Logic and Intuition - Questions and Test About Logic and Intuition

[r0ckyreed]

Are you more logical or intuitive? Take the test here and share your results.

https://www.psychmechanics.com/intuition-test/

My results:

Rational Ability = 45 / 50
Rational Engagement = 42 / 50
Experiential Ability = 42 / 50
Experiential Engagement = 44 / 50

My results indicate that my personality is more rational, but my preferences for decision-making are intuitive. I think this resonates.

The contradiction/paradox that I am trying to navigate through is learning how to balance my intuitive and logical sides.

I aspire to be more intuitive because I feel like it is a higher-order level of understanding.

Intuition is outside of a box, whereas logic works in a box.

And yet, all my explanations and thoughts about intuition are themselves logic.

Should your lifestyle be built around logic or intuition? This is a hard one for me. I make goals for myself sometimes, but I always end up acting based on how I feel. 

After some thought, maybe it is better to live an intuitive lifestyle because the universe isn’t logical but rather more intuitive kind of like it is shown in Star Wars.

Do you think contemplation is more logical or intuitive? I find it harbors both aspects (but more on the side of intuition maybe?) because you have an intuition but then you contemplate and investigate the reasoning to verify insight/intuition.

What is the difference between logical thinking and intuitive thinking? How can you tell?

Can we really trust intuition? Aren’t all religions based off of intuition? Logic/critical thinking may be a better method?

What are your all’s thoughts on my questions? What are your all’s results on the test?

Thanks!

Edited May 23, 2022 by r0ckyreed

[Realms of Wonder]

Interesting topic! much to ponder.

 

Here are my results.

 

Rational Ability = 23 / 50
Rational Engagement = 48 / 50
Experiential Ability = 48 / 50
Experiential Engagement = 35 / 50

[r0ckyreed]

Nice. Interesting results.
 

What are your thoughts on my questions. What questions do you have about the nature and interplay of logic and intuition?

[Asayake]

Rational Ability = 31 / 50
Rational Engagement = 30 / 50
Experiential Ability = 47 / 50
Experiential Engagement = 47 / 50

I think it makes sense considering that I'm an INFP according to MBTI tests online. I go more by intuition for sure. I think many people think they're more rational than they really are but in actuality they're going more by intuition than they think they do but rationalize their own decisions as they go to explain away their opinions or actions as being rational. Or maybe this is just me, lmao.

[Carl-Richard]

Rational Ability = 40 / 50
Rational Engagement = 49 / 50
Experiential Ability = 43 / 50
Experiential Engagement = 37 / 50

[Danioover9000]

Results:

Rational Ability = 34 / 50
Rational Engagement = 36 / 50
Experiential Ability = 38 / 50
Experiential Engagement = 33 / 50

   Ok, now where do I go from here?

[Carl-Richard]

I want a test that tests the reliability of your own self-assessments. Strange loop 

[Realms of Wonder]

16 hours ago, r0ckyreed said:

Should your lifestyle be built around logic or intuition? 

Do you think contemplation is more logical or intuitive? 

What is the difference between logical thinking and intuitive thinking? How can you tell?

Can we really trust intuition? Aren’t all religions based off of intuition? Logic/critical thinking may be a better method?

 

These are some good questions, granted, I have not contemplated them deeply, so I will answer as truthfully as I can.

 

1. For me personally, intuition is more important than logic. Not to say that Logic doesn't have its place, it does! but the biggest decisions, the most impactful paths I've tread, were made with Intuition, and Logic was almost a secondary order to "make sense" of the intuitive move.

Plus, Intuition, that inner guidance, is really authentic, which is my top value, so I will side with Intuition, gut feel, and "hunches" with logic in the passengers side, to grab the wheel if I lose control.

Also: Building a life around intuition is something I desire, and something I am working towards, but not something that is 100% actualized for me.

 

2. Both.

 

3. I find that intuition doesn't need to defend its positions. Logic feels the need to find a reason for being.

4. I can, but that's me, maybe its different for others.

5. That's hard to say. For example, Jesus, if he existed, I would guess, was hyper intuitive and conscious. Those who created Christianity, tried to make sense of his teachings, using logic. Maybe, I could be wrong too  

 

[Ulax]

15 hours ago, r0ckyreed said:

Are you more logical or intuitive? Take the test here and share your results.

https://www.psychmechanics.com/intuition-test/

My results:

Rational Ability = 45 / 50
Rational Engagement = 42 / 50
Experiential Ability = 42 / 50
Experiential Engagement = 44 / 50

My results indicate that my personality is more rational, but my preferences for decision-making are intuitive. I think this resonates.

