How can we train ourselves to be logical in every aspect?

Don't!!. Please don't do it. It is more like cheating yourself. Logic doesn't take you to reality. It can only convince you for sometime by creating illusion of your own. And that logic will be proven false after you find another logic supporting it. Any logic can be disproven by another logic. It will only feed your ego. It is more like living a life of self made illusions. Where as reality remains hidden and never be reached by logics. So master silence. Try to look at the reality instead. Have a perception, but don't be in illusion that only your perception is true. Again it is not true eit

Don't!!. Please don't do it. It is more like cheating yourself. Logic doesn't take you to reality. It can only convince you for sometime by creating illusion of your own. And that logic will be proven false after you find another logic supporting it. Any logic can be disproven by another logic. It will only feed your ego. It is more like living a life of self made illusions. Where as reality remains hidden and never be reached by logics. So master silence. Try to look at the reality instead. Have a perception, but don't be in illusion that only your perception is true. Again it is not true either. Just look at the things as it is. “Logic” is our mind's trick to satisfy itself. Don't fall for it. Instruct your mind about it's ignorance. Then it will work better for you. Don't try to convince yourself falsely. Be open to possibilities and that's the only way to know more.

BY LOGICALLY TACKLING ALL ISSUES IN A LOGICAL WAY .AND BEING TRUE TO YOURSELF

Logic is the science of arguments _ logical , coherent, deep , penetrative , intelligent and acceptable arguments .

Now the question is how it can be achieved . Arguments covers all the subjects on the earth _ science, arts and literature , religions , individual subjects one is studying and interested in , general life problems , economic conditions , political situation , economic and political prospects and a whole range of subjects one can conceive of.

Now to attain maturity on the subject of conversation , discussion ,one must have deep knowledge of the subject , not only theoretical knowle

Logic is the science of arguments _ logical , coherent, deep , penetrative , intelligent and acceptable arguments .

Now the question is how it can be achieved . Arguments covers all the subjects on the earth _ science, arts and literature , religions , individual subjects one is studying and interested in , general life problems , economic conditions , political situation , economic and political prospects and a whole range of subjects one can conceive of.

Now to attain maturity on the subject of conversation , discussion ,one must have deep knowledge of the subject , not only theoretical knowledge ,but also practical knowledge obtained from deep and intense observation of the surroundings .

For example, to talk on subject of the Indian economy , while you must have thorough knowledge about the theoretical aspects , you must go through the reputed newspapers and magazines to have a clear understanding of what is actually happening , for the textbooks doesn't give you the whole picture . The reputed columnists do continuous research on the subject and give a wider view.

Not only that , to understand the problems of agriculturists you have to go to the fields , talk to the man on the plough , then only you would be able to have a firm grasp on the subject and also can find a suitable solution.

A good professor becomes a perfect teacher after a considerable period of time after constant interaction with the students. An engineer does not become a good engineer simply by passing from a reputed college , but by continuosly attending to different problems and solving them by interacting with fellow - engineers . A doctor becomes a perfect doctor not by the degree he obtains , but by his ability to solve the medical problems through his observation and finding a perfect solution.

Logical or Rational Thinking:

Pros:

  1. Accurate: Gives the correct conclusion as long as you have all the necessary premises correct.
  2. Consistent: As long as the premises are same, whatever deductive method you use, or whoever else thinks it, always arrives at the same conclusion
  3. Traceable: You can document and/or trace your path of thinking and verify it for logical correctness.

Cons:

  1. Highly specific input dependent: If any of the necessary premises are missing or incorrect, you'll have the wrong conclusion.
  2. Difficult: Human minds are not geared for elaborate, perfect and consistent rational though

Logical or Rational Thinking:

Pros:

  1. Accurate: Gives the correct conclusion as long as you have all the necessary premises correct.
  2. Consistent: As long as the premises are same, whatever deductive method you use, or whoever else thinks it, always arrives at the same conclusion
  3. Traceable: You can document and/or trace your path of thinking and verify it for logical correctness.

