Quote Originally Posted by shotgunfingers View Post
Idk, what does this logic sound like to you?

1. Describe a time when you used your own reasoning and analytical skills to learn a new idea or system. How do you know the method(s) you chose were ideal? If you don't know, what hurdles do you think keep you from understanding this knowledge? Can you imagine how your insight has aided in further research related to the idea or system? Expand as much as needed.

As with most things IF I am uninterested in the subject I will most likely procrastinate and fail to acquire the necessary knowledge even if I try to push myself. If I'm interested however, it means I will take almost every opportunity to "dabble" and "play" in a flow state with the idea or system and no hurdle is big enough to overcome eventually by sheer attrition until I understand it. I prefer to be hands on, in the process and learn best by understanding how everything connects into a wider system. Why? Because its fun. For this reason I enjoy talking about my interests with others, debating certain aspects. I enjoy feedback from other people amd need to know their thoughts, to compare and contrast them to mine. While I may seem like I'm confident in my understanding of things, and may dismiss other people's ideas or argue against them or just devil's advocate, the reality is that I doubt myself quite a lot & feedback is something I rely on and consequently value. It is one thing to casually enjoy a lively discussion with another layman and another thing to argue with someone who has in depth knowledge about his/her own field. Just reading reference material and thinking for myself isn't enough. It is how I go about learning socionics for example, but its not limited to that. For deep insight and advancement one would have to reach mastery in a given field and this hasn't happened to me yet, so I haven't contributed to advancements or research. I'm also not academically inclined at all and more at home with pragmatic applied knowledge or "realistic" Holland code cluster "R". Despite this I sometimes dabble in more abstract areas of interest, which is how I found socionics, proceeded to read reference material, look up examples, try to figure myself out and argue with other people possibly for months on obscure forums and video-chat going through sources of information which ranged from dubious to more legitimate as well as asking a specialist in the field to see what he thought about my own personality. The overall picture is still incomplete as I proceed from details to the whole, but I'm confident of my level of knowledge, less so in experience. Regardless it is highly interesting and that keeps fueling my desire to know more.

2. Describe a time when you exchanged reasoning and analysis with another person to learn a new idea or system. How do you respond to someone who criticizes your knowledge while asserting their own? How do you decide which sources of information are best? Do you believe that most people have better reasoning skills than you? Why or why not?

As stated in the previous question I enjoy arguing with people. Even if I'm wrong about something I can only gain / learn from it, plus it is fun and I do this regularly and other people may have information that is unknown to me. If someone criticizes my knowledge I will argue back and they will need to prove to me that I'm not understanding something correctly or that I have false information. This doesn't mean that I'm confident in my knowledge, far from it, I doubt myself a lot, but I doubt them as well. I will learn from the process regardless of me or them being right in the end. As far as information sources go, imo proven reliable authorities in their own areas of expertise are the best.. BUT it doesn't mean that they know absolutely everything, which makes all sources valuable, more or less. I seem to think a lot of ppl have worse reasoning skills then me, but I often doubt myself and it is reasonable to assume that there are many ppl with vastly better reasoning skills than me. To think I am always right would be idiotic. [Probably not for a 1L person, lol] By default I defer to the knowledge of an expert, especially if I haven't fully understood something, but may eventually start arguing once I do understand. Imo this is just common sense or being realistic.
Hmm, given what I know of the system so far it strikes me as very much 3L, especially the bolded. You seem to need to process L--engage back and forth with others--which would indicate 2nd or 3rd.

The key point for 3L to me is speaking about distrust of your own logical process as well as doubting what others say. The third function mistrusts and devalues both the self and others, can swing to overconfidence/arrogance at times and then back down again. 1L people usually think they're right which can drive 3L people insane.

Also the hesitancy to contribute to advancement and research until you have fully mastered something or have a fully formed opinion. I think 2L is more confident putting forth half-formed ideas or even misinformation because they don't personalize Logic so much. They're not so attached to their opinions and don't experience much doubt or anxiety in this area. (<--I'm less sure about this last part, would need a 2L person to confirm their perspective)