What is the difference between logical thinking and psychological thinking?

Logical thinking is about ‘what we should do’.

It is forward-looking, in that sense. It rarely considers emotion.

Psychology, on the other hand, is the study of ‘why we do, what we do’.

Logically speaking (ha ha), psychology is backwards-looking, and emotion is a big part of what it comprises.

Hope it helps!

If you are logical and people know it, they can exploit you.

It's a cliche in movies that the bad guy will say something like, "Now, don't do anything stupid, and we can all walk away from this." That is, the person taking advantage of you is counting on you being logical and doing what's best for you.

Suppose you plan to rob someone at gunpoint. Would you rather try a logical person or a person prone to bursts of wild anger?

The logical person is the better target, since they will simply give up their wallet, then later call the police. The angry man could go off and attack you. That's bad f

If you are logical and people know it, they can exploit you.

It's a cliche in movies that the bad guy will say something like, "Now, don't do anything stupid, and we can all walk away from this." That is, the person taking advantage of you is counting on you being logical and doing what's best for you.

Suppose you plan to rob someone at gunpoint. Would you rather try a logical person or a person prone to bursts of wild anger?

The logical person is the better target, since they will simply give up their wallet, then later call the police. The angry man could go off and attack you. That's bad for him because he might get shot, but it's bad for you because you might get hurt, or you might run away, or you might shoot him and the police will put some actual effort into tracking you down. If you're an illogical, angry person and you can signal it, you're less likely to get robbed.

Maybe this feels artificial, but I think it is not so uncommon that being perfectly rational could be to your disadvantage. You'd be more susceptible to blackmail and more likely to back down from a standoff. Ever watch a logical person play chicken with someone who just shot up on cocaine? Logic loses every time.

Logical people have eaten the forbidden fruit.

Sometimes your payoff may actually depend on your knowledge. Maybe believing in Santa Claus is valuable to you because you love the feeling of magic. Your goal isn't to get presents or to see Santa at the mall or to read Polar Express, it is actually to believe in Santa Claus your entire life.

You may well find that the act of logically considering how to achieve this makes the thing impossible!

Prisoner's Dilemma, etc.

The prisoner's dilemma is famous game in which logical players come out badly - they must betray each other to do what is best for themselves. The solution? Don't be logical. This, of course, hurts you when playing the prisoner's dilemma. Making the illogical choice is bad for you by definition.

The real solution to the prisoner's dilemma is not to be illogical, but to play with an illogical person. They can sacrifice themselves, helping you. If people know you're logical, they won't want to play a prisoner's dilemma with you. They won't even want to put themselves in a position where they might have to, so illogical people may have more opportunities.

The exact prisoner's dilemma structure is not essential. For example, suppose you have to choose a mate. Do you prefer someone who will sacrifice their career, their time, their money, etc. in order to raise the children as best they possibly can, even if doing so is draining and unrewarding? Or else do you want a heartless logical bitch who will just tell you to hire a nanny, then cheat on you with the pool boy?

Emotions are a signal for strategic irrationality.

What is anger anyway? It is a signal to the other person, "I am going to start acting illogically now. You had better rethink your strategy because I'm about to disregard my own interest and thereby become really dangerous."

Something similar applies to other emotions. Depression. Say you don't want to spend time with me because you're busy. If I'm rational, I try to induce you into spending time with me by creating an incentive for you. But it's much easier just to start showing depression, acting as if I might kill myself soon if someone doesn't come cheer me up. Of course suicide would be completely irrational, but I'm not acting rationally; I'm depressed. Recognizing this, you come give me attention, trying to cheer me up.

How do you really win the prisoner's dilemma? Play with someone for whom you feel mutual, wild, illogical love. How do you keep people from challenging your authority or trying to steal your stuff? Go into flights of periodic, self-detrimental rage to let them know you won't take their shit. How do you believe in Santa forever? Develop an overpowering illogical emotion called "faith".

The emotions arms race

All of the above benefits of being illogical are based on the knowledge of someone you're interacting with - they need to think that you're illogical for you to get a benefit. The best course of action then, is to be logical, but to fake being illogical. Pretend to be in love with the 70-year old tycoon, marry him, then stab him in the back and run off with the sexy young stud.