Cons:

  1. Highly specific input dependent: If any of the necessary premises are missing or incorrect, you'll have the wrong conclusion.
  2. Difficult: Human minds are not geared for elaborate, perfect and consistent rational thought, thus more complex the reasoning, higher the chance of logical errors and omissions.
  3. Failure in chaotic/vague conditions: If there are too many premises and a slight change in any premise can make a large difference in the outcome, which is often true in many real-world scenarios, logical thinking very often fails due to con #1


Other possible types of thinking:

  1. Emotional thinking: (AKA thinking with your heart) where you let your emotions guide your conclusions -
    Unadvised when premises are factual and available,
    Helpful for scenarios that deal with human emotions and sensibilities themselves.
  2. Intuitive thinking: (AKA thinking with your gut) where you let intuition/gut feelings guide your conclusions, it's the brain's own way of churning out quick statistical inferences -
    Unadvised when you're dealing with scenarios you've never encountered the likes of before,
    Helpful when you've been in or know of similar situations and their outcomes, and there's not enough accurate input in the current scenario.
  3. Lateral thinking: (AKA thinking out of the box) where you let go of standard premises/assumptions, try to think of unusual ones and deduce from there -
    Unadvised where the obvious/simplest solution is the one that works,
    Helpful where the obvious/simple solutions hit a logical dead end.
  4. Random thinking: (AKA tossing a coin) where out of many choices you pick one at random and follow it -
    Unadvised when there is available information about the choices and the outcomes are high-impact.
    Helpful when there's not much qualitative information about the choices, the choices are large in number or the outcomes are low-impact.

Do note that most thinking we do is a mix of all these and rarely there's any kind of thought that purely non-logical.

Thinking with your heart is not always good for you. At times logical thinking can prevent you from making or repeating mistakes that may cost dear in future. It is assumed that people who think with their left brains are logical whereas those thinking with their right brains are more emotional and intuitive. Some people are born with high deductive ability which they cannot give up even if they try. Logical thinking can be a curse or boon; depending on the situation you are in. Logical thinking can blow off the mist created by emotions to show you the reality and factualness of the situation

Thinking with your heart is not always good for you. At times logical thinking can prevent you from making or repeating mistakes that may cost dear in future. It is assumed that people who think with their left brains are logical whereas those thinking with their right brains are more emotional and intuitive. Some people are born with high deductive ability which they cannot give up even if they try. Logical thinking can be a curse or boon; depending on the situation you are in. Logical thinking can blow off the mist created by emotions to show you the reality and factualness of the situation or people. When you become a logical person, you will be able to differentiate between truth and lies, solve your problems effectively and take right decisions which will benefit you and others. Often, the truth is staring back at us, but we tend to ignore it as we are blinded by our emotions. These are 6 easy ways that can help you think more logically, so that you will be able to look at the world more clearly with right reasoning.

1. Small details are important:

Sherlock Holmes said, ‘The world is full of obvious things which nobody by any chance ever observes.” The clue to logical thinking lies in being observant and noticing details. If you watch a person closely, you will be amazed to know how easy it to tell a lie from truth. Do not try to change facts so that they fit into your belief system, but build your beliefs on the facts. The trick of observation can be developed through practice and perseverance.

2. Work with puzzles:

Logical thinking is improved when you work on puzzles like Rubik’s cube, which demands deduction of results from all possible angels. The solution for puzzles is often described by the mnemonic SMART, which means the deductions should be Specific, Measurable, Achievable, Realistic and Time-bounded. Puzzles and games which involve rational thinking exercise the brain to work on logical thinking. With time thinking logically becomes a habit.

