Logic

[Aylen]

I accused someone of not being logical which got me thinking about logic. I found this quiz and even though it has been awhile since I studied logic. I took it anyway. My last two boyfriends had studied logic. One had a masters in library science and was ILI . The other is an SLE architect. They both tried to teach me formal logic.I have forgotten a lot of it so my score was not very high, ...

So I have a some questions:

Are logical types more capable of grasping formal logic than ethical types?

What does it mean to be a "logical" type in socionics?

Theoretically, can you change your type through study?


Some of the questions were very easy but others I could not understand the logic behind the correct answer. Someone tried to help me understand today but they had to go to work and left me frustrated.
http://www.helloquizzy.com/tests/the...-aptitude-test

Your result for The Logical Aptitude Test ...
You Are Semi-Rational.

You scored 29 out of 45.

Let's put it this way. You've gone to school. Maybe you learned something about valid reasoning while you were there. You can even hold up a reasoned discourse in a chat...as long as it's really brief.
But something is wrong. It's just that you lose focus. You can't get your argument to convince anyone, really. You muddle through rhetorical tricks until everyone has forgotten what you were trying to prove in the first place. Then, you will often end with a platitude like: "It's all just relative, right?" Well, no. Your regular failure to connect the premises in a way that matches a valid argument does not prove relativism, or much of anything.
Just study logic, not your impressions of what you think logic "should be," or what "seems logical" to you -- just dull, formal logic. That much will help your reasoning and make those chats and arguments more substantive than your usual drivel.


You scored 29% on Validity, higher than
68% of your peers.

My biggest problem with these tests are that they do take some focus and I like my answers to come faster. Do intuitive types get their "answers" faster but have a harder time focusing when it requires plain old logic? I am not talking about common sense here since I feel my common sense is pretty intuitive. My critical thinking skills are pretty good as well.


Edit: I answered every question even when I wasn't sure so it cost me some points. If anyone takes the quiz skip it if you can't figure it out.

[Absurd]

Ahhh, Ti masturbation. Well, you got the proper forum covered, Aylen. Anyway, may check it after the great soley sunwheel Absurdiess jas left my scorched body and most importantly alcohol has evaporated.

[krieger]

lol. what a troll

[Aylen]

lol. what a troll

Hah not a troll thread. I am stuck on this logic thing now and once something is stuck in my head I have to sort it out. Therefore I made a thread where I thought someone who knows the answers would answer them Like the question Vois mentioned above is frustrating when someone tries to explain it to me.. If someone is trolling my thread with irrelevant comments because they don't know the answers that's fine too, I want answers to my specific questions, nothing more.

Edited because of factor.

Edit @Kim @bg if this is in the wrong section can you please move it. Thank you.

[krieger]

i meant vois' quoted question. if you think their answer is illogical i would say there is probably nothing wrong with your "Ti".

[Aylen]

i meant vois' quoted question. if you think their answer is illogical i would say there is probably nothing wrong with your "Ti".

Sorry I am just on a one track mind right now and took it personal.

I'm laughing at my own hurt feelings... I am definitely not very rational.

[ashlesha]

????????????????

[Eldanen]

shit test.

question 5: If someone says, "I killed all of the Gormagians," when is it logically true?
"correct" answer: It's logically true when Gormagians never existed.

nope nope nope

Thank you so much.

[Capitalist Pig]

you guys are making it too about the legality logic math club shit and missing the point

[Eldanen]

you guys are making it too about the legality logic math club shit and missing the point

Nigga what

[Reficulris]

chessclub chessclub logic missing point something!

[Absurd]

chessclub chessclub logic missing point something!

Missing point chess math legality logic.

[Aylen]

I took the quiz again and got "Rational". This time I read the instructions carefully and skipped the questions I was not sure of the first time. Apparently less is more. Following the instructions the first time probably would have been the logical thing to do..

I am still not comfortable with the answer to the question posted above but maybe I will wrap my head around it some day. I recall having a similar issue with time travel years ago, after reading "The Time Machine", and arguing why it was not possible and then one day I woke up "knowing" that it is theoretically possible. Before that epiphany I was troubled by the idea of human time travel.

I am still thinking about the questions I asked above though... hint hint I have relaxed about the "Gormagians". It kinda stressed me for a few hours. I have mentioned before that I can feel uncomfortable when I can't figure something out. I find myself thinking that I am the only person in the world that doesn't "get it". I know that is not rational thinking.