The contradiction/paradox that I am trying to navigate through is learning how to balance my intuitive and logical sides.

I aspire to be more intuitive because I feel like it is a higher-order level of understanding.

Intuition is outside of a box, whereas logic works in a box.

And yet, all my explanations and thoughts about intuition are themselves logic.

Should your lifestyle be built around logic or intuition? This is a hard one for me. I make goals for myself sometimes, but I always end up acting based on how I feel. 

After some thought, maybe it is better to live an intuitive lifestyle because the universe isn’t logical but rather more intuitive kind of like it is shown in Star Wars.

Do you think contemplation is more logical or intuitive? I find it harbors both aspects (but more on the side of intuition maybe?) because you have an intuition but then you contemplate and investigate the reasoning to verify insight/intuition.

What is the difference between logical thinking and intuitive thinking? How can you tell?

Can we really trust intuition? Aren’t all religions based off of intuition? Logic/critical thinking may be a better method?

What are your all’s thoughts on my questions? What are your all’s results on the test?

Thanks!

Have ended up writing a proper essay here lmao. For the tl;dr, i.e. very brief answer:

(Note: Metaphysical = What actually is, sociological = What is done in a given community and why)

What is the difference between logical thinking and intuitive thinking? How can you tell? 

- There is no metaphysical difference, only sociological. Metaphysically, Logical thinking is conceptually impossible. All thinking is intuitive thinking. Because there can be no true or valid statements. Sociologically, within contemporary society, logical thought is simply a set of intuitive thoughts that are arbitrarily privileged over another set of intuitive thoughts.

Can we really trust intuition? Aren’t all religions based off of intuition? Logic/critical thinking may be a better method?

- Metaphysically, that is answerable, for the idea of 'trust' is arbitrary. Religions are based off intuition, yes. And, that last question is also metaphysically unanswerable. 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Long answer

Nice post. Not really feeling taking the test, but your questions have intrigued me.

I think contemplation can be both logical and/ or intuitive. depends how you do it..

I think a big difference is that with logical thinking you can never really ever make it human. The idea is divorce the question from the will of man to the will of reason, imo. The end result of a logical contemplation is therefore more akin to an object. It is something discovered outside of you, like a chest of treasure. You follow the map correctly and you find the treasure. Otherwise you end up with fool's gold.

On the other hand, with intuition, it is inherently human. It is you who must be accommodated for. It is a creatory act, where the answer is not so much an object, but an extension of yourself. 

I suppose that would difference if you defined intuition as purely a mechanism which sort of unconsciously sorts through everything rationally in your unconscious, and therefore the answer is still an object, just an objet that originates from a different source than logical contemplation, i.e. conscious v unconscious source.

--------------------------------------------

One caveat I'll put in though. When I've talked about logical contemplation above, I did that with the assumption that logical contemplation is actually possible. I don't actually believe this. For that to be so, I believe there would have to be a way to say that an answer was true or valid. The former if the answer it yielded was true in some objective sense. The latter if the answer flowed from the premises one assumes when logically contemplating. The latter such that you could say this answer is valid, within the paradigm of my assuming the taken premises are true.

However, I refute both the possibility of validity and truth. For there to be truth, I believe there must be some foundational justification. For, to say something is objectively true requires that that claim is justified. If there is no base justification, something true in of itself, an axiom if you will, then each justification is simply justified by another justification, and that one to another justification and down and down you go, in an infinite cycle of justifications. Therefore, any claim that any claim is justified is arbitrary, even this very sentence.

Now, some folk say, well okay, that may be true, it may be there is no axiom. But! Alas, we can select axioms, and say if these axioms are true, despite the lack of base foundation, we can say that there are certain right answers in terms of what answers necessary follow from these axioms. We will not say that the answer is true, instead we will say the following. The answers are valid! However, to my mind, this too suffers the same fate as someone's claim of a claim's truth, and for the same reason. 

To argue that something flows from a set of axioms still requires some claim to truth. No matter how specific you make the axiom, you must in some way make an assumption about how the axioms connect together.

For example, if you take these two axioms:

1. The sky is blue

2. All blue things are ugly

And, by axioms, that is to say we can treat the propositions as necessarily true.

You may say, okay, well we can say its valid that it follows that 3. The sky is ugly. Again, it is not 'true', but valid.

