Do you prefer logic or evidence?

[Thalassa]

As much detail as you have provided, I'm not sure you understand the essence of the functions and what they mean.

I think you should probably just quit talking to me. I'm pretty sure I understand Si better than you do. Functions are attitudes, they are ways of seeing the world, they aren't things like "memory" and Si is not "a matching function."

I didn't realize you were like this, until now.

You're doing this just because you said you think I'm an ENFP, in fact you announced it, like you know, and questioned why I thought I had Se instead of Ne, and I expressed my opinion that I don't necessarily feel sure you're an INTJ, so we probably shouldn't just have this conversation.

But you persisted. And now you're mad. And I never even said you were an ISTJ, just FTR. You're pissed off that I questioned your type.

But you questioned mine first.

This isn't about my understanding of Si. You've made it about you.

 

[Thalassa]

By the way [MENTION=988]Santtu[/MENTION], you've made an excellent case for people mistaking Si for logic.

Bravo.

 

[Rasofy]

Which is more important: the car or the fuel necessary for its running?

 

[Jaguar]

Which is more important: the car or the fuel necessary for its running?

Which is more important: the theory or the fact?

 

[Rasofy]

Which is more important: the theory or the fact?

The fact. In theory.

 

[Jaguar]

The fact. In theory.

You passed.

 

[Rasofy]

 

[highlander]

I think you should probably just quit talking to me. I'm pretty sure I understand Si better than you do. Functions are attitudes, they are ways of seeing the world, they aren't things like "memory" and Si is not "a matching function."

I didn't realize you were like this, until now.

You're doing this just because you said you think I'm an ENFP, in fact you announced it, like you know, and questioned why I thought I had Se instead of Ne, and I expressed my opinion that I don't necessarily feel sure you're an INTJ, so we probably shouldn't just have this conversation.

But you persisted. And now you're mad. And I never even said you were an ISTJ, just FTR. You're pissed off that I questioned your type.

I'm not mad. I just think you don't understand

 

[Mal12345]

1) Logically, the school should start the same time this monday as it started the last week
2) The time for monday's lessons will be found in the schedule
3) Logically, the person who invited me for a beer will provide all the beer we need
4) I'll find out if I need to bring my own beer by asking the person who invited me
5) Logically, the device should work when the start button is pressed
6) I'll find out the condition of this device after pressing the start button.
7) Logically, my spouse should be happy after coming home from whatever happy things (s)he did today.
8) I'll hear how my spouse's day turned out after (s)he comes home.

Do you agree more with the odd-numbered statements or even-numbered statements? This wasn't supposed to be a trick question or anything like that. I'm just saying that from my experience, I see people who claim to be "logical" as just like that. Agreeing with the odd-numbered statements and not with the even-numbered. What more is there to it?

Logic. I despise looking for evidence. I hate being told I have to look in the schedule or find out for myself if the party is BYOB.

 

[gromit]

Prob a bit of both.

 

[PJWakt]

Prefer evidence. It always trumps logic. Logic often amounts to speculation over "what should be", whereas evidence tells us "what is". Maybe logic helps us move from one piece of evidence to the next and know what sorts of evidence to look for.

 

[Ghost of the dead horse]

That shouldn't be a hard question to answer, there is a lot of weight placed on appearing logical and therefore in the right when it comes to the everyday lives of people. Even though there are plenty of irrational loudmouths in general society, you might be surprised how often you would hear someone completely off the rails emotionally, claim they are being logical.

This tends to happen more with men than women since men are conditioned by many cultures into being told they are the more logical gender, despite evidence to the contrary. It could easily seem to a Thinking type that most of the world runs on an unfair bias favouring emotionality and likability over sound logic, but ÃŽ find that even with the lowest common denominator, there is an emphasis on being seen as logical and therefore making more sense even if the individual never demonstrates anything of the sort. The internet is another good example where, removed from the pressures of physical immediacy, careful examination of the content of peoples posts becomes more important than interpersonal skills at reading their emotions.

This could be put down to there being more thinkers, especially NT's, online, but I find even those not of that variety will attempt to appear more logical. Although this seems to be changing with the more accessible nature of modern internet.
It may also be that the online culture was first developed by thinkers in general to begin with.

The odd numbered "analysis" are non sequiturs, while the even numbered statements are just that... statements. The even numbered ones don't illustrate any sort of inferences or conclusions. Perhaps this is why the odd numbered sentences would be considered "logical" - they include some sort of explanation based off of horse-sense. They seem reasonable insofar as they are expediently practical, given an amount of "common knowledge". However, a strictly logical person would consider this implicit common knowledge to be presumptuous at worst and omitted at best.

TBH if there's any function that's based on evidence, it's Sensing in general.

By the way [MENTION=988]Santtu[/MENTION], you've made an excellent case for people mistaking Si for logic.

Bravo.