Edit: Lesson for today: rational people do not get in over their heads. heh In real life I would avoid these kinds of discussions until I was sure I could pull it off, except with people I really trust not to make me feel stupid because I don't understand something.

[FDG]

There's a difference between being good at subjects / lines of work that require logical thinking and actually using this style of thinking in your everyday life. I would guess the latter is much more culturally influenced, while the former it's more of a skill with a partially innate component and a training component.

I wouldn't personally trust a SLE telling me "you're not logical". They often seem have their own version of "logic" which is mostly about "whatever kind of argument that makes it look like I am right".

[Kill4Me]

I draw on my common sense and street smarts to get the upperhand. I am usually plotting 10 steps ahead of them and tend to run circles around them with a mixture of logic and some emotional manipulation.

I have done this with a couple of ILI as well but their intuitive edge made it a little harder . Academically they could run circles around me but they taught me how to use critical thinking so that I would not come off as "stupid" when I talked to others so that gave me an edge further along in the relationships to turn their logic against them by observing and kinda mimicking their style.

ah okay...so you were manipulating absurd and invisiblejim on the Free Absurd and other threads.

But Absurd claims it's you and invisiblejim who are pawns in a game of his design.

Further more invisiblejim sees himself as an abusive person:



so which is it...

[Aylen]

ah okay...so you were manipulating absurd and invisiblejim on the Free Absurd and other threads.

But Absurd claims it's you and invisiblejim who are pawns in a game of his design.

Further more invisiblejim sees himself as an abusive person:



so which is it...

Awww, Stanley

I am feeling compassion for you so I will answer these questions. Don't mistake my kindness for weakness. First of all those were real life romantic relationships I was talking about. It was not a challenge to you as an SLE or related to our interactions so I hope you didn't take it personal.

RE: Absurd thread... I was supporting my friends and a "cause" (exposing unfair banning practices) in that thread. That's all... see my signature for clarity.

Please highlight where absurd claims injim and I are his pawns. I just saw a sarcastic post in response to you and Zap/Ath antagonizing him over a long period of time (trying to get him banned) and him letting you know he has dealt with people like you before and knows from experience how to handle you. He basically says he is going to get you to expose yourself, which he did. I didn't read anything else into it.

InJim is a sarcastic person and has a somewhat dry and sometimes dark sense of humor. I appreciate that kind of humor and it's part of the reason I like him so damn much. Absurd's sense of humor is similar but a bit darker, maybe. They are cool people and I understand them as much as they allow me to. The three of us have things in common. We maintain an aura of mystery in many ways and we don't let a lot of people into our private worlds. Even with all I have shared about myself on this forum I have not exposed all my real vulnerabilities. I keep my iron shield up.

Instead of trying to find ways to beat me why don't you share something about yourself so people don't think you are just some crazed internet stalker fixated on taking me down...Yeah, you won't and I think I know why. If there is nothing else then let's proceed with "harassing other people." and not talking to each other.

Edit: Making fun of you is not fun anymore. It makes me feel bad after so just leave me alone unless you have something relevant to the topics in the threads. If you just want to "poke me" keep it to yourself or talk behind my back like you usually do.

[The Martrix]

Are logical types more capable of grasping formal logic than ethical types?

What does it mean to be a "logical" type in socionics?

Theoretically, can you change your type through study?

1) Not necessarily.

2) Logical types are going to use logic as a form of rationalisation in decision making -- which is not necessarily the "logical" thing to do in all cases. Also, it doesn't mean they're logic is without fault.

Going further: Ti-bases are going to see the world as being logical, something to be evaluated, analysed, and a natural place for drawing firm conclusions from. (Static viewpoint/static response). Te-bases are going to see the world as not being logical enough, and therefore feel a need to bring order and structure into it. (Dynamic viewpoint/static response).

3) No, you can't change to a logical type. But never think of that as an impediment. Just because you don't see the world as logical doesn't mean logic has to be an alien concept to you. You can be an ethical type and learn to be better at maths than a logical type who hasn't bothered.

[Aylen]

1) Not necessarily.

2) Logical types are going to use logic as a form of rationalisation in decision making -- which is not necessarily the "logical" thing to do in all cases. Also, it doesn't mean they're logic is without fault.

