Re: Society, Intuition and Logic
 

[ QUOTE ]
Of course logic speaks to emotion, what a silly, propagandized thing to say.

[/ QUOTE ]

What an odd choice of words.

Granted, "logic doesn't speak to emotion" is, as phrased, a much too broad declaration. The two are interrelated, as emotions will have an impact on logic, and logical conclusions will have an impact on one's emotions. However, this:

[ QUOTE ]
Logic is a process. Emotion is input. Logic takes your input, processes it, and gives you an output.

[/ QUOTE ]

. . . is an arbitrary view. One could just as accurately define logic as mere input for an emotional output. Your formulation seems to define non-logical epistemologies out of existence -- as fodder for the ultimate and inevitable logical process -- and what does that get us?

[ QUOTE ]
I could think my mother loves me because she says she does, I know that historically most mothers love their children, she feeds me, she buys me clothes and takes care of me, lots of things. Or I could know that my mother loves me because she smiles at me and makes me feel good and hugs me and I can see loving looks on her face. These are emotional responses. BUT IT IS STILL LOGIC. I am LOGICALLY coming to the conclusion that, based on these emotional inputs, my mother loves me.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, if you were to examine your relationship with your mother logically, that's about what it would look like. People seldom actually do that, though, because it's not that helpful. Given any sufficiently specific definition of "love" I'm sure you could take those hints and deduce that your mother "loves" you, but it doesn't reveal anything about the relationship itself. It usually just helps you lay out the words used to describe that relationship in a more consistent manner ... which is great, but it's still doing a very poor job of illuminating the nature of relationship. It's far too intangible, ineffable.


Meh, I get the feeling that no one in this thread is doing a good job of defining his terms. We're probably not getting anywhere until that's rectified.


EDIT: Ok, that's a start.

Re: Society, Intuition and Logic
 

[ QUOTE ]
Meh, I get the feeling that no one in this thread is doing a good job of defining his terms. We're probably not getting anywhere until that's rectified.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think this is a reoccuring problem in numerous threads.

Re: Society, Intuition and Logic
 

[ QUOTE ]
1. direct perception of truth, fact, etc., independent of any reasoning process; immediate apprehension.
2. a fact, truth, etc., perceived in this way.
3. a keen and quick insight.
4. the quality or ability of having such direct perception or quick insight.

[/ QUOTE ]

You mean the TRUTH that I was going to be harmed and that's why I ducked from the shadow of an airplane 10,000 feet above my head?

Or the TRUTH that the railway tracks do go together in the distance?

Learning to ride a bike may became a conditioned reflex but it never reveals any TRUTH or FACT as claimed by definition #1.

Whether something is true or a fact is what we'll determine after the event in those quick-reaction cases, by logical analysis. Once we determine that "hey, I got it right!" we still can't go back and "it is right because I intuited it". It's the logical test ... "did the plane hit me?" that determines the truth of the intuitive action.

luckyme

Re: Society, Intuition and Logic
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
This is somewhat related to (1), in that it probably springs from people's failure to realize two things: logic doesn't speak to emotion, and emotion is relevant.

[/ QUOTE ]

The girls that fall in love with abusers and child-molesters, etc. Would you say their intuition/emotion served them well? On what basis would you be able to say that? Would you base that on logical analysis or just wait for an emotion to come by with the answer?

Emotion tells us how we feel about something, it can't judge whether that feeling is getting a correct evaluation of the situation. People that get taken advantage of, even by a mother, can claim their emotions/intuitions were 'right' if they want, but the scars should prove otherwise, even though it's a mere logical conclusion.

It's "the wife is the last to know" or "my son wouldn't do that" situations that help illustrate this. Outsiders can see the manipulation of a gold-digger, say, because they are using logical analysis.

I like carrots, brunettes and convertibles. I get 'hunches' at the poker table that I act on ( people reading ones, not "my flush is rivering" ones). None of that is immune to logical analysis and in fact that is how I will judge whether my emotions are screwing me or not. If carrots constipate me, brunettes swindle me and convertibles cause bug-throat I may still be stuck with the 'liking' but now avoid the activity.

