incompleteness of formal systems, asserts that any sufficiently complex system of rules is either inconsistent, or contains conclusions that can be neither proven nor refuted by the rules of that system. This established limits in the applicability of formal logic.
If this is specifically about C-D Ti, sure, it doesn't jive well with some Te stuff, right. In terms of truth defined as factual accuracy/"factually" reasonable.
Btw, I was genuinely curious if you checked the theory of yours on actual SEEs. With the lack of an answer, I guess not, then, though.
He isn't "garden-variety butthole" but just like my LIE-Ni ex, he's got extra clever stuff going with it. It's the strong Ni creative for both of them, not strong Fe. I don't get why people are so unable to see that.
Again, please note I attributed it to Ni creative in my previous post too, why did you skip that?!
I didn't equate him with oldwhiskey, they are still two different people, and oldwhiskey has slightly different interests/motivations.
To me Bane vibes Gamma so whatever lol.
What do you mean by Gammas are like they want to cry while making out?
Neh neh Myst
OK.Wording matters.
you explained it well and I guess it makes sense. But my brain is in straightjacket
YOU are fineYou're fine
Just some random person being an asshole, that's not really Te judgment, more Fe. You sure you aren't mixing extraversion with explicit?I relate to everything just enough that I don't trust my own assessments
Things like, one time I didn't notice this girl was crying and then it was awful, or little things like I can tell when people shift away from me or vice versa but not explain why, and like my only irl friend rn is stonewalling me and instead of using IEI wiles and charming her back to me I'm just kinda waiting in suspension. Or like one of the people on this sports team I did, that person didn't like me right away and explained it later and we got on fine, but all I saw initially were the explicit properties, like how he didn't want me on his side, and to me it seemed unwarranted, just some random person I didn't know, being an asshole. Just think IEI would see a little more into it. Oh yeah turns out I was being an asshole first, and he thought I was like a violent person or sociopath or something
Np =) Show me that plot later.Wait Myst I don't rank my own post anymore? /sniffIf only you hadn't put the word "almost" in this sentence.
Jk, thanks for explaining the creepy gorblobs. Plot twist: we are all gorblob
Hi, @Encrustacean.
Actually, I don't see my behavioral "comparison" method as being as good as any other method precisely because, as you say, it doesn't capture all the facts which make up a personality. It is quite prone to error, as my typing efforts here have shown. I would much rather have a circuit diagram of the brain which details frequently used pathways, but that's still a ways off.
Lacking that, I'd say a thorough familiarity with the way the information elements express themselves, which @Chae and @Myst seem to have to a much greater degree than I do, is preferable. Coming in dead last is VI. I only use VI because it suits my purpose.
Remember, I'm trying to find an ESI IRL. While I have no trouble approaching someone and talking to them, I find it harder to ask them to take a socionics test on the spot, and I also need to quickly filter out people whom I don't want to approach. So, while VI is not always accurate, it is fast, and in LIE world, a pretty good answer right now is better than a perfect answer much, much later.
lawjyck
Can't take the test:
Are You A Human?
Incorrect, please try again
Enter what’s shown below
Enter the numbers you hear
Input error: c: Invalid version number for captcha challenge token. k: Format of site key was invalid
Type what you hear
Had to reset my browser settings:
You Are Rational.
You scored 33 out of 45.
My analysis: my logical skills are more domain-specific. Because of this, I find subjects like economics, philosophy and computer science easier than the domain-independent formality of formal logic and pure math; when I can 'see' the situation and analyse it in my head, my logic disentangles the situation much more easily than when I'm dealing with a set of purely abstract rules...
(But I'm not really a practical person either, who knows all about business matters and has strong factual knowledge... That's why I flip between Ti and Ni: I'm not poetic at all, and I'm neither formal logician nor business-man/practically-skilled. In other words, my logic is either theoretical, but not like pure math, or tangible, but more in a scientific way, dealing with numbers, computer programs, solving problems, etc...)
Last edited by jason_m; 02-01-2017 at 07:05 AM.
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)
You Are Rational.