To prevent this, people using emotion to signal their state of illogicality should make the signs progressively more subtle and harder to fake. As generations go by, there is an emotionality arms race. On one side, there are fakers getting better and better at signalling false emotional states. On the other, there are emotional people getting better and better at making their emotional tells into subtle, subconscious cues, and also getting better at picking up on them. People who fall behind in this "emotional intelligence" battle wind up penalized in all their interactions throughout life.

We can imagine the humans resulting from such an arms race. Knowing who you could trust would be a key part of their lives, and they would have circles of companions, going from closest friends out to mere acquaintances. Managing their own emotional lives and their display of emotions would become their greatest challenge. They would constantly keep track of the various relationships between people, feeling almost compelled to gossip. They would also track other people's personalities and goals. They would use that information to judge the people they knew, forming images in their minds to emulate or predict others' actions. They might even come to enjoy this sort of thing so much they would make up imaginary people in imaginary scenarios and tell each other stories about what those people did. In this world, the experience, expression, and communication of emotion would be the pinnacles of people's lives - the key component of their society and art.

They would be illogical, and better for it.


Reference:
I borrowed heavily from
Someone anonymous's answer to In Star Trek, the Vulcans believe that emotions lead to irrationality and should therefore be totally suppressed. Are they right or wrong?, which in turn seems to have borrowed from here: http://www.scottaaronson.com/writings/selfdelusion.html

Both logic and psychology are related to the human mind and ultimately to the human brain, and indeed most likely to any natural brain, including that of cows and pigs.

Logic can be seen as the capacity of the brain that allows it to help us make sense of the world, including of what people say and of what they mean on the basis of what they say. Thus, whenever what we understand that people mean is somehow contradictory to what we understand about the world, we just feel this is wrong.

There are different ways that we can feel that something is wrong in what people say. For example, if I don’t

Both logic and psychology are related to the human mind and ultimately to the human brain, and indeed most likely to any natural brain, including that of cows and pigs.

Logic can be seen as the capacity of the brain that allows it to help us make sense of the world, including of what people say and of what they mean on the basis of what they say. Thus, whenever what we understand that people mean is somehow contradictory to what we understand about the world, we just feel this is wrong.

There are different ways that we can feel that something is wrong in what people say. For example, if I don’t believe that Trump is a liar and someone say that he is, then I will feel that this is wrong. This is of course a basic fact of our psychology and our beliefs should be seen as essentially logical conclusions from our very limited personal experience. There is no fundamental difference between believing that cats don’t fly and believing that any particular person is a liar.

Most likely, people cannot help being logical. We of course routinely accuse other people of being illogical but in that, we are probably judging from the vantage point of our own personal belief about the relevant premises. Given our own beliefs, we infer one conclusion. Someone else with different beliefs will infer a different conclusion. Since we feel that this conclusion is wrong, we will also feel that it doesn’t follow from what we ourselves believe, and we express this feeling by saying that the other person is “illogical”. However, if we take the time to find out what are the beliefs of the other person that motivate their conclusion, we can sometimes understand the logic of the conclusion even as we disagree with it. However, it is less time consuming to just charge the other person as being illogical rather than spend any time trying to understand what they say.

People of course get it often completely wrong. Frege himself, admittedly one of the founders of modern mathematical logic together with George Boole and Bertrand Russell, was found out by Russell himself as having accepted as valid mathematical notions that were in fact logically inconsistent. However, again, we would need to have been in Frege’s mind to see that his conclusions were probably entirely logical.

Essentially, Frege’s mistakes, like for any of us, can be explained by assuming that we can only reason from our beliefs and that the limit of our mental capacity means we are unable to take all of our own beliefs into account when we reason. Thus, we may have beliefs that are logically inconsistent with each other and we may say inconsistent things at different moments in time and even within the same sentence. The result is illogical but it is produced logically by our brain on the basis of necessarily limited information.

This of course, if true, would be a feature of our psychology. Thus, psychology may help explain our logical capacity even as we will have to use our logical capacity to reason logically about our own psychology.