We can't help how we feel but we don't have to pretend that the hunches, intuitions or feelings are some mysterious source of deep wisdom. Slugs and barnacles react to their environment too, and some trout would have done better if the did a bit more hmmmmming before they snapped at the fly.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sorry, but this doesn't address what I've actually said. For example:

[ QUOTE ]
Of course some aspects of those relationships should and will be analyzed rationally. . .

[/ QUOTE ]

My point is simply that there are some kinds of information that logic does a relatively poor job of illuminating. That's all.

Re: Society, Intuition and Logic
 

now that I'm thinking this through... based on this definition-
"1. direct perception of truth, fact, etc., independent of any reasoning process; immediate apprehension."

I'm thinking this doesn't exist that much. I don't think most people magically come up with a truth. There is a reasoning process happening in the brain. They make snap judgements, educated guesses, etc. Or they are reacting to information... but its not intuition. I would argue that there's always a reasoning process... it just happens at a lower level and is therefore quicker but oftentimes less accurate.

Re: Society, Intuition and Logic
 

[ QUOTE ]

You mean the TRUTH that I was going to be harmed and that's why I ducked from the shadow of an airplane 10,000 feet above my head?

Or the TRUTH that the railway tracks do go together in the distance?

Learning to ride a bike may became a conditioned reflex but it never reveals any TRUTH or FACT as claimed by definition #1.

Whether something is true or a fact is what we'll determine after the event in those quick-reaction cases, by logical analysis. Once we determine that "hey, I got it right!" we still can't go back and "it is right because I intuited it". It's the logical test ... "did the plane hit me?" that determines the truth of the intuitive action.

luckyme

[/ QUOTE ]

You'll have to excuse me, I don't come from a philosophy background so I don't really get your point. Please explain some more.

And on closer inspection, I overlooked the second part of the first definition. I think it's fair to say that I am using the third and fourth definition.

Re: Society, Intuition and Logic
 

[ QUOTE ]
now that I'm thinking this through... based on this definition-
"1. direct perception of truth, fact, etc., independent of any reasoning process; immediate apprehension."

I'm thinking this doesn't exist that much. I don't think most people magically come up with a truth. There is a reasoning process happening in the brain. They make snap judgements, educated guesses, etc. Or they are reacting to information... but its not intuition. I would argue that there's always a reasoning process... it just happens at a lower level and is therefore quicker but oftentimes less accurate.

[/ QUOTE ]

Intuition in the traditional sense doesn't really exist. The definition needs to be modified with current information coming from neurologists and psychologists. The information isn't out of nowhere, and there is always a reasoning process. Just sometimes that reasoning process is understood by the individual, and sometimes it isn't. Intuitive processes are by no means more or less accurate then conscious logical deductions. We rely on these intuitive processes for almost everything we do. Only every now and then do we need to really sit down and think something through. Usually we just react, and often that's all we have to do.

How I see reasoning is also different too. Reasoning implies a conscious effort. Intuition does not.

Re: Society, Intuition and Logic
 

I think you touched on an important point Varlosz (if someone else has said similar stuff I apologize). I don't think you can separate 'intuition'(whatever that is, it seems purposefully hazy to me) from logic.

Logic to me atleast, is an abstract way of thinking. Quite like law academics or maths, which are very pure applications of the rules of logic. You create a system of thought based on axiomatic rules or false, true or (in some cases) maybe. But we will still always be that hazy thing we are, and to some extent bound by this. Logic or not.

Re: Society, Intuition and Logic
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Meh, I get the feeling that no one in this thread is doing a good job of defining his terms. We're probably not getting anywhere until that's rectified.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think this is a reoccuring problem in numerous threads started by Splendour.

[/ QUOTE ]

FYP.

Re: Society, Intuition and Logic
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Of course logic speaks to emotion, what a silly, propagandized thing to say.

[/ QUOTE ]

What an odd choice of words.

Granted, "logic doesn't speak to emotion" is, as phrased, a much too broad declaration. The two are interrelated, as emotions will have an impact on logic, and logical conclusions will have an impact on one's emotions. However, this:

[ QUOTE ]
Logic is a process. Emotion is input. Logic takes your input, processes it, and gives you an output.

[/ QUOTE ]

. . . is an arbitrary view. One could just as accurately define logic as mere input for an emotional output. Your formulation seems to define non-logical epistemologies out of existence -- as fodder for the ultimate and inevitable logical process -- and what does that get us?