3. Hold on to your own beliefs:

Do not give in to arguments that show that all people believe in it, so it is true. There was a time when everybody believed that earth was flat and center of the universe, including all the major religions of the world. There is no need for you to accept something as true, just for the reason that you cannot prove it to be wrong. Hold on to your logical thinking and beliefs that come with it, no matter how much pressure others mount on you. Never underestimate the power of intuition and gut-feeling as illogical, as they can be quite reliable at times, especially when they are your own.

4. Build formidable defense against emotional blackmail:

Not many people like it when you think about them rationally; hence, they are bound to distract you with emotional blackmail or any other defense mechanism they are familiar with. If you are not strong with your own defense against such strategies, you will yield to the pressure sooner or later. Beware of your own defense mechanisms which may have developed over the period. When people try to vague, ask them to be specific and explain exactly what they mean.

5. Ask yourself questions:

When you are doing something irrational, stop and ask yourself the question why you are doing it? Look at the action and resulting consequences from all possible angles before moving ahead. Keep aside bias, patronizing and prejudices while making your decisions. Slow down, take deep breaths and be calm. You cannot be logical when you are stressed and running in hurry. Answer your questions honestly, racking your brain for right information.

6. Be prepared to handle the truth:

Many people stop being logical just because they are afraid to face the truth. Preparing yourself to handle the truth is the first step towards becoming a more logical person. Beware that truth can be quite painful at times; but there is no reason in living in a false world. Do not ignore facts, data, clues or cause that holds light to truth because you are afraid what it may reveal. Prepare yourself to handle the bitter truth.

You’re probably not nearly as logical as you think. Human beings tend to justify their actions based on logic, but we almost never actually take action based purely on logic. Logic may get us started a step or two down the road, but that’s usually as far as it goes. Emotion is virtually always what motivates us to turn a “logical” thought into an actual reality. Examples:

  • We tell ourselves we’re going to buy a new car because it (insert any or all of the following): Gets better gas mileage; is safer; better suits our needs; holds more cargo; etc. But we actually BUY a new car when we find one w

You’re probably not nearly as logical as you think. Human beings tend to justify their actions based on logic, but we almost never actually take action based purely on logic. Logic may get us started a step or two down the road, but that’s usually as far as it goes. Emotion is virtually always what motivates us to turn a “logical” thought into an actual reality. Examples:

  • We tell ourselves we’re going to buy a new car because it (insert any or all of the following): Gets better gas mileage; is safer; better suits our needs; holds more cargo; etc. But we actually BUY a new car when we find one we “like” (emotion). Ever bought a car you hated just because it met the above LOGICAL criteria? If you did, then I guarantee you didn’t keep it. (I rest my case.)
  • We tell ourselves we’re going to eat better because it’s “logical” and “makes sense,” but we actually start eating better because we want to (insert any or all of the following) lose weight and look better (emotion), or because we want to feel better (emotion), or because we want to live longer (emotion). Ever scarf down a disgusting meal you hated “just because it was logical,” without reminding yourself (at least once) of the emotional benefits we just discussed? Logic may be the steering wheel, but emotion is the engine that actually drives us forward.
  • We tell ourselves we’re going to continue dating and/or marry a certain person because (insert any or all of the following): They’re compatible with us; they’re “a good person”; they’re smart; they’re attractive; they’re kind; they’re caring; they have a good career; they’re ambitious; etc. — but we actually date and/or marry a certain person because we like them (emotion), lust after them (emotion), or love them (emotion). If you’re still in a relationship just because someone meets those logical criteria, but you don’t actually like or love them, then I guarantee you’re not terribly satisfied with that relationship. (And, again, I rest my case.)

So, all that to say: If you think you’re “too logical,” you most likely just haven’t looked deeply enough into your own true motivations. I have yet to meet a human who is TOO logical in reality. Now, some people will default to logic when they feel threatened by their emotions, but that’s not the same as being “too logical” — it’s actually a reactive defense mechanism against feeling too emotional, too unsafe due to emotions, and too out of control.

