Aspies are logical, And NTs are generally not. Some answers.

Post Reply New Topic

Lets take one logical fallacy "Bandwagon fallacy": Everyone in your locality believe X to be true, so X is universally true.
I see this with religion even more then political beliefs. If you are born in a Christian country you are more likely to be a Christian, in a Muslim country your are more likely to be a Muslim. The share lack of white English Muslim support this.

If we are to assume that we do not know what the truth of the universe, we can assertion using logical fallacies( Bandwagon fallacy) that the illogical approach is to except a view based ones own locality. If one believes in a capitalist system opposed to socialist one because they have been mind washed to believe it, then I cannot respect that. If someone becomes a Muslim and he say it was a logical decision, then I respect that, despite religion having many logical flaws.

If Aspies are the same as NTs but the only differences are less likely succumb to the "Bandwagon fallacy" would that make them more logical.

Being less likely to succumb to the Bandwagon Fallacy does not make a person more logical. It makes them more faithful to their own self-generated ideas. But if those self-generated ideas are illogical, the person is not more logical than people who latch on to the popular ideas of others. The logic of something isn't decided by which people believe it.

On what set of facts to you base that egregious claim?

Aspeis may be more literal minded than their NT cousins or more oblivious to social nuance but that does not make them less emotional or more logical.

ruveyn

Money cannot directly purchase a friend. This is almost exclusively true. It can however, directly purchase an enemy. Essentially, by giving money to someone who then pretends to be a friend, so long as they continue to receive monetary reward. This is viewed as an enemy to many people. The "better class" is subjective; I believe it referring to a higher class, economically. It means roughly; "The more money you have, the higher the economic class of enemy you can buy when you try to buy friends."

I don't think there is anything wrong with it in its shorter form. Except maybe changing "better" to "higher", but one could take the "better" to be literal as well. One could assume that generally the more one can be enemy-like, the better one would be at attracting this behavior. Or that the more dangerous enemy, ie. more manipulative or seductive etc, the higher their demand of financial input would be, thus they are "better" enemies. But I digress...

Many aspies are not logical. Many are logical. The same applies to NTs. Logic is not equatable to literal, not directly. Aspie have a tendency to be literal.

Some of the best text books on logic are written by NTs.

ruveyn

Admittedly, none. I'm just projecting my personal experiences so I might have jumped the gun there. Perhaps the ability to view things with a certain detachment and lack of bias is a trait of my own which isn't necessarily shared by other aspies.

What exactly makes one logical?

That's a really good question.

My first answer when I read the question was "someone is logical if they don't use emotions to make decisions". But as soon as I typed it, I realized that was wrong. There are situations where it would be illogical not to use emotion to make a decision, such as deciding who to marry.

I guess the best that I can come up with right now is that a logical person knows when to apply the different decision-making strategies and can sort which information is relevent and which is not. After all, logic is just a way to reach a conclusion. But a truly logical person would know when to use logic and when to use other decision-making strategies such as emotion or intuition.

An "ad hominem" attack would mean an attack towards you personally. Saying your post is utter nonsense is not a direct attack against you, but rather to your post.
San Jose State University dot edu - Mission: Critical - "Introduction to Ad Hominem Fallacies"

The ability to validly infer a conclusion from the premises. Which means 1. a person must identify the premises of his argument and 2. he must understand the principle of valid inference.

ruveyn

How about irrelevant conclusion?

Very simple.

If they agree with me: they are logical!

If they disagree with me: they are illogical!

Here is a very good link. I am still learning as much as I can about the subject.
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MhhJAGjBIEw[/youtube]