The examples of logic in the OP miss most of the essential parts to make a statement "logical". People use their own, hidden (and unmentioned) assumptions (or premises) in them. In each case, the hidden assumption is more important than the facts stated, which is why the statements seem way off.

I'd just wish that people would state their assumptions before naming any of their conclusions "logical". I might not share their assumptions. My reaction to each of the odd-numbered statements would be: "Assuming what?"

 

[FemMecha]

In theory I prefer logic, but having spent so much time online with NTs, I have seen way too many bizarre head-trips result from a preference for logic alone. "Garbage in garbage out" has been mentioned, and it is amazing how far away from reality logic can take a person. Many of the ideologies of the 20th century were logic driven without accountability to how it maps to reality which caused the greatest problems mankind has ever created.

I guess I would have to say that I prefer logic, but only when it is constrained by accountability.

 

[Such Irony]

Both but more logic than evidence. I also related more to the odd numbered statements in the original post. I often go by what seems logical in my mind and I've had to learn the hard way that sometimes true knowledge comes from testing to see if your hypothesis was right. My assumptions have not always been right so I've learned to do more of the things in the even numbered statements. By nature though, I'm a logic > evidence person. Which is not surprising considering I'm Ti > Te. I could also make a case for seeing some Si in the odd numbered statements as [MENTION=6877]Marmotini[/MENTION] pointed out. I'm also Si > Se

 

[The Great One]

1) Logically, the school should start the same time this monday as it started the last week
2) The time for monday's lessons will be found in the schedule
3) Logically, the person who invited me for a beer will provide all the beer we need
4) I'll find out if I need to bring my own beer by asking the person who invited me
5) Logically, the device should work when the start button is pressed
6) I'll find out the condition of this device after pressing the start button.
7) Logically, my spouse should be happy after coming home from whatever happy things (s)he did today.
8) I'll hear how my spouse's day turned out after (s)he comes home.

Do you agree more with the odd-numbered statements or even-numbered statements? This wasn't supposed to be a trick question or anything like that. I'm just saying that from my experience, I see people who claim to be "logical" as just like that. Agreeing with the odd-numbered statements and not with the even-numbered. What more is there to it?

Basically what this thread is saying is: Do you prefer to use Ti or Te?

 

[Mal12345]

Basically what this thread is saying is: Do you prefer to use Ti or Te?

I don't understand 7 and 8. But the even ones are using Se. Even number 8 could be using the expectation aspect of Se, but that's for another thread.

 

[mintleaf]

Basically what this thread is saying is: Do you prefer to use Ti or Te?

Which would be which?

depends
if we're talking about general or theoretical concepts: logic. sometimes things are intuitively obvious and necessitating evidence to prove them is overkill
if we're talking about actually getting something done: evidence. sometimes what works in reality really isn't logical at all

but nothing's outside the realm of logic, in those situations it's just that our understanding of it is limited. I mostly agree, though. the use of evidence is often more reliable than theory, especially if we're talking about real-world situations, but we still wouldn't know what to do with the evidence if it weren't for basic logical skills.

 

[Tabula]

The examples in the OP are seriously throwing me off from my already-shaky understanding of what logic even is. I suppose that answers the question for me.

 

[Mal12345]

The examples in the OP are seriously throwing me off from my already-shaky understanding of what logic even is. I suppose that answers the question for me.

The first two are the best examples.
1) Logically, the school should start the same time this monday as it started the last week
2) The time for monday's lessons will be found in the schedule

1 is making a prediction based on logic. It may be a fallacy, but it's still logic, and it exists only in the head.
2 is asking you to look to the outside world for evidence that may contradict the logic of #1.

For a close example, when I started my present job with a group of others, we were all given a work schedule. I thought that was that. But my logic-based assumption was wrong. In fact (and much to my chagrin) a co-worker pointed out to me that the schedule was changing daily. He knew this because he looked at the schedule.

I have never in my life had a break schedule that could change daily. Why would I assume otherwise? And why was the co-worker on top of this fact? I don't know, but I'm certain he was more of a J than I am.

 

[Thalassa]

The first two are the best examples.
1) Logically, the school should start the same time this monday as it started the last week
2) The time for monday's lessons will be found in the schedule

1 is making a prediction based on logic. It may be a fallacy, but it's still logic, and it exists only in the head.
2 is asking you to look to the outside world for evidence.

For a close example, when I started my present job with a group of others, we were all given a work schedule. I thought that was that. But my logic-based assumption was wrong. In fact (and much to my chagrin) a co-worker pointed out to me that the schedule was changing daily. He knew this because he looked at the schedule.

I have never in my life had a break schedule that could change daily. Why would I assume otherwise. And why was the co-worker on top of this fact? I don't know, but I'm certain he was more of a J than I am.

Number 1 is making a prediction based on Si. "I had never in my life had a break schedule that could change daily. Why would I assume otherwise." Because you have Si, that's why.