So, I reject your assessment of your conundrum: I most sincerely doubt that you’re “too logical.” Your issue is more likely that you are not very comfortable with your emotions, and that’s not the same thing. But that lets you know what you ACTUALLY need to work on. Self-help work, with a focus on getting in touch with your deepest needs and vulnerabilities (so that you can stop rejecting them) is probably the direction you need to be heading.

Whatever terms you want to use here, this is your solution: Learn to trust your heart/fate/God/(what have you), instead of simply trusting your mind. Your mind can only get you so far, because there will always be too much it doesn’t and/or can’t know. And that’s why you’re asking the question — because you KNOW the “coldly rational” portion of the mind is too limited, and you’re tired of feeling incomplete. You need to work on developing the rest of you, and that starts with trust.

How to develop trust is a whole book’s-worth of thoughts, but I’ll get you pointed in the right direction: Have you ever noticed that even those things that “hurt” you emotionally actually worked out in favor of your best interests? (Sometimes this takes the form of what we “need,” instead of what we want.) (And I should say, they CAN always work to our best interests, but only if we use them properly.) In any case: Trust starts with recognition of that truth.

I wish you the best.

What makes a good tester? The difference between a student and a really good QA engineer is simple: the student wants to be done. A good test engineer wants the program to be wrong.

And that is basically why the latter finds bugs while the former does not. If you want to write good and mostly-bug-free code, you must want your program to be incorrect as well. If you want to break it, you will probably find ways to break it. You will find counterexamples to parse inputs, you will find overflow conditions that break your loops, and so on.

I'd say that probably gets you about 70% there. The other 30

What makes a good tester? The difference between a student and a really good QA engineer is simple: the student wants to be done. A good test engineer wants the program to be wrong.

And that is basically why the latter finds bugs while the former does not. If you want to write good and mostly-bug-free code, you must want your program to be incorrect as well. If you want to break it, you will probably find ways to break it. You will find counterexamples to parse inputs, you will find overflow conditions that break your loops, and so on.

I'd say that probably gets you about 70% there. The other 30% is practice and technique. To be genuinely good at writing bug-free code, you (first of all) have to have reached a sort of critical mass, where you've seen most variations of the "common" bugs that happen in the sorts of code you write. This comes from experience. Beyond that, there are other things that make life easier. Some tips I think are helpful:

  • Lift as much of your program as you can into pure functions--functions that have no side-effects at all. It's easier to reason about functions if you know that you simply supply arguments and get results. Any mutation to program state whatsoever introduces the possibility that subtle state-altering behavior will be encountered later. It's usually not worth it, just guarantee that it's a pure function and avoid changing that if at all possible.
  • Related to #1, use languages that encourage you to use pure functions. It doesn't have to be a language like Haskell or Scheme, though that certainly helps. You can use a language like Ruby and Python as well.
  • Minimize bookkeeping. For loops, pointer iteration, anything like that, is your enemy. If you change the underlying structure of something, then anything that accesses that structure (like a for loop) may fail. Where possible, you should abstract away anything that looks into the structure of an object into its own function/method, rather than using bare loops.
  • Related to that point, remember to always check everything that touches an object when you change it. That is, if you change some structure in an object, make sure that anything that touches this substructure is also changed correspondingly. This alone causes an incredible number of bugs.

That should get you started. Good luck.

Logical thinking can be learned. It can be learned by being a student of Socratic Learning. It can be learned by studying computer programming. It can be learned from studying Traditional Logic. It can be learned by learning what Logical Fallacies are.

Another way to learn logical thinking is to learn to see at least TWO SIDES to every argument. Today’s society is discouraging people to see anything from more than one side. If you question anything that is a popular view, especially if most “doctors” or “scientists” allegedly hold some view, you are labeled a “science denier.” I wrote a fairly

Logical thinking can be learned. It can be learned by being a student of Socratic Learning. It can be learned by studying computer programming. It can be learned from studying Traditional Logic. It can be learned by learning what Logical Fallacies are.