The question may seem trivial, however I bet it is not from a perspective of a neuroscientist, neurosurgeon or an anesthetist who should be the best addressees to answer it in my opinion.

My perspective allows to give a quick and straightforward answer. The difference may be in a way of thinking that yields the results in reality. To Socrates it was obvious that if people were able to conceptually acknowledge outcomes of their actions, they would stop doing dumb things like self-destruction by means of drinking for instance. Unfortunately, he was wrong and majority of people act according to ir

The question may seem trivial, however I bet it is not from a perspective of a neuroscientist, neurosurgeon or an anesthetist who should be the best addressees to answer it in my opinion.

My perspective allows to give a quick and straightforward answer. The difference may be in a way of thinking that yields the results in reality. To Socrates it was obvious that if people were able to conceptually acknowledge outcomes of their actions, they would stop doing dumb things like self-destruction by means of drinking for instance. Unfortunately, he was wrong and majority of people act according to irrational impulses although logic says something completely different and they know it.

Actually, acting on various impulses have been crucial for survival for ages. That is why a brain does not discriminate much between them. Whereas logical thinking could simply mean a complete demise in a jungle setting. Say we have a mathematician, philosopher, even physicist and a primitive homo sapiens. No equations, no analysis are required when there is an unknown leaves rustling noise. Homo sapiens either fights or flights. It is purely based on an emotional trigger. Funnily enough, tiger’s stomach does not care whether it digests an intelligent brain or not. However, the more the better, the exemplified trio would be only valued in quantity if they get down to scrutinizing the situation instead of acting upon it.

Emotions are generally behavioral conductors between individuals, they have the power to bind one another or the opposite. They also aid a construction of a “social reality”. In linguistics, they allow to “understand” some nuisances like in metaphors and perceive the linguistic “depth” of words, so they play a major part in communication and even locomotion. Some people have a better way of “feeling” their movement like in dancing. Others have terrible motoric. They can never have a “feel” for it.

Emotional attachment to certain ideas may reinforce a given set of behaviors. What is more, it extends beyond the conceptual world and reaches the so called reality, in which people can think in an emotional way about objects, places, sounds, etc.

Cognitive preference of emotional and logical thinking may vary between individuals. As a matter of fact it seems it cannot be easily changed. That is why there might be some more emotional people and more logical as well. However extreme logical inclination that is deprived of emotional counterpart is usually deemed a disorder thwarting proper social interactions for instance. Therefore if robots are ever going to be an intrinsic part of society, they will need emotional thinking.

How do you improve your logical thinking as compared to your creative thinking…

I see this question has already been answered by many people and I am quite late to respond, nevertheless I will expound how would have I achieved it.

Creativity by essence of it all meanings and interpretations - is the newness or originality in the expression of any existing idea.

It is more of how you say something when you say it.

It is more of having the new eyes to look at something when the view has never changed.

So, it is obviously subjective.

You, having your own personal style to say, do or see something, is w

How do you improve your logical thinking as compared to your creative thinking…

I see this question has already been answered by many people and I am quite late to respond, nevertheless I will expound how would have I achieved it.

Creativity by essence of it all meanings and interpretations - is the newness or originality in the expression of any existing idea.

It is more of how you say something when you say it.

It is more of having the new eyes to look at something when the view has never changed.

So, it is obviously subjective.

You, having your own personal style to say, do or see something, is what makes you creative.

Now, when we think about logic, it is rational and causative. It could be taught to a person to be reasonable and to act a certain way, in order to achieve a certain outcome, as opposed to being spontaneous.

It is more of a pattern recognition and then building over that pattern thing.

It is a function of understanding rather than intuitive originality.

Remember that, when we talk about seeing a pattern, we are talking about being able to see the puzzle pieces, and the consequent big picture. A pattern itself means that it has pre-existed, as opposed to creative thinking which in itself is original and indigenous.

So you kind of train your mind, to link patterns and to look to their possible outcomes and thus you can predict the behavior, and the outcomes of situations.

Reasoning and analytical thinking can be learned by guiding your mind to think in a certain way.

And as one person already pointed out here, very importantly :

‘Put yourself out of the equation and try to look at the situations objectively.’