Going further: Ti-bases are going to see the world as being logical, something to be evaluated, analysed, and a natural place for drawing firm conclusions from. (Static viewpoint/static response). Te-bases are going to see the world as not being logical enough, and therefore feel a need to bring order and structure into it. (Dynamic viewpoint/static response).

3) No, you can't change to a logical type. But never think of that as an impediment. Just because you don't see the world as logical doesn't mean logic has to be an alien concept to you. You can be an ethical type and learn to be better at maths than a logical type who hasn't bothered.

Thanks, I am starting to realize that no matter what I do I am not going to be seen as a Mr Spock logical type. I am so random... I have been this way since childhood according to my family. I do learn pretty fast and was considered a "gifted student" even though I rarely turned in homework. I was sent to alternative school where they used different methods. I was an A student. I quit school before I reached high school though and have been self educated, for the most part, since then. I do seek out people I feel will help me learn and understand but it is on my terms now.

This seems to be right-brain left-brain related??? I have taken almost every quiz on the internet I could find on it and consistently tested right brain, except when I was under the tutelage of some left brain logical type. Then I test as balanced brain but when they aren't around for a while I quickly revert back to right-brain. It's like they can enhance my left-brain activity and make me use that part of my brain more. I actually like it.

I really want to know what goes on in those logical brains. My mom is LSI and uneducated but I just see she is a logical type in her demeanor and they way she approaches problems. She can't even read or write English but when I see her wheels turning I just want to scream, "how do you think?". I did ask her that years ago and her response was, "I don't think in Greek anymore I think in English." I guess that was a logical response even though it wasn't an intellectual response so perhaps logical in socionics has less to do with actual intellect than I thought. On some of the visual right/left quizzes my mom views things from a balanced brain perspective. Meh this is something that has my brain whirling right now.

 

 

 

[Absurd]

Thanks, I am starting to realize that no matter what I do I am not going to be seen as a Mr Spock logical type.

You don't want to be "Capitalist" Pig's type?

Young lady...

[Aylen]

You don't want to be "Capitalist" Pig's type?

Young lady...

No, I couldn't pull it off... Although when I saw his video, I noticed he is way more laid back than I imagined.

[Absurd]

No, I couldn't pull it off... Although when I saw his video, I noticed he is way more laid back than I imagined.

Wat? Video?

Link me, kek.

[Galen]

Are logical types more capable of grasping formal logic than ethical types?

Maybe not so much simply grasping it as much as having a natural penchant towards implementing it where applicable.

What does it mean to be a "logical" type in socionics?

A predisposition towards intellectual understanding of received information over experiential synthesis.

Theoretically, can you change your type through study?

Depends on what your theory says.

[The Martrix]

A predisposition towards intellectual understanding of received information over experiential synthesis.

I'm an ethical type (supposedly), and I've always had this predisposition you speak of.

[Galen]

I'm an ethical type (supposedly), and I've always had this predisposition you speak of.

Then one of us is lying.

[Aylen]

Then one of us is lying.

Hmm, not necessarily lying if intuition also plays a part in it... Perhaps logic and intuition is the key combination... But an intuitive ethical may have the right order of functions needed to easily grasp logical information in a different way but still get it. They may not be able to express their understanding in the same way as a logical intuitive (order of function may be important or not) type. Just typing out loud here.

[The Martrix]

Then one of us is lying.

Lying would entail a deliberate perversion of facts. I don't see why either of us would bother over such a thing.

It's the one thing that is confusing my typing.

[Satan]

fwiw, i really really hate this test, and i just put random shit for the last two. i couldn't take any more.

http://www.helloquizzy.com/results/t...y=17&fromCGI=1

i got you are a dumbass, 17/45

i was kind of fucking arond earlier too.

but yeah i struggle with this kind of logic stuff a bit?

[Satan]

i hated this test:

i mean come on.

1
All humans are reptiles.
Some mammals are omnivores.
Some primates are humans.
Something is a mammal only if it is not a reptile.
Given these and only these premises, which of the following has to be the case?

Something isn't a mammal if it's a human.
Some reptiles are omnivores.
There exists a mammal that is a primate.
No humans are reptiles.
2
A and B is the case if and only if B or C is the case.

What must follow from this premise?