However, the issue is that such a person has made numerous other assumptions, i.e. 'If A is X, and all X things are Y, then A must necessarily be Y'. The arguer may say, 'okay, let's just make that assumption and axiom then, and say the following'

1. The sky is blue

2. All blue things are ugly

3. If A is X, and all X things are Y, then A must necessarily be Y

4. Therefore, it is valid, that the sky is ugly

However, the arguer can never win. This too suffers from various unthought assumptions, i.e. that, if 3 is true, then in 1 the sky can be taken to be A. The issue is there are always an infinite amount of assumptions made about how the axioms connect. No matter how many are addressed, the connection made between them, even in the paradigm of proving validity rather than truth, is always arbitrary.

---------------------------------------------------------

I've goy a bit carried away here in my writing lol. But if you're still with me, you might be wondering, okay, cool, why does this matter to contemplation. Well, if nothing can be proven to be true, or valid, as they are conceptually impossible, then we must compare this finding against the fact that many people proclaim to be making claims that are true/ valid. So what are they doing?

Why, to my mind, they must be engaging in intuitive contemplation entirely. There is no distinction between the logical and intuitive contemplator in essence. For the former is not possible. Any contemplation is a an act of intuitive creation.

Now, in a given community, there will be certain intuitions that are shared by many, and that for whatever reason command great power. That is to say, they are able to gain the relevant consensus necessary in that community for these intuitions to be privileged over other intuitions.  You can conceptualise that occurring in the material world and the psychic world, amongst one's own thoughts. But I won't go into my theory of mind for now. 

-----------------------------------------------------------------

Therefore, to repeat my answers:

Do you think contemplation is more logical or intuitive?

- I think contemplation is always purely intuitive

What is the difference between logical thinking and intuitive thinking? How can you tell?

- I think it depends on whether you are answering the question on a metaphysical (what actually is), or sociological level (How communities act and why).

-- For the former (metaphysical) type of answer, the difference is that logical thinking is conceptually impossible, while the latter is possible. Therefore, all thinking is intuitive and none is logical.

-- For the latter (sociological) type of question, the difference is that the logical thinking pertains to the intuitions that are privileged over other intuitions, with these other intuitions being deemed intuitive, or nonsensical. I note that this is only so in communities of whose dominant consensus is that logical thinking ought to be privelleged over intuitive thinking/ nonsensical thinking.

Can we really trust intuition? Aren’t all religions based off of intuition? Logic/critical thinking may be a better method?

- I don't think you can give a non-arbitrary answer to this question, on a metaphysical level. I'm not so interested in exploring the sociological answer to this here. All religions are based off intuition but so is all thought. And, again to argue that logical thinking is a better method, is to assume there is such a thing as logical thinking, at least in terms of the metaphysical type of logical thinking that I have mentioned. It is perhaps akin to asking, 'In our material world, does batman or the police force do a better job of stopping crime', to which one, with conviction, would usually answer, 'BUt batman does not exist?'. Therefore, logical thinking cannot be said to be a better method, as it does not exist.

[r0ckyreed]

2 hours ago, Danioover9000 said:

Ok, now where do I go from here?

Now, contemplate the role logic and intuition play in your life. You can start by reading and contemplating the questions I laid out in my first post on here or come up with your own.

6 hours ago, Asayake said:

I think many people think they're more rational than they really are but in actuality they're going more by intuition than they think they do but rationalize their own decisions as they go to explain away their opinions or actions as being rational. Or maybe this is just me, lmao.

Yeah. I kind of noticed the circularity of this as well. This is kinda like the difference between implicit vs. explicit understanding. People who are more rational tend to care more about the details, steps, and chain of reasoning. This can be from the bottom-up or top-down. This can be known as inductive vs. deductive reasoning.

It sounds like you are talking more about deductive reasoning, which is when you start with general idea and work backwards through the chain to specific steps. It is still highly logical, but it shows you how thin the line can be between intuition and logic. Ultimately, there is no such distinction.

5 hours ago, Fearey said:

Interesting. Not sure what the numbers are supposed tell me though.

On the testing site, it says ability is related to your personality and engagement is your preference in making decisions. Your results may suggest that you are a highly rational person both in personality and in preference in decision-making.

No test though is absolute truth.

1 hour ago, Carl-Richard said:

I want a test that tests the reliability of your own self-assessment ability. Strange loop 

Lol. That would be nice. I guess developed introspection skill is the best thing you got to that. 