[ QUOTE ]
I could think my mother loves me because she says she does, I know that historically most mothers love their children, she feeds me, she buys me clothes and takes care of me, lots of things. Or I could know that my mother loves me because she smiles at me and makes me feel good and hugs me and I can see loving looks on her face. These are emotional responses. BUT IT IS STILL LOGIC. I am LOGICALLY coming to the conclusion that, based on these emotional inputs, my mother loves me.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, if you were to examine your relationship with your mother logically, that's about what it would look like. People seldom actually do that, though, because it's not that helpful. Given any sufficiently specific definition of "love" I'm sure you could take those hints and deduce that your mother "loves" you, but it doesn't reveal anything about the relationship itself. It usually just helps you lay out the words used to describe that relationship in a more consistent manner ... which is great, but it's still doing a very poor job of illuminating the nature of relationship. It's far too intangible, ineffable.


Meh, I get the feeling that no one in this thread is doing a good job of defining his terms. We're probably not getting anywhere until that's rectified.


EDIT: Ok, that's a start.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ummm...it is not an "arbitrary" view that logic is a process. Logic cannot be an input for anything. You can input whatever you want into a logical framework, and depending on what you put in, you will get some result. But logic cannot be the input. Its pretty important that you understand this.

Re: Society, Intuition and Logic
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
This is somewhat related to (1), in that it probably springs from people's failure to realize two things: logic doesn't speak to emotion, and emotion is relevant.

[/ QUOTE ]

The girls that fall in love with abusers and child-molesters, etc. Would you say their intuition/emotion served them well? On what basis would you be able to say that? Would you base that on logical analysis or just wait for an emotion to come by with the answer?

Emotion tells us how we feel about something, it can't judge whether that feeling is getting a correct evaluation of the situation. People that get taken advantage of, even by a mother, can claim their emotions/intuitions were 'right' if they want, but the scars should prove otherwise, even though it's a mere logical conclusion.

It's "the wife is the last to know" or "my son wouldn't do that" situations that help illustrate this. Outsiders can see the manipulation of a gold-digger, say, because they are using logical analysis.

I like carrots, brunettes and convertibles. I get 'hunches' at the poker table that I act on ( people reading ones, not "my flush is rivering" ones). None of that is immune to logical analysis and in fact that is how I will judge whether my emotions are screwing me or not. If carrots constipate me, brunettes swindle me and convertibles cause bug-throat I may still be stuck with the 'liking' but now avoid the activity.

We can't help how we feel but we don't have to pretend that the hunches, intuitions or feelings are some mysterious source of deep wisdom. Slugs and barnacles react to their environment too, and some trout would have done better if the did a bit more hmmmmming before they snapped at the fly.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sorry, but this doesn't address what I've actually said. For example:

[ QUOTE ]
Of course some aspects of those relationships should and will be analyzed rationally. . .

[/ QUOTE ]

My point is simply that there are some kinds of information that logic does a relatively poor job of illuminating. That's all.

[/ QUOTE ]

Give me an example.

Re: Society, Intuition and Logic
 

I really do feel like I'm arguing against some stereotyped, pejorative definition of "logic" that is really common among idiots but is a little surprising on SMP. Its like what happens whenever we talk about science. For some reason people think science is the part of reality that deals with beakers and animals and lab coats. Science is a process, logic is a process. Science is primarily based on logic, it just has a few axioms built in. Other than that its basically the same CPU.

Re: Society, Intuition and Logic
 

I dont think it's to do with ego, I think it's to do with utility. If you can logically demonstrate something then it is 100% certain to be true. Unfortunately, the class of assertions we can logically demonstrate is small due to limited knowledge.

So, although intuition has the advantage that it can apply to anything it suffers from the big disadvantage that logic is the only way to know if you're right or not.

Re: Society, Intuition and Logic
 

Can we all agree on what we are talking about?

The 'logic' we are referring to a longer, conscious process of figuring things out. It involves analyzing the situation in some sort of detail.

'Intuition' refers to snap judgments that we make. This is probably occurring on a subconscious level and does not involve stopping and reflecting on the choices.