You scored 37 out of 45.
You Are Rational.
The wheels turn okay. You appear to distinguish your modus ponens from your modus tollens. However, brushing up on some formalism wouldn't hurt, either.
You only need a basic proficiency with the first-order predicate logic in order to resolve all of the problems on this quiz. Take two months of your life to learn or review it and really ace this thing!
YOUR ANALYSIS (Vertical line = Average)
Validity Distribution
You scored 37% on Validity, higher than 87% of your peers.
--
I wonder which questions I got wrong, I wasn't confident about the flangle thing, and the not-b and a question. I think that has got to do with contrapositive, but I forget. Not bad for a feeler, eh . Actually, I think it has got more to do with intelligence, but having Ti probably helps. Some of the questions are a bit easier if you don't think too hard about it, as the questions are obfuscated.
Last edited by Singu; 02-02-2017 at 12:04 PM.
I realize what I've been doing wrong. From this thread:
http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin...ll=1#post68710
(Regardless of what I said above)
This is my Ti:
This is not:Originally Posted by Jonathan
Originally Posted by Jonathan
Yep I know what you mean.I trust that your system has internal consistency...this checks with what I've seen and what I know of you. But I never trust that the systems align necessarily between people....I mean look at the wide variations between canonical socionics writers in simple matters such as ascribing traits to processing modalities
A certain distance from my Fe valuing POV (I'm not the only one who noticed this). The way I've seen him evaluate people based on usefulness.What about him vibes gamma?
That actually makes some sense.Gamma isn't only not afraid of embarrassing themselves, especially if it involves a significant other, they're also just different than merry types. Merry type might be able to date someone they can't trust, keep them at arms length, even have fun doing it, but gamma (who tbf aren't *necessarily* more paranoid than another quadra) can't stand certain trust violations. Gamma quadra extroverted valued functions are ST, so there's no quick way of communicating warmth that rings true to this quadra, so they need an implicit Fi structure to anchor them (more true of rational) or else they gradually go insane and wind up slicing each other. There's no middle ground or building trust.
Lol I don't know.So I just figured all that pent up angst means that whenever two gamma hop in bed together they wind up crying during sex ......
Why don't you just go by finding base function first, is what I don't get. Not LSI, thoughI always have to remember not to do this, but in my defense I'm still waiting for good solid explanation of what explicit versus objects and implicit versus fields means—because of this information gap, my self typing is weird to people: I can identify that I'm dynamic, mostly conscious of dynamic functions and unconscious of static and further, DA, if you buy cogstyles...then all I can say is, I'm not strong in BOTH Ni and Fi because I miss some implicit fields information. And from there I usually eliminate delta st because I'm ridiculously impractical and bad at time management, always have been, and LIE ESE because their mirrors are the more likely temperaments AND cogstyle. The forum never bothers to understand SEI nor get good examples of the type (Mu should hire someone) and I don't come off as very similar to what the forum deems ILI, so my processing hangs trying to decide between those two. Going back and examining where this logic might have erred would take 10pg but I think about it when driving...basically eg if I'm wrong about being dynamic I could be LSI, by other loopholes could make a case for ILE or aristocratic Ej, and if I'm feeling really muzzy I might decide I'm positivist and add back the other two Ej, which leaves me with 6-8 types that don't strike me as obviously categorically wrong (Ej, dem Ip, CD Ti)
I've worn grooves in my mind thinking about this: truly I've considered quite a lot of information that forumite don't have access to. And so typings like IEI, ESI, and EII just based on 1) a forumite seeing me as similar to some archetypal description or invented VI standard, or worse: 2) a forumite seeing me as similar to someone they know irl (I question @Adam Strange being logics ego as opposed to like IEE because he apparently sees this method as nearly as good as any other.... Where do I begin describing how this will yield so many more errors in a system already plagued by vaguery masquerading as incisive categories... Even 3) gestalt impression of even the forumite who knows me best won't seem high level of evidence if it falls outside the parameters I've set. Apparently I keep implying others are Bad at socionics—not my intention. They're simply wrong
There is a blue pill and a red pill....