Lacan postulated such diference to recall the radicallity of the Freudian Revolution: as much as Psychoanalysis is a school in Psychology and a form of Clinic Psychopathology, and even is the epistemologic guarantor of the scientificity of Psychology as a whole, it can not be reduced to those - it is, and must be, an independent discipline transversal to all others.

Doing so, he notices a contradiction in the First Topology: Freud uses the concept of, say, psychosexual developmental stages, when only the effects are psychic or mental, not the cause - the cause is that there are signifiers (word

Lacan postulated such diference to recall the radicallity of the Freudian Revolution: as much as Psychoanalysis is a school in Psychology and a form of Clinic Psychopathology, and even is the epistemologic guarantor of the scientificity of Psychology as a whole, it can not be reduced to those - it is, and must be, an independent discipline transversal to all others.

Doing so, he notices a contradiction in the First Topology: Freud uses the concept of, say, psychosexual developmental stages, when only the effects are psychic or mental, not the cause - the cause is that there are signifiers (words, representants in a language) that cover the anatomical body (this gets clearer in a later Freud’s article Some psychic consequences of the anatomical distinction between sexes - what causes the psychic consequence from an anatomical distinction is the signifiers, culture, etc).

(In such formulations, Jacques Lacan was admitedly influenced by Gottlob Frege, about which Tim Harding's answer to What is the difference between logical and psychological? is remarkeably good. Yet in the answer by Tim Harding, Merleau-Ponty was a close friend of Jacques Lacan).

Hence the status of the sexuality in the freudian letter is logical (from the logos, words, chain of signifiers), and only its consequences are mental or psychic (this is accordance with what Skinner, a critic of Psychoanalysis, says: that Freud stabilished the first radically externalistic and antimentalist explanation to behaviour - the unconscious, which is never “intern”, and can only appear between two people when one speaks and the other listens).

Hence also Lacan’s afirmation that “the sexual relationship does not exist - this is a logical impossibility” - an impossibility of signifier (there is at least one hole in the body to which there is no representation in the unconscious), not of “the mind”, albeit it has consequences “in the mind” as much as “in the body”.

Thinking -- true thinking -- is difficult and purely logical. It requires concentration and clarity of mind. You problem solve by examining all the facts and drawing logical conclusions.

So called "emotional thinking" is a actually a response based on the values you hold. What offends you makes you angry, and what you agree with makes you happy.

If I am hungry and see a hot pizza, I desire it because I know it tastes good.That is an emotional response. If I apply logical thinking, I need to question the nutritional value of eating it and the possible negative effects of consuming too many. If

Thinking -- true thinking -- is difficult and purely logical. It requires concentration and clarity of mind. You problem solve by examining all the facts and drawing logical conclusions.

So called "emotional thinking" is a actually a response based on the values you hold. What offends you makes you angry, and what you agree with makes you happy.

If I am hungry and see a hot pizza, I desire it because I know it tastes good.That is an emotional response. If I apply logical thinking, I need to question the nutritional value of eating it and the possible negative effects of consuming too many. If I conclude that the pizza is not good for me, I will reject it. I don't have to think about it too many times because I have already made my conclusion that pizza is not an appropriate meal.

Our conflicts come when emotional responses differ from the values derived from logical thinking. Inevitably, purely emotional responses can have disasterous consequences. A good looking woman may visually stimulate me, and a romantic encounter can be a pleasurable thing, but, as a married man, my reason tells me not to act in contradiction to my moral values.

The answers to this question are generally adequate, but I have a rather simple way to understand the difference between the two by explaining their basic relationship.

Logical thinking is following a train of thought/reasoning that begins with a set of assumptions or premises all the through to the necessary conclusions as dictated by the rules of deductive logic (ie modus pollens/tollens etc). If the rules of logic are followed, the conclusion will be logically VALID but not necessarily TRUE.

Critical thinking is examining the set of assumptions to ascertain their scope, factuality and justifi

The answers to this question are generally adequate, but I have a rather simple way to understand the difference between the two by explaining their basic relationship.