While logic is normally the better way to go, there are actually many cases where this "intuition" is superior to logic. Any practiced motor skill actually gets worse if you think about it. You are much more precise if you just move. Also, lots of visual judgments work better on the intuitive level. Sometimes something just "seems wrong" but we can't articulate why.

Whoever mentioned the book Blink by Malcolm Gladwell was on the right track. He deals with many examples where our snap judgments are the best judgments.

Re: Society, Intuition and Logic
 

[ QUOTE ]
Ummm...it is not an "arbitrary" view that logic is a process. Logic cannot be an input for anything. You can input whatever you want into a logical framework, and depending on what you put in, you will get some result. But logic cannot be the input. Its pretty important that you understand this.

[/ QUOTE ]

But the outputs of logic can be fed into another process. Probably what he meant.

I don't like the view of emotion as a process. Emotional inputs affect logical outputs to a high degree, but the reverse isn't true.

"Logic" and "thought" aren't the same thing. Thought does affect emotion (albeit not, IMO, to anywhere near the extent that emotion affects thought). However, I don't think the process of logic actually affects emotion much - I think it affects thought, and thought can then affect emotion, so it's indirect. On the other hand, it seems that many assumptions used in logical processes come directly from the emotions - they're unexamined and almost instinctual.

A lot of people go nuts about this stuff. There's this new kind of philosophy cropping up of the opposed realms of art and science. You have your right versus your left brain, you have nature versus technology, you have emotion versus thought, you have intuition versus reason. Only, these pairs are neither exclusive nor opposed.

Re: Society, Intuition and Logic
 

[ QUOTE ]
While logic is normally the better way to go, there are actually many cases where this "intuition" is superior to logic. Any practiced motor skill actually gets worse if you think about it. You are much more precise if you just move. Also, lots of visual judgments work better on the intuitive level. Sometimes something just "seems wrong" but we can't articulate why.

[/ QUOTE ]

Humans are great at responding to physical threats, meeting physical needs, and interacting socially. Our intuitions in these areas tend to be good. Our intuitions in the areas of science, math, and philosophy tend to be awful.

Some people like to argue that intuition is the correct approach for determining whether God exists, whether humans have free will, and whether the universe was designed. I think that's the position relevant to this thread. And I don't think it can be supported.

Re: Society, Intuition and Logic
 

I had another question today which probably should have its own thread but the question grew out of this thread.

The question is: Is Genius more like Logic or Intuition?

Re: Society, Intuition and Logic
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
While logic is normally the better way to go, there are actually many cases where this "intuition" is superior to logic. Any practiced motor skill actually gets worse if you think about it. You are much more precise if you just move. Also, lots of visual judgments work better on the intuitive level. Sometimes something just "seems wrong" but we can't articulate why.

[/ QUOTE ]

Humans are great at responding to physical threats, meeting physical needs, and interacting socially. Our intuitions in these areas tend to be good. Our intuitions in the areas of science, math, and philosophy tend to be awful.

Some people like to argue that intuition is the correct approach for determining whether God exists, whether humans have free will, and whether the universe was designed. I think that's the position relevant to this thread. And I don't think it can be supported.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree 100%. I specifically didn't like the characterization of intuition as "shoddy logic" (cough, vhawk, cough [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img] ) Intuition is pretty non-logical and is quite useful in certain scenarios. Clearly learning the structure of the natural world is not one of these scenarios.

Re: Society, Intuition and Logic
 

[ QUOTE ]
I had another question today which probably should have its own thread but the question grew out of this thread.

The question is: Is Genius more like Logic or Intuition?

[/ QUOTE ]

It's a false dichotomy, I would say geniuses use both quite well. With that said, I doubt I would call anybody a genius who had poor deductive skills.

Re: Society, Intuition and Logic
 

[ QUOTE ]
Can we all agree on what we are talking about?

The 'logic' we are referring to a longer, conscious process of figuring things out. It involves analyzing the situation in some sort of detail.

'Intuition' refers to snap judgments that we make. This is probably occurring on a subconscious level and does not involve stopping and reflecting on the choices.

While logic is normally the better way to go, there are actually many cases where this "intuition" is superior to logic. Any practiced motor skill actually gets worse if you think about it. You are much more precise if you just move. Also, lots of visual judgments work better on the intuitive level. Sometimes something just "seems wrong" but we can't articulate why.

