Neuroscience, Jungian Type and Mathematics: Insights into Student Struggles[video]

[Tabula]

What is "fake logic?" I don't get it. If person A used logic to get an answer, and person B didn't but got the same (correct) answer, I wouldn't say person B was "faking logic;" he's not using logic at all--just some other method. Can someone explain this to me?

 

[INTP]

What is "fake logic?" I don't get it. If person A used logic to get an answer, and person B didn't but got the same (correct) answer, I wouldn't say person B was "faking logic;" he's not using logic at all--just some other method. Can someone explain this to me?

she didnt say that there is some thing called "fake logic". she said "only two types actually use the logic center of our brains, rest of us fake it...we can all learn to use it". for example one could use memory instead of logic when solving a logic problem. "hey this seems quite much like the problem i saw last year, ill check is the same method for solving this one works here too". or someone might just try different methods of solving it, instead of actually using logic to think which method would work.

 

[21%]

she didnt say that there is some thing called "fake logic". she said "only two types actually use the logic center of our brains, rest of us fake it...we can all learn to use it". for example one could use memory instead of logic when solving a logic problem. "hey this seems quite much like the problem i saw last year, ill check is the same method for solving this one works here too". or someone might just try different methods of solving it, instead of actually using logic to think which method would work.

I suspect that I'm one of those who 'fake logic' -- but wonder how this happens in my brain. I used to have a lot of fun with logic games and I thought I was pretty good at those. And now I'm intrigued by what 'real logic' is like

 

[Cellmold]

she didnt say that there is some thing called "fake logic". she said "only two types actually use the logic center of our brains, rest of us fake it...we can all learn to use it". for example one could use memory instead of logic when solving a logic problem. "hey this seems quite much like the problem i saw last year, ill check is the same method for solving this one works here too". or someone might just try different methods of solving it, instead of actually using logic to think which method would work.

True, but I would also add that there has to be a logical underpinning to most of the systems we create.

Like mathematics for example. Even generally illogical people have to use logic to understand a relationship like 1 + 1 = 2.

 

[INTP]

And now I'm intrigued by what 'real logic' is like

 

[INTP]

True, but I would also add that there has to be a logical underpinning to most of the systems we create.

Like mathematics for example. Even generally illogical people have to use logic to understand a relationship like 1 + 1 = 2.

im pretty sure she meant that only two types are often using it and using it on more complex tasks. also as i mentioned memory, 1+1=2 is something that can be easily remembered and i dont think that anyone has to use their logic center to know that adding 1 to 1 is 2

 

[Cellmold]

im pretty sure she meant that only two types are often using it and using it on more complex tasks. also as i mentioned memory, 1+1=2 is something that can be easily remembered and i dont think that anyone has to use their logic center to know that adding 1 to 1 is 2

I agree, but I think someone does have to understand WHY 1 + 1 = 2 for it to have any basis at all. Although it is true this wasn't really relevant to the 'logic centre' of the brain discussion to do with type.

And memory masquerading as logic is a common pitfall I find. I know I do it all the time, but that's largely when dealing with problems I have no knowledge of. I usually go for an experimental approach first, gather some information try and work out a plan of attack. But if that fails I either fall back on others knowledge or go by a past method.

In typology this could be attributed to Si..Te maybe. However I am not a logical thinker and I openly admit it, not so I can disregard logic of course, but out of some misguided notion of honesty and acceptance. But of course memory also plays an important part in what we know, it is both the cornerstone of our personalities and our knowledge and yet...at the same time not the be all of our systems of reasoning. Could logic work without the basis input of a memory data-base in the first place though?

And I'm not talking about the usual considerations of what memory is, as in the individual with their acquired knowledge, so much as how it defines us in terms of knowing how to speak, knowing what something actually is....knowing what 'knowing' actually entails and understanding why that should be.

Incidentally I was trying to research the logic centre of the brain, but I couldn't find much to justify the term 'logic centre'. Possibly I wasn't looking in the right place. Although I do know she meant in terms of Dario Nardi's mappings.

I did find this however: http://www.atlantabrainandspine.com/subject.php?pn=brain-anatomy-066

In any case, what do you think the two types were? ITP's? ETJ's?

 

[INTP]

I agree, but I think someone does have to understand WHY 1 + 1 = 2 for it to have any basis at all. Although it is true this wasn't really relevant to the 'logic centre' of the brain discussion to do with type.

