Re: Reason and logic- not for all 5s

Posted by WingPrayer on July 19, 2000 at 12:34:25:

In Reply to: Reason and logic- not for all 5s posted by Gigi on July 19, 2000 at 04:52:17:

Gigi,

I'm new to these boards, but for what it's worth, I like having other types come to the 5 board.

I'd like to make a few comments on your post, please don't read it too critically. :)

"Reason and logic search for definite right answers. They are analytical, exact, direct, precise, specific, and focused. They deal with reality, what is before you. On the other hand, there is conceptual thinking which brings forth many right answers. It deals with metaphors, dreams, fantasies, approximations, ambiguity. One writer differentiates these as hard and soft thinking."

Okaaay, to limit the logical mind to the here and now, plus to separate it further form the conceptual is, well, erroneaous. Consider that some of the most demanding logical, analytic problems have been put to work on ontological arguments, the problem of evil, being, human experience, etc. The divisions you make are a misunderstanding that are often made, and often by 5s, to thier detriment. Consider this example: some years ago when I was doing graduate work I took an upper division logic coarse. There were 4 philosophy students and about 20 computer science people (undergraduate and graduate). Most of the class was probably 5s. If you monitored the class you would have noticed the following. The computer science students were much quicker in solving problems than the philosophy students in class, they were always the first ones done with tests or exams (by a LARGE margin). It would appear that they had a better grasp of the problems. At the end of the semester, the 4 philosophy students had the 4 high marks. Now this may say something about the personalities in terms of patience, but also in terms of how they view logic. Myself and one other philsophy student ended the course with more than the possible points available in the class - by not missing any problems and, in my case, observing a *conceptual* problem in one of the problems. This course was higher than philosophy Ph.d's would usually take unless they were logic specialists. After that class the students organized a graduate seminar in philosophy - no computer science people enrolled. This seminar focused largely on conceptual topics. The round about point is that WHAT a person focuses thier mind on does not distinguish the amount of analytic emphasis in thier minds, it is HOW they think about whatever. Logic is only a system of abstraction, as is math, and as such often deals with concepts that are not observable in everyday life. Good ANALYTIC metaphores are abstractions that show unversal truths which may be seen in our experiences ( and I drop on my knees and bow seven times toward my copy of Moby DIck). I think Kiersey is very astute in talking about the differnece in types as related to how much they abstract thier words - a reflection on how much they abstract thier thoughts.

The other thing is that it is possible for non-5s or such to be better at analytic thought than 5s. I sometimes see comments like "well 5's or rationals are bight folks" but every type can be bright or obtuse. There are many levels of ability/training layered in with personality. For a great example of this, go to Barnes & Noble (or other large book store with an overabundance of selection) and look at Kierkegaard's "The Sickness Unto death." Kierk is not usuall classified as a 5 or a "T," Open to section "A" and read the first paragraph - conceptual in context and with an analytic rigor and flair that would make many a 5 go running in tears. Now, go find Leibniz's "Discourse on Metaphysics." read the first two paragraphs. A high 5 or "T" doing an analysis of conceptual matters.

Sorry for rambling, and please don't tab me as one of those arrogant 5s, but this is what happens when I find something I find interesting. :)

Follow Ups:

• Re: Reason and logic- not for all 5s Gigi 08:59:20 07/20/00 (0)

Post a Followup