Whoever mentioned the book Blink by Malcolm Gladwell was on the right track. He deals with many examples where our snap judgments are the best judgments.

[/ QUOTE ]
I dont think the speed of decision is the essential distinguishing factor between logic and intuition, although I agree it is often the case. I think a logical approach involves only accepting what can be deduced from prior, accepted axioms or theorems. I understood Splendour to be labelling intuition "everything else".

I consider it at least possible to mull things over and still form an intuitive judgement. Similarly, I think kurto and vhawk have referred to intuition as a kind of "snap-logic". I think the logical amongst us will be better (ie more accurate) at utilising this form of "intuition" than those to whom deduction is more alien.

Re: Society, Intuition and Logic
 

[ QUOTE ]
I really do feel like I'm arguing against some stereotyped, pejorative definition of "logic" that is really common among idiots but is a little surprising on SMP.

[/ QUOTE ]

What do you mean by "logic"? Like I asked earlier: "Your formulation seems to define non-logical epistemologies out of existence -- as fodder for the ultimate and inevitable logical process -- and what does that get us?"

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
My point is simply that there are some kinds of information that logic does a relatively poor job of illuminating. That's all.

[/ QUOTE ]
Give me an example.

[/ QUOTE ]

I already gave you two. One you explained away with (apparently) an unusually broad definition of "logic" -- a point more about the words involved than the concept itself -- the other you ignored completely.

Re: Society, Intuition and Logic
 

Just so it's clear what I'm talking about, by "logic" I'm referring to a wholly or somewhat deliberate thought process that uses axioms, evidence, and conclusions drawn from such to reach one or more ultimate conclusions. By "intuition" I'm referring to a primarily emotive response, though it need not be a 'snap-judgment.'

To go back to my previous example, it's the difference between knowing how your mother feels about you because you weighed the evidence and drew the appropriate conclusion, and knowing because you just feel a certain state of being to be true. In this case, the latter epistemological process tends to give a fuller and more nuanced understanding of the relationship that the former.

Re: Society, Intuition and Logic
 

[ QUOTE ]

I dont think the speed of decision is the essential distinguishing factor between logic and intuition, although I agree it is often the case. I think a logical approach involves only accepting what can be deduced from prior, accepted axioms or theorems. I understood Splendour to be labelling intuition "everything else".

I consider it at least possible to mull things over and still form an intuitive judgement.

[/ QUOTE ]

I guess that's true. I would say in those cases intuition is often less useful if you go against the logical conclusion. Sometimes logic doesn't give you a good answer and you have to rely on your intuition though.

Re: Society, Intuition and Logic
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

I dont think the speed of decision is the essential distinguishing factor between logic and intuition, although I agree it is often the case. I think a logical approach involves only accepting what can be deduced from prior, accepted axioms or theorems. I understood Splendour to be labelling intuition "everything else".

I consider it at least possible to mull things over and still form an intuitive judgement.

[/ QUOTE ]

I guess that's true. I would say in those cases intuition is often less useful if you go against the logical conclusion. Sometimes logic doesn't give you a good answer and you have to rely on your intuition though.

[/ QUOTE ]

That touches on the aspect I've been pointing to. let's use VarlosZ's situation - He knows intuitively that him mother loves him ( darn, I wish he'd have thrown in something about apple pie). We discover that she's been slowly poisoning him to collect insurance and arranging a sell him to the gypsies and keeping the pie.
which source of knowledge is considered 'right' or 'true'. His personal intuition or our objective analysis?

Don't you get tired of seeing the mother on TV saying, "My Jimmie would never do that" often just as they run the juice through him. or the neighbors saying of the child molester, "he was such a great guy." or seeing your friends or relatives getting conned by salesmen, politicians, gold-diggers, gigolo's, and the normal assortment of misreading peoples intent and motive.

Sure, our intuition in some situations is better than a coin flip, in others it's our worst enemy and in all the final judgment on whether the intuition was working for us or not will be by a logical analysis and we don't even have to know the intuitive mechanism to do the evaluation.