And memory masquerading as logic is a common pitfall I find. I know I do it all the time, but that's largely when dealing with problems I have no knowledge of. I usually go for an experimental approach first, gather some information try and work out a plan of attack. But if that fails I either fall back on others knowledge or go by a past method.

In typology this could be attributed to Si..Te maybe. However I am not a logical thinker and I openly admit it, not so I can disregard logic of course, but out of some misguided notion of honesty and acceptance. But of course memory also plays an important part in what we know, it is both the cornerstone of our personalities and our knowledge and yet...at the same time not the be all of our systems of reasoning. Could logic work without the basis input of a memory data-base in the first place though?

And I'm not talking about the usual considerations of what memory is, as in the individual with their acquired knowledge, so much as how it defines us in terms of knowing how to speak, knowing what something actually is....knowing what 'knowing' actually entails and understanding why that should be.

Incidentally I was trying to research the logic centre of the brain, but I couldn't find much to justify the term 'logic centre'. Possibly I wasn't looking in the right place. Although I do know she meant in terms of Dario Nardi's mappings.

I did find this however: http://www.atlantabrainandspine.com/subject.php?pn=brain-anatomy-066

In any case, what do you think the two types were? ITP's? ETJ's?

im pretty sure i remember reading some pdf from nardi where he said that ESTPs and INTPs use the "logic center" the most.

i suggest reading this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_regions_in_the_human_brain and clicking the links for functions of those areas, also there is this bit more simplified distinction of brain areas which is pretty popular and thought in neuropsychology classes http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brodmann_area#Brodmann_areas_for_human_.26_non-human_primates .

 

[Cellmold]

im pretty sure i remember reading some pdf from nardi where he said that ESTPs and INTPs use the "logic center" the most.

i suggest reading this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_regions_in_the_human_brain and clicking the links for functions of those areas, also there is this bit more simplified distinction of brain areas which is pretty popular and thought in neuropsychology classes http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brodmann_area#Brodmann_areas_for_human_.26_non-human_primates .

Thanks! I'll have a gander.

 

[FDG]

I mostly relate to the Ni description.

 

[Cellmold]

im pretty sure i remember reading some pdf from nardi where he said that ESTPs and INTPs use the "logic center" the most.

Oh I also meant to reply to this part of your post as well. I find that fascinating actually. INTP of course most people would expect based on bias and descriptions, but ESTP was a nice surprise.

The only thing I would ask is: How did Nardi know he had the right types to begin with?

 

[INTP]

Oh I also meant to reply to this part of your post as well. I find that fascinating actually. INTP of course most people would expect based on bias and descriptions, but ESTP was a nice surprise.

The only thing I would ask is: How did Nardi know he had the right types to begin with?

dunno, INTP and ESTP are both Ti users, what i find surprising is that even tho ISTP is Ti dom, ESTPs use this Ti(aka logic) area most along with INTP. if i remember correctly, ESTPs use it even more than INTPs. but who knows he didnt have that big of a test group, so it might just be individual variation

what cmes to determining type, he tested them first then look for best fit type http://www.typologycentral.com/foru.../62892-finding-best-fit-type-web-seminar.html

 

[Cellmold]

dunno, INTP and ESTP are both Ti users, what i find surprising is that even tho ISTP is Ti dom, ESTPs use this Ti(aka logic) area most along with INTP. if i remember correctly, ESTPs use it even more than INTPs. but who knows he didnt have that big of a test group, so it might just be individual variation

what cmes to determining type, he tested them first then look for best fit type http://www.typologycentral.com/foru.../62892-finding-best-fit-type-web-seminar.html

Well actually that was what I was originally going to mention, the fascination with the fact that an ESTP uses the logic centre both more than an INTP and the fact that ISTP's were not one of the two types.

As you said though, it might just be individual variation.

But I forgot what I was going to write on the end of my last post.

 

[ygolo]

I related to all the descriptions. I could think of examples when I learned things in all the ways mentioned. But I find that different strategies work better for different problems.

In teaching, based on research I read, I am largely favoring what is described as the Se(tennis hop) and Ne (christmas tree) preferences in discussions and telling people to make use of the Si strategy at home (lots of practice). Those who can sit there and just pop out answers, supposedly Ni, don't seem to need any help, so I just leave them be.

Also, I wonder if the woman giving the presentation has any relation to [MENTION=4516]edcoaching[/MENTION].