Another way to learn logical thinking is to learn to see at least TWO SIDES to every argument. Today’s society is discouraging people to see anything from more than one side. If you question anything that is a popular view, especially if most “doctors” or “scientists” allegedly hold some view, you are labeled a “science denier.” I wrote a fairly extensive answer to a Quora question that applies here:

Arnie Stanton's answer to Why do smart people deny science, or are they?

Unfortunately, less and less people are taught how to think or question things, which is the FOUNDATION of the Scientific Method. I argue in the linked answer that ALL of us are practicing the Scientific Method when we come up with theories, and then QUESTION them. To simply swallow a theory because it was taught to us is NOT being a scientist, but in reality is the TRUE science denier.

It is interesting that even the BIBLE teaches that we should look for at least TWO sides of every argument:

Proverbs 18:17

The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

In the age when the Internet is more and more CENSORING information that questions the official beliefs on numerous topics, it is getting harder and harder to find that second or third side of any argument. I urge the reader to FIGHT for an UNCENSORED INTERNET!

I seek outlets that combine mechanical/ logical structure with creative expression. My two favorite ways to do this are:

  1. Building things with my hands that have some level of functionality, but also have aesthetic appeal
  2. Reading things that are outside the strict domain of math/ science, but still require a deep level of critical thinking to understand

Building Things

I like building things with my hands. There is a beauty to conceiving an idea in my head, then making it come to life. Here are a couple of things I’ve made recently:

This is a 1920’s Victrola Talking Machine horn, that I restored int

I seek outlets that combine mechanical/ logical structure with creative expression. My two favorite ways to do this are:

  1. Building things with my hands that have some level of functionality, but also have aesthetic appeal
  2. Reading things that are outside the strict domain of math/ science, but still require a deep level of critical thinking to understand

Building Things

I like building things with my hands. There is a beauty to conceiving an idea in my head, then making it come to life. Here are a couple of things I’ve made recently:

This is a 1920’s Victrola Talking Machine horn, that I restored into a record player by building it into this rustic-style bar cart. The project required me to come up with a creative way to produce music with the horn while still making the sound system look appealing to the eye. It took quite a bit of planning and brainstorming to get it all the way I wanted it. The project required me to learn/ use skills in the areas of mechanical design, industrial design, acoustics, and circuits. It now sits in my apartment and is the sole device I use to play my records. It’s functional, looks good, and sounds good.

This project was not quite elaborate, but still enjoyable:

I built these sliding barn doors using decomposed pallets. When I bought my new apartment, I didn’t like the way the doors looked, so I made my own. They look great, and they function well.

It has also been a hobby of mine to build turn-of-the century style lamps that use Whiskey bottles for the shade. The project requires some basic understanding of circuits, and some creativity on how to make the lamp look pleasing to the eye:

I liked making these so much that I started an Etsy shop: Whiskey bottle and cigar box lamps by VintageWhiskeyLamps

Reading

While I do read lots of books and articles about data science and machine learning because of my profession, which is very math heavy, for leisure I enjoy reading books that present novel concepts on how people and the world operate. These books still require a good level of logical reasoning and critical thinking to absorb, but they get my mind outside of the rigid structure I’m used to from solving data/ engineering problems. I read books on psychology, philosophy, economics, quantum physics, and spirituality. As you learn about these topics, you will start to observe parallels between these and the domains that you are used to. Making these new connections in your brain is quite rewarding, and will actually make you a better logical thinker, mathematician, engineer, etc. I also like reading fiction that was written by great thinkers who enjoyed math, philosophy, and politics. I recently got into reading some of the works of Aldous Huxley. He was a brilliant writer who was simultaneously fascinated with human spirituality, politics, and science, which are well reflected and expressed through his works.

It’s as if you wanted to become good at “running”. Even though running is a pretty basic activity, the way you would become good at it would depend a lot on whether you want to become good at sprinting or long-distance running. I would say that there is even more variety in different kinds of skill at “logic”.