I don't agree with that second one. Even if they convey certainty about their beliefs, LIIs are often terrible at convincing others of them (me included) -- and often they don't care. Convincing others often involves Se and/or Fe. This description could describe Donald Trump 100% for example.
This is more my cup of tea: (click on it)
Crack it.jpg
Last edited by jason_m; 02-21-2017 at 06:08 AM.
I got that one wrong as well... And it can't be explained because I believe that it is simply a convention. It's just a trick question, like getting an answer on a math test wrong because you give 7/0 = 0 instead of 'undefined.' In other words, I wouldn't sweat it as it's just a technicality...Originally Posted by Vois
Last edited by jason_m; 02-21-2017 at 06:31 AM.
Like this issue:
http://www.math.hawaii.edu/~ramsey/Logic/IfThen.html
Last edited by jason_m; 02-21-2017 at 06:00 AM.
I've read your answer and researched the issue of vacuous truths now. E.g., here.
This is what I believe:
1) They're probably not completely arbitrary. For instance, P -> Q has to be equivalent to ~Q -> ~P. For this to be the case, when P is false and Q is false, ~Q -> ~P must be true. The only way they could be equivalent then is for P -> Q to be true when they're both false. So there is a reason for this one, and this might be the case for other vacuous truths, including the formula about the empty set above (Explaining your answer with a little more detail would be helpful to me as well...).
2) They're part convention as well; there are other logical systems where vacuous truths are eliminated - e.g. here. In other words, if they weren't somewhat arbitrary, then we would be forced to accept them in almost any logical system that applies to the real world...
EDIT: a better explanation than mine here. E.g.:
Say we believe that all rubies are red, and we consider some some collection of rubies, called RR; say RR is all my rubies.
We would like to conclude that all my rubies are red. This seems very reasonable, since all rubies are red. But with your idea, this conclusion might be false! At best we can say that all my rubies are red, if I have any rubies.
This qualification doesn't add anything to the analysis. It doesn't illuminate any subtle point. It just complicates the discussion with an uninteresting special case.
Since the purpose of formal logic is to model plausible reasoning as closely and as simply as possible, we agree to the convention that "all my rubies are red" is deemed to be true even when I have no rubies, so that we don't have to qualify a lot of claims with "… if there are any such rubies".
Last edited by jason_m; 02-22-2017 at 04:58 AM.
Because of this test, I got PMs questioning my status as a logical type - as to whether I am 'EII.'
This is what I believe:
How logical a person you are is not reducible to any specific test score, course grade, or personality function. How passionate, dedicated, and competent you are is important. How much you have applied your abilities is as well. The real question is not about your 'IQ' or even if you are 'Ti' in socionics. The real question is how you have lived your life. Have you have dedicated your life to logic or not? That is the deciding factor. I don't care if I get an 'F' in linear algebra of if I'm 'Fi.' It is how you have lived your life. I know that I have lived a life of logic. I really don't care if I'm an 'ethical type' or what helloquizzy.com or Ausra Augusta have to say about it.
Last edited by jason_m; 02-23-2017 at 05:39 AM.
this isn't your personal blog
I think this sort of exercise is like made for LSI. Crunching it straight towards a point kind of structure and they can be very adamant about it. Makes the scope bit narrow. I'd rather poke it from different angles.
MOTTO: NEVER TRUST IN REALITY
Winning is for losers
Sincerely yours,
idiosyncratic type
Life is a joke but do you have a life?
Joinif you dare https://matrix.to/#/#The16Types:matrix.org
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...
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.
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.
LSI: “I still can’t figure out Pinterest.”
Me: “It’s just, like, idea boards.”
LSI: “I don’t have ideas.”
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: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.The wheels turn okay. You appear to distinguish your modus ponens from your modus tollens. However, brushing up on some formalism wouldn't hurt, either.
You only need a basic proficiency with the first-order predicate logic in order to resolve all of the problems on this quiz. Take two months of your life to learn or review it and really ace this thing!
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.