Logical thinking is following a train of thought/reasoning that begins with a set of assumptions or premises all the through to the necessary conclusions as dictated by the rules of deductive logic (ie modus pollens/tollens etc). If the rules of logic are followed, the conclusion will be logically VALID but not necessarily TRUE.

Critical thinking is examining the set of assumptions to ascertain their scope, factuality and justifiability to figure out what is the true state of affairs and therefore a true set of assumptions/premises.

Beginning with critically thought out assumptions represented by true statements, one can then use logical reasoning to ascertain valid and true conclusions.

The logic of psychology is based on the nature of the internal struggle of the ways in which temptations lead us away from our desires. The paradigmatic example of this is the Stanford marshmallow experiment.

This is an understanding that looks at the long view. This is what logic looks like.

I would further suggest our conscience and moral imagination are there for a reason.

This is a philosopher speaking, but a psychologist can speak to this from the perspective of identity, perspective, and phenomenology:

There is no such thing as reading without qualification. Instead there is reading as a phi

The logic of psychology is based on the nature of the internal struggle of the ways in which temptations lead us away from our desires. The paradigmatic example of this is the Stanford marshmallow experiment.

This is an understanding that looks at the long view. This is what logic looks like.

I would further suggest our conscience and moral imagination are there for a reason.

This is a philosopher speaking, but a psychologist can speak to this from the perspective of identity, perspective, and phenomenology:

There is no such thing as reading without qualification. Instead there is reading as a philosopher, historian, cartographer, journalist, and so on. Even within a discipline there is no single way to read.

Source: Reading as a Philosopher

Choice understood psychologically, has to be intentional. Because non-intentional choice seems to be not much choice at all—as we are influenced all along the way in positive and negative ways. Moral psychology indicates the following:

In 1982 V. Campbell and R. Bond proposed the following as major sources in influencing character and moral development: heredity, early childhood experience, modeling by important adults and older youth, peer influence, the general physical and social environment, the communications media, the teachings of schools and other institutions, and specific situations and roles that elicit corresponding behavior. [5]

The field of business ethics examines moral controversies relating to the social responsibilities of capitalist business practices, the moral status of corporate entities, deceptive advertising, insider trading, employee rights, job discrimination, affirmative action and drug testing.

People have to have a moral core that guides them through or they will be tossed around as if caught in a perpetual storm at sea.

Source: Moral character - Wikipedia

The word “logic” comes from the ancient Greek term “logos”, which means word, speech and also reason. Logic deals with language: it studies the structure of some propositions and the way you can process them to infer good conclusions. But logic deals also with the power and the limits of human mind, even if it is not a kind of psychology. The Greek word “logos” is strictly related to the verb “legein”, which basically means “to collect”. Therefore, logic can be conceived as the discipline that studies the forms of collecting premises and of constructing (valid) arguments. Rationality, on the c

The word “logic” comes from the ancient Greek term “logos”, which means word, speech and also reason. Logic deals with language: it studies the structure of some propositions and the way you can process them to infer good conclusions. But logic deals also with the power and the limits of human mind, even if it is not a kind of psychology. The Greek word “logos” is strictly related to the verb “legein”, which basically means “to collect”. Therefore, logic can be conceived as the discipline that studies the forms of collecting premises and of constructing (valid) arguments. Rationality, on the contrary, comes from the Latin “ratio” that means “relationship”, “fraction”. Rationality deals with comparisons, ponderings and evaluations. By this point of view, rational thinking might be conceived as the same of logical reasoning, but it is not so. Rational thinking is something wider than logic: you can be rational even if you are not logical. The meaning of the English word “sensible” can help you to understand this point. Indeed there are good ways of pondering a situation or a problem that however are not bounded to the rules of logic.

I don't want to be too technical today (explaining once more deduction, induction, abduction, rhetoric and so on), but, if you really need more details, you can check other answers of mine and, of course, you must read (or read again) Aristotle's “Metaphysics” and “Categories”, Kant's “Critique of the Faculty of Judgment”, J.S. Mill’s “Systems of logic”, and almost all Ch.S. Peirce’s works.

Both are nouns, but logic refers to a concept, and logical thinking refers to a method of thinking based on logic.