There is a certain aspect of logic that is essentially a kind of mathematics: mathematical logic! In order to become expert at mathematical logic, naturally one has to become a mathematician, although it requires a different approach than a lot of other fields in mathematics do. If you wa

It’s as if you wanted to become good at “running”. Even though running is a pretty basic activity, the way you would become good at it would depend a lot on whether you want to become good at sprinting or long-distance running. I would say that there is even more variety in different kinds of skill at “logic”.

There is a certain aspect of logic that is essentially a kind of mathematics: mathematical logic! In order to become expert at mathematical logic, naturally one has to become a mathematician, although it requires a different approach than a lot of other fields in mathematics do. If you want to be very adept at producing deductions in first-order logic, I suppose you would essentially want to become good at mathematics.

For some kinds of logic, one might want to study debate instead.

Logic sometimes deals with philosophical nuances that mathematicians mostly ignore. Mathematics tends to wash its hands of situations where concepts are ambiguous, paradoxical, or slippery, and getting good at handling those is pretty different from getting good at anything mathematical. For some aspects of logic it would be better to become a philosopher.

The question, as I would put it:

Does “He can do anything” entail “He can do everything”?

That is a nice question.

For the sake of a well-defined, concrete example, let us say that everything consists precisely of the following:

that one master Russian

master Georgian

master Arabic

master Hindi

master Chinese

master Navajo

In the context of the example, then, strictly speaking, as the expressions “anything” and “everything” are typically used, I would say this:

To say that he can do anything is to say that he can master any one of these languages, and perhaps more than one. To say that he can do everythi

The question, as I would put it:

Does “He can do anything” entail “He can do everything”?

That is a nice question.

For the sake of a well-defined, concrete example, let us say that everything consists precisely of the following:

that one master Russian

master Georgian

master Arabic

master Hindi

master Chinese

master Navajo

In the context of the example, then, strictly speaking, as the expressions “anything” and “everything” are typically used, I would say this:

To say that he can do anything is to say that he can master any one of these languages, and perhaps more than one. To say that he can do everything, in contrast, is to say that he can master all of them. Granted that he can master any one of them, however, and perhaps more than one, it does not follow that he can master all six. He might not have enough time, for example.

In other words, strictly speaking, “He can do anything” means “He can do A or B or C or D … as he chooses,” whereas “He can do everything” means “He can do A and B and C and D … if he so chooses.”

My answer, then, is no, “He can do anything” does not entail “He can do everything.”

And the moral of the story, I suppose, is this:

Do not use “everything” to mean “anything”!


I remember reading, long ago, though not 800 years ago, that a scholar set out to master all the languages necessary in order to peruse all the important original documents relevant to the history of the Mongol Empire, Middle Mongolian being just one of many, and far from the most important. He did that, and finished, as I recall, at the age of 53, whereupon he died suddenly before he was able to do the research.

And the moral of that, I suppose, is this:

The best-laid schemes o’ mice an’ men / Gang aft agley.

—Robert Burns, “To a Mouse” (1785)

I would start by examining what in your life is causing distraction, and start there. Consistency begins with looking at that could be causing lack of order in your life, and either getting rid of those distractions, minimizing them, or trying to figure out how to turn these experiences and thoughts into a strength instead of a detriment. The sooner that you can figure out what is standing in your way, the sooner you can make a solid foundation to allow more consistency to flow in your life. Once you learn your habits, and work on organizing your thought processes, you will soon find that y

I would start by examining what in your life is causing distraction, and start there. Consistency begins with looking at that could be causing lack of order in your life, and either getting rid of those distractions, minimizing them, or trying to figure out how to turn these experiences and thoughts into a strength instead of a detriment. The sooner that you can figure out what is standing in your way, the sooner you can make a solid foundation to allow more consistency to flow in your life. Once you learn your habits, and work on organizing your thought processes, you will soon find that your actions will become much more organized and as a result consistency will follow. Hope this helps!