If A, then B, and if B, then C.
B or C, or not B, or not A, and if A, then C.
If B, then C. Also, if B, then B.
If B, then A. Also, if C, then A.
3
My friend is a junkie.
All junkies are losers.
All losers are bothersome.
Which of the following claims is inconsistent with these premises?

My friend is a loser.
My friend is not bothersome.
All junkies are bothersome.
All non-bothersome people are non-junkies.
4
If someone is an active creature, then everyone is a brainy creature. Cats exist only if there is at least one dog. Natalie is an active cat. What must follow?

There exists a brainy dog.
Some dogs are cats.
Natalie is not a brainy cat.
Natalie is an active dog.
5
If someone says, "I killed all of the Gormagians," when is it logically true?

It's logically true when all of the Gormagiaons are dead.
It's logically true when I kill all of the Gormagians.
It's logically true when Gormagians never existed.
It's logically true when I kill the last Gormagian.
6
There doesn't exist a human that isn't also an invertebrate.

What must follow given that premise?

There exists one invertebrate or one human.
There exists an invertebrate if there is at least one human.
There is at least one vertebrate human.
Humans are not invertebrates.
7
All collectors are arbiters.
There exists a collector.
There exists a collector who is a broker.
Based on the premises, we could only deduce one of the following. Which one?

There exists an arbiter.
There exists a broker who is not an arbiter.
There exists a collector who is not an arbiter.
There exists a non-broker.
8
Two men walk into a bar.

Of the two men, one buys a beer.

Of the two men, one buys a shot of whiskey.

Of the two men, one buys a martini.


What follows from these facts?

One of the men bought one drink.
One of the men bought three drinks.
One of the men bought at least two drinks.
None of the other answers are consistent.
9
Some people marvel all people and all people believe some people. Alice is someone.



If the above statements are true, which of the following is impossible?

Alice marvels Bruno, and Bruno is believed by Alice.
Alice believes herself and is marveled by herself.
All people are marveled by some people, but some people are believed by all people.
Someone isn't marveled by Alice, or someone doesn't believe her.
10
'Both not-A and B' is equivalent to which of the following statements?

'Either not-A or not-B.'
'Not either not-A or not-B.'
'Not either not-A or not, not-B.'
'Not either not not-A or not-B.'
11
'If flangle and flingle, then flingle, then flangle,' also means...

Flangle and flingle.
Flangle.
Flingle, and not flangle.
Not flangle or not flingle.
12
If X equals Y, Y equals Z, and X is the ancestor of Y, then...

X, Y, and Z are all their own ancestors.
X is ancestor to Z, but Z is not ancestor to Y.
Y is ancestor to Z and X, but not himself.
Y and Z are the only ancestors of each other.
13
Where X, Y, and Z designate people, what's another way of saying, "There are exactly two people in the room?"

X is in the room and Y is in the room, but Z is not in the room.
X and Z are in the room, and they are not the same, and Y is not in the room.
X is in the room and Y is in the room, but if a Z is in the room, then Z is either X or Y, and X and Y are not the same!
X is in the room, and all Y's, if in the room, are the same as X, and Z is in the room.
14
You obey bivalence, so if it is false that Barcelona is the capital of Spain, is it true that it is not the case that it's true that it's false that Barcelona is not the capital of Spain?

No.
Yes.
Maybe.
It depends...
15
Either ostriches eat engines or both ostriches eat engines and orangutans eat steering wheels if, and only if...

Ostriches eat engines.
Ostriches eat engines and steering wheels.
Orangutans eat steering wheels and ostriches eat engines.
Orangutans eat what ostriches eat.

[marooned]

25/45 "semi-rational"

i missed questions 5, 9, 11, 12 and 15. i found question 9 impossibly hard and i don't understand it.

i thought questions 1, 3, 4, 6, 7 and 8 (once you actually look at 8) were quite easy.

a look at a few of them...

2. A and B is the case if and only if B or C is the case. What must follow from this premise?

B --> set A, B
C --> set A, B

where these are the only ways you can get set A, B

If A, then B, and if B, then C.
B or C, or ~B, or ~A, and if A, then C.
If B, then C. Also, if B, then B.
If B, then A. Also, if C, then A.

i picked the right answer but i wasn't sure about it. the first three choices were obviously wrong though. my thoughts on this were that just because B or C exist doesn't necessarily mean that A does also, or that set A, B has arisen... we only really know that if we are seeing set A, B that we have B and/or C. in other words, i'm confused. maybe "is the case" is what's throwing me off.