1 hour ago, Realms of Wonder said:

Logic was almost a secondary order to "make sense" of the intuitive move.

 

I agree. Intuition is the connection to our higher mind or subconscious mind. Logic is how we can make sense of it and process it. 

1 hour ago, Realms of Wonder said:

Both.

 

3. I find that intuition doesn't need to defend its positions. Logic feels the need to find a reason for being.

If you use both, which would you say you use more of? 

I like that. Intuition doesn’t need to depend it’s positions. Can you think of any other ways to tell the difference? I think dogmatic people or prejudiced people could say the same thing about intuition. Are they really using their intuition or are they just acting out of belief? How do we tell the difference between intuition, fear, belief, automatic thoughts, etc.? I guess we can’t explicate the implicit. But this is something interesting to me is how can we know we are following intuition or just being influenced by something. For instance, you may have a feeling to go to a certain place and you think it was your intuition, but you fail to realize that you were suggested and influenced by an advertisement. You get what I’m trying to say? How can we know if our intuition is really authentic or if we are subconsciously influenced by external sources to make a choice?

1 hour ago, Realms of Wonder said:

That's hard to say. For example, Jesus, if he existed, I would guess, was hyper intuitive and conscious. Those who created Christianity, tried to make sense of his teachings, using logic. Maybe, I could be wrong too  

That’s a good point. In their efforts to explicate the inexplicable, you could say they modified the meanings of original teachings.

@Ulax I sincerely appreciate your post, time, and insights. I just read it all and will be contemplating all of that.

Edited May 23, 2022 by r0ckyreed

[Realms of Wonder]

6 minutes ago, Benton said:

Strange.

This test also told me I'm Voldemort..

Oh good I wasn’t the only one ? 

[Ulax]

16 minutes ago, r0ckyreed said:

@Ulax I sincerely appreciate your post, time, and insights. I just read it all and will be contemplating all of that.

You're welcome dude. Thanks for giving me the space to post it 

[Preety_India]

Results:

Rational Ability = 28 / 50
Rational Engagement = 33 / 50
Experiential Ability = 47 / 50
Experiential Engagement = 48 / 50

[Danioover9000]

@Ulax

On 23/05/2022 at 11:13 PM, Ulax said:

Have ended up writing a proper essay here lmao. For the tl;dr, i.e. very brief answer:

(Note: Metaphysical = What actually is, sociological = What is done in a given community and why)

What is the difference between logical thinking and intuitive thinking? How can you tell? 

- There is no metaphysical difference, only sociological. Metaphysically, Logical thinking is conceptually impossible. All thinking is intuitive thinking. Because there can be no true or valid statements. Sociologically, within contemporary society, logical thought is simply a set of intuitive thoughts that are arbitrarily privileged over another set of intuitive thoughts.

Can we really trust intuition? Aren’t all religions based off of intuition? Logic/critical thinking may be a better method?

- Metaphysically, that is answerable, for the idea of 'trust' is arbitrary. Religions are based off intuition, yes. And, that last question is also metaphysically unanswerable. 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Long answer

Nice post. Not really feeling taking the test, but your questions have intrigued me.

I think contemplation can be both logical and/ or intuitive. depends how you do it..

I think a big difference is that with logical thinking you can never really ever make it human. The idea is divorce the question from the will of man to the will of reason, imo. The end result of a logical contemplation is therefore more akin to an object. It is something discovered outside of you, like a chest of treasure. You follow the map correctly and you find the treasure. Otherwise you end up with fool's gold.

On the other hand, with intuition, it is inherently human. It is you who must be accommodated for. It is a creatory act, where the answer is not so much an object, but an extension of yourself. 

I suppose that would difference if you defined intuition as purely a mechanism which sort of unconsciously sorts through everything rationally in your unconscious, and therefore the answer is still an object, just an objet that originates from a different source than logical contemplation, i.e. conscious v unconscious source.

--------------------------------------------

One caveat I'll put in though. When I've talked about logical contemplation above, I did that with the assumption that logical contemplation is actually possible. I don't actually believe this. For that to be so, I believe there would have to be a way to say that an answer was true or valid. The former if the answer it yielded was true in some objective sense. The latter if the answer flowed from the premises one assumes when logically contemplating. The latter such that you could say this answer is valid, within the paradigm of my assuming the taken premises are true.