Related to this is a standard approach I use -- If I want to know the reasons BeckyLou did something I don't ask BeckyLou, I ask her friends and relatives, and it's not that I consider BeckyLou a liar I merely consider her human. Our intuitions of others maybe shaky but our intuitions about ourselves are often worse.

aside - like most people I have overconfidence in my reading ability, but I do have a decent enough public track record to be called into negotiations to act as the people observer, to identify the hard and soft spots in the opposition position for example. My approach to my own reads is - Trust but Verify.

luckyme

Re: Society, Intuition and Logic
 

quote: "That touches on the aspect I've been pointing to. let's use VarlosZ's situation - He knows intuitively that him mother loves him ( darn, I wish he'd have thrown in something about apple pie). We discover that she's been slowly poisoning him to collect insurance and arranging a sell him to the gypsies and keeping the pie."


Ha gotcha. Both can be right. His mother could be insane and love him and think she has to kill him for some insane purpose and at the same time need the money for some other insane purpose.

But I did find your "verify your reads" as very insightful advice with some practical value. Instead of just reading I may need to incorporate some verification techniques into my game. Thanks for the tip!

Re: Society, Intuition and Logic
 

[ QUOTE ]
quote: "That touches on the aspect I've been pointing to. let's use VarlosZ's situation - He knows intuitively that him mother loves him ( darn, I wish he'd have thrown in something about apple pie). We discover that she's been slowly poisoning him to collect insurance and arranging a sell him to the gypsies and keeping the pie."


Ha gotcha. Both can be right. His mother could be insane and love him and think she has to kill him for some insane purpose and at the same time need the money for some other insane purpose.

[/ QUOTE ]

And his intuition about his mothers state is so great that he caught the 'she loves me' part and missed the "then again, she is INSANE".
These are 'reads' he should trust?

That's skipping over the question of whether we are talking about the same mental state when we are referring to 'love' -
a) a normal persons love for me.
b) an insane persons love for me.

Equivocation seems to be a general problem for you.

luckyme

Re: Society, Intuition and Logic
 

quote: And his intuition about his mothers state is so great that he caught the 'she loves me' part and missed the "then again, she is INSANE".
These are 'reads' he should trust?

Why can't there be concurrent situations and he's only getting the read from one from conditioning but due to timing and other things, maybe he's in denial, he doesn't get that she just lost it. It doesn't make the first read wrong it just complicates things. Look at that lady in Texas that killed 4 or 5 kids. The schizophrenic nurse. Her husband knew she was sick and the family probably thought she loved them they just didn't know her illness had stepped up the ladder into the psychotic stage.

Re: Society, Intuition and Logic
 

What do you mean by intuition exactly?

If you mean quick, fast thinking then we need that. We're biological computers in more need of quick'n'dirty than we are in need of continous quality. 'Snake! AH! BAD!' , 'Sugar....mmmm...'.

Being somewhat right most of the time is more than good enough for much of life purposes. But when you dwelve into the abstract knowledge models it won't cut it.

Re: Society, Intuition and Logic
 

[ QUOTE ]
quote: And his intuition about his mothers state is so great that he caught the 'she loves me' part and missed the "then again, she is INSANE".
These are 'reads' he should trust?

Why can't there be concurrent situations and he's only getting the read from one from conditioning but due to timing and other things, maybe he's in denial, he doesn't get that she just lost it. It doesn't make the first read wrong it just complicates things. Look at that lady in Texas that killed 4 or 5 kids. The schizophrenic nurse. Her husband knew she was sick and the family probably thought she loved them they just didn't know her illness had stepped up the ladder into the psychotic stage.

[/ QUOTE ]

Again - do you think you are referring to the same mental experience/state when you compare an insane homocidal persons love of you to an normal persons love of you. you would actually claim " yep, they both love me. oh, and one wants to kill me in a barbaric way" ?

would that make the use of the term 'love' not as comforting as VarlosZ seemed to want it to be for us?
"She loves you."
" Yikes, hellllp, I'm outta here"
luckyme

Re: Society, Intuition and Logic
 

[ QUOTE ]
"She loves you."
"Yikes, hellllp, I'm outta here"

[/ QUOTE ]

When is this not the correct play?

Re: Society, Intuition and Logic
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
"She loves you."
"Yikes, hellllp, I'm outta here"

[/ QUOTE ]

When is this not the correct play?

[/ QUOTE ]

I thought this was the standard play too.

Re: Society, Intuition and Logic
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
"She loves you."
"Yikes, hellllp, I'm outta here"

[/ QUOTE ]

When is this not the correct play?