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

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

well, just because they're all dead doesn't mean our "someone" killed all of them...

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

i didn't know if we were taking "I" as the "someone"? there's also a tense issue... the tense is implying that "I" haven't killed them all yet... (i picked this one because i didn't know what else to pick.)

It's logically true when Gormagians never existed.

if they never existed, then how could our "someone" have killed them all?

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

this one is very similar to the second option, and i'm not sure it's significantly different from that option. that probably should have tipped me off that neither it or the second option can be the answer...

anyway, i would have preferred "none of the above" for this one. obviously i don't understand what "logically true" means?


10. Both ~A and B is equivalent to which of the following statements?

Either ~A or ~B.

i couldn't tell on this one. this would mean we can't have both ~A and ~B, which we don't. but i don't think this is close enough to be "equivalent"...

Not either ~A or ~B.

well, no. because we do have ~A.

Not either ~A or B.

no, because we have both.

Not either A or ~B.

i picked this one, but wasn't sure about it. it's true basically.


11. If flangle and flingle, then flingle, then flangle, also means...

flangle = A; flingle = B

If A & B, then B, then A, also means...

A & B
A
B and ~A
~B or ~A

i selected the first one, which was wrong. i guess this is supposed to be a sequence, and at the end of the sequence we are left with flangle (A)?


12. If X=Y, Y=Z, and X is the ancestor of Y, then...

X gave rise to Y, and Y is exactly the same as X.

X, Y, and Z are all their own ancestors.
X is ancestor to Z, but Z is not ancestor to Y.
Y is ancestor to Z and X, but not himself.
Y and Z are the only ancestors of each other.

i think i picked the second one. the last two are obviously wrong. i didn't like my choice and i have a problem with the first choice, or correct answer.

i was thinking of X as basically giving rise to its clone, Y (where this clone is a perfect copy, and therefore is exactly the same as X (equal to X)). Z could be another clone X gave rise to, or it could be a clone Y gave rise to (in the same manner in which X gives rise to identical clones). so my issue with the first option is that although that could be true, i don't think it has to be true.


15. Either ostriches eat engines or both ostriches eat engines and orangutans eat steering wheels if, and only if...

either Os eat Es
or both Os eat Es and Rs eat Ws
if, and only if...

Os eat Es.
Os eat Es and Ws.
Rs eat Ws and Os eat Es.
Rs eat what Os eat.

it's between the first option and the third (i selected the third). i think that mainly what this is, is that you can't have any of this if you don't have "Os eat Es." the causality of it falls apart without that. i guess?

[miss BabyDoll]

You Are Most Logical!

You scored 41 out of 45.

You know deduction. You spot inconsistency. You know the difference between a contingency and a tautology. For you, most discourse is more or less transparent. Accept these kudos as the least that this quiz can offer to you.
If you didn't get a perfect score, wait a week and review the thing then. You definitely have a sense for implications and proofs, but may have gotten caught up in some of the rhetoric along the way.


Your Analysis (Vertical line = Average)

• 
  You scored 41% on Validity, higher than 94% of your peers.

edit; retook it got 45/45

Your Analysis (Vertical line = Average)


You scored 45% on Validity, higher than 99% of your peers.

[Myst]

You Are Most Logical!

You scored 41 out of 45.

Lol same as me; like the pic?

ohh and redoing the test, I also score 45/45. I guess not only our types are similar eh?

[anndelise]

Youch. I answered all the questions as best I could, and ignored what i had read on here, answering it how i would have answered. 25 out of 45, "You scored 25% on Validity, higher than 52% of your peers."
I don't think I would have done even this well if I hadn't studied symbolic logic many years ago.
Time to nurse a headache...

[Words]

I don't sit no test.

Logicks for sckoolz

[squark]

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.

[Myst]

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

[The Reality Denialist]

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.

[Singu]

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.

[Myst]

If you have done truth tables, dabbled with group theory then this should be easy.

O_o I don't think you need any of that to do this test.

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!

Hahahah. Well for Leading function it isn't just a tool, it gains its own agenda. This is a big point in this theory.

It's ok to feel tired btw.

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.

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.

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...

I've actually done such programming.

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.

Leaving that up to you ILEs. Enjoy your speculations!

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.

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.

[squark]

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.

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.

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.

[Myst]

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?