However, I refute both the possibility of validity and truth. For there to be truth, I believe there must be some foundational justification. For, to say something is objectively true requires that that claim is justified. If there is no base justification, something true in of itself, an axiom if you will, then each justification is simply justified by another justification, and that one to another justification and down and down you go, in an infinite cycle of justifications. Therefore, any claim that any claim is justified is arbitrary, even this very sentence.

Now, some folk say, well okay, that may be true, it may be there is no axiom. But! Alas, we can select axioms, and say if these axioms are true, despite the lack of base foundation, we can say that there are certain right answers in terms of what answers necessary follow from these axioms. We will not say that the answer is true, instead we will say the following. The answers are valid! However, to my mind, this too suffers the same fate as someone's claim of a claim's truth, and for the same reason. 

To argue that something flows from a set of axioms still requires some claim to truth. No matter how specific you make the axiom, you must in some way make an assumption about how the axioms connect together.

For example, if you take these two axioms:

1. The sky is blue

2. All blue things are ugly

And, by axioms, that is to say we can treat the propositions as necessarily true.

You may say, okay, well we can say its valid that it follows that 3. The sky is ugly. Again, it is not 'true', but valid.

However, the issue is that such a person has made numerous other assumptions, i.e. 'If A is X, and all X things are Y, then A must necessarily be Y'. The arguer may say, 'okay, let's just make that assumption and axiom then, and say the following'

1. The sky is blue

2. All blue things are ugly

3. If A is X, and all X things are Y, then A must necessarily be Y

4. Therefore, it is valid, that the sky is ugly

However, the arguer can never win. This too suffers from various unthought assumptions, i.e. that, if 3 is true, then in 1 the sky can be taken to be A. The issue is there are always an infinite amount of assumptions made about how the axioms connect. No matter how many are addressed, the connection made between them, even in the paradigm of proving validity rather than truth, is always arbitrary.

---------------------------------------------------------

I've goy a bit carried away here in my writing lol. But if you're still with me, you might be wondering, okay, cool, why does this matter to contemplation. Well, if nothing can be proven to be true, or valid, as they are conceptually impossible, then we must compare this finding against the fact that many people proclaim to be making claims that are true/ valid. So what are they doing?

Why, to my mind, they must be engaging in intuitive contemplation entirely. There is no distinction between the logical and intuitive contemplator in essence. For the former is not possible. Any contemplation is a an act of intuitive creation.

Now, in a given community, there will be certain intuitions that are shared by many, and that for whatever reason command great power. That is to say, they are able to gain the relevant consensus necessary in that community for these intuitions to be privileged over other intuitions.  You can conceptualise that occurring in the material world and the psychic world, amongst one's own thoughts. But I won't go into my theory of mind for now. 

-----------------------------------------------------------------

Therefore, to repeat my answers:

Do you think contemplation is more logical or intuitive?

- I think contemplation is always purely intuitive

What is the difference between logical thinking and intuitive thinking? How can you tell?

- I think it depends on whether you are answering the question on a metaphysical (what actually is), or sociological level (How communities act and why).

-- For the former (metaphysical) type of answer, the difference is that logical thinking is conceptually impossible, while the latter is possible. Therefore, all thinking is intuitive and none is logical.

-- For the latter (sociological) type of question, the difference is that the logical thinking pertains to the intuitions that are privileged over other intuitions, with these other intuitions being deemed intuitive, or nonsensical. I note that this is only so in communities of whose dominant consensus is that logical thinking ought to be privelleged over intuitive thinking/ nonsensical thinking.

Can we really trust intuition? Aren’t all religions based off of intuition? Logic/critical thinking may be a better method?

- I don't think you can give a non-arbitrary answer to this question, on a metaphysical level. I'm not so interested in exploring the sociological answer to this here. All religions are based off intuition but so is all thought. And, again to argue that logical thinking is a better method, is to assume there is such a thing as logical thinking, at least in terms of the metaphysical type of logical thinking that I have mentioned. It is perhaps akin to asking, 'In our material world, does batman or the police force do a better job of stopping crime', to which one, with conviction, would usually answer, 'BUt batman does not exist?'. Therefore, logical thinking cannot be said to be a better method, as it does not exist.

  This is a really good post.

[Chrisd]

I don't trust tests like these.

[r0ckyreed]

7 hours ago, Chrisd said:

I don't trust tests like these.

Good. Don’t trust any test for that matter. Tests are trying to map who you are. They have the potential of being helpful in seeing your strengths and blind spots. All tests though are limited. This test already requires you to have a high introspection skill. That is the problem with self-report measures. But it is what it is for an online assessment.