[/ QUOTE ]

There must be exceptions or it'd be a heritable trait by now.

luckyme

Re: Society, Intuition and Logic
 

[ QUOTE ]

What do you mean by intuition exactly?

If you mean quick, fast thinking then we need that. We're biological computers in more need of quick'n'dirty than we are in need of continous quality. 'Snake! AH! BAD!' , 'Sugar....mmmm...'.

Being somewhat right most of the time is more than good enough for much of life purposes. But when you dwelve into the abstract knowledge models it won't cut it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Quite honestly I'm not sure what I mean by intuition anymore. There may be multiple levels to it. I found the myers-brigg personality thing interesting. I think I'm in the intuitive category and a lot of the folks on here are sensory so that's why everyone likes to joust with me. En garde! Hopefully you don't kill me or make me fly the coop before learning something.

A lot of mathematical, scientific people would probably be likely to be more prone to sensing than intuitive so what I say would come across as illogical to them especially in this type of linear internet format.

As I'm doing this thread I keep having this thought of a friend who visited London/Wales and toured Windsor Castle. They told me that the English thought of themselves as more intelligent than the Welsh, but they considered the Welsh to be more intuitive. There could definitely be genetic links to aspects of personality and personality and intelligence are bound to related in ways that we are just beginning to understand.

Re: Society, Intuition and Logic
 

[ QUOTE ]
uite honestly I'm not sure what I mean by intuition anymore. There may be multiple levels to it. I found the myers-brigg personality thing interesting.

[/ QUOTE ]

Theoretical scientists tend to be INTPs.
Experimental ones tend to be INTJs.

Most on here are N's of various sorts. The S's stand out.

Intuition in the MB sense would refer more to the way things frame themselves for us. N's tend to see the mortar. S's tend to see the bricks.

luckyme

Re: Society, Intuition and Logic
 

Scientists and mathematicians are actually more likely to be intuitive on the MBTI. People in general are much more likely to be S than N. IIRC ~70% of people are sensing. I'd wager a significant amount that SMPers are more intuitive.

But we aren't discussing the MBTI. The Jungian concept of perceiving functions has little bearing on the idea of "inuition" as we're using the term - and particularly as opposed to logic. The reality is that logical people tend to be intuitive, logic and intuition go hand in hand. I touched on this earlier. It's a myth that logic and intuition are opposed.

Re: Society, Intuition and Logic
 

Lol..I can't even remember my own personality type anymore, but I had the I and J...that's all I remember. I need to look it up one of these days. But there's suppose to be thousands of variants on the 16 types anyways depending on the degree to which each of the basic 4 subtypes is tweaked.

I know the intuition and logic work together. I just think people are mostly logical in this forum to a higher degree than I am. You're not any more curious about ideas than me you just like a lot of structure. I have a friend that likes to tell me that I overanalyze things and I took a test once a Kiplinger's Personal Finance Quiz and it ended up I'd answered it like a man. The financial goals of men and women apparently are very different and that's probably 1 reason why married couples fight over finances alot because ingrained personality traits are almost impossible to overcome. Women crave security. Men crave independence.

Now I know I just went off on a tangent. I'm intuitive so I jump around a lot. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

Re: Society, Intuition and Logic
 

I was really enjoying and following this thread until people switched from English to single letters.

My understanding of letterspeak if very limited... I know the basics like "I love BLTs"

Re: Society, Intuition and Logic
 

[ QUOTE ]
I just think people are mostly logical in this forum to a higher degree than I am.

[/ QUOTE ]

ya think?

luckyme

Re: Society, Intuition and Logic
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I just think people are mostly logical in this forum to a higher degree than I am.

[/ QUOTE ]

ya think?

luckyme

[/ QUOTE ]

Be nice! [img]/images/graemlins/mad.gif[/img]

Re: Society, Intuition and Logic
 

Acronyms. IIRC is "if I remember correctly" or "if I recall." MBTI is the Myers-Briggs Type Inventory/Indicator, a personality test that uses eight traits (Introversion, Extraversion, Sensing, iNtuition, Thinking, Feeling, Judging, and Perceiving).

LOL is laughing out loud, and SMP is Science, Math, and Philosophy (LDO).