What is thinking logically? What are the other types of thinking, or what are they said to be?

Some other primary forms of thinking are thinking emotionally, thinking instinctually, or agenda based thinking.

Emotional thinking is based on ego and desire. Wanting a particular outcome and working toward it because of a desire of self or emotion, ignoring inconvenient evidence or anything that could damage the desired outcome.

Instinctual thinking is trusting your gut or making judgements based on hunches without bothering with evidence or facts at all.

Agenda based thinking is pushing for a desired outcome because you logically conclude it is the best outcome. Anything that is a setback to the agenda is suppressed, altered, or ignored.

Very few people use logic and reason in their typical thought processes. We are an evolved species… but we are not THAT evolved yet. Even our scientists and (especially) our politicians are creatures of emotion and agenda.

I have one recommendation, never fully trust in any evidence you did not gather yourself.

There is deductive thinking, which uses principles of logic to derive truth from known facts.

A more treacherous but still useful type of thinking is inductive thinking. This is generalizing a model from one or a few specific examples. This is important, if you watch a tiger rip apart your buddy Oleg and carry him off to eat him, you should probably generalize from that one example that ALL tigers are dangerous. If you eat some new fruit and get deathly ill, you might tend to generalize it is dangerous. You might be wrong, something else might have made you deathly ill, but other than discardin

There is deductive thinking, which uses principles of logic to derive truth from known facts.

A more treacherous but still useful type of thinking is inductive thinking. This is generalizing a model from one or a few specific examples. This is important, if you watch a tiger rip apart your buddy Oleg and carry him off to eat him, you should probably generalize from that one example that ALL tigers are dangerous. If you eat some new fruit and get deathly ill, you might tend to generalize it is dangerous. You might be wrong, something else might have made you deathly ill, but other than discarding a useful food source, better safe than sorry. Some animals, if sickened after eating a new food, will never touch it again.

Inductive thinking is useful because sometimes life (and nature) may not give you a SECOND chance to learn your lesson.

Inductive thinking is even useful in science; many times a scientist doing experiments has run across an extremely rare event, and assuming that was not an error, figured out how to analyze this one event and figure out how to make it happen consistently. Inductive generalizations can often be scientifically investigated and proven to be useful generalizations.

On the treacherous side, inductive thinking can incorrectly and irrationally generalize from a few examples, making it responsible for racism, misogyny, religious bigotry, and other pernicious forms of bias, like presuming pretty or handsome people are good people, or that rich people must be smarter than you because you aren’t rich.

In-between is abductive thinking. This is the kind of thinking the fictional Sherlock Holmes does; gathering clues and coming to the most likely conclusion about what happened. This is not 100% logical, there can be many alternative reasons for each clue gathered, but altogether there is a most likely common cause.

The same kind of thinking is what a doctor uses to try and make a diagnosis; take clues in the form of symptoms, recent history of the patient, past illnesses of the patient or his genetic line or the people he has been spending time with, and come up with the most likely cause of the patient’s illness. But like Inductive thinking, this should be followed up by verification of some sort, to prove out the guess, or an attempt to invalidate the guess.

There is subconscious thinking; if you devote enough thinking time to something, your subconscious will get the message that this is important to you and work on it, and perhaps wake you up in the middle of the night, or just while you are working on the issue awake, provide an epiphany on how to make progress. That has happened to me several times, and is unlikely to be purely logical thinking; it is usually creative thinking.

Finally I’d say there is emotional thinking, which is kind of the antithesis of logical thinking; or kind of ditches logic for immediate response and gratification, regardless of the longer term consequences. Thinking in anger, or love, or fear, or in righteousness or vindictiveness.

This is probably the least useful kind of thinking; but on occasion righteous anger, outrage, and/or love or kindness can be useful in motivating change for the better.

It is not, strictly speaking, logical for front line Covid doctors and nurses to risk their lives to save others. For soldiers to volunteer for the front lines. For firemen to volunteer to run into burning buildings. For cops to stand and fight against armed criminals. For people to volunteer to help the homeless, or battered women, or the elderly or disabled children.

As a society it is logical for that some people do that, so we have fewer deaths, are not conquered, have fewer children burned to death, have fewer violent criminals victimizing us. but individually, the motivations to volunteer for those is driven by emotional thinking, be it empathy, sympathy or the desire to be seen as a brave hero, or a sense of duty to your country or fellow humans. It is not purely logical thinking. People take these jobs for emotional reasons, it is what seems emotionally right or just to them.

Or perhaps the wrong emotional reasons, a desire for status and authority, or the desire to be powerful and feared. I’ve met soldiers that sincerely wanted to kill somebody, that is why they joined and wanted to go to the front lines, to experience that thrill without risking punishment. That is not logical thinking. ( I can only hope they met their counterparts there.)

Question originally answered: Is true logical thinking possible, or are personal opinions always going to get in the way?


I am utterly at a loss as to why taking consideration of someone’s personal opinions on some matter would contravene logical thinking!

Logical thinking is reasoning validly over some collection of hypotheticals. In particular, it is not about whether or not that proposition is mere opinion, of in fact perhaps actually false. It is about reasoning about what the consequences would be of these propositions if they were true, whether or not they actually are.

A logic that reasons

Question originally answered: Is true logical thinking possible, or are personal opinions always going to get in the way?


I am utterly at a loss as to why taking consideration of someone’s personal opinions on some matter would contravene logical thinking!

Logical thinking is reasoning validly over some collection of hypotheticals. In particular, it is not about whether or not that proposition is mere opinion, of in fact perhaps actually false. It is about reasoning about what the consequences would be of these propositions if they were true, whether or not they actually are.

A logic that reasons with subjective propositions can easily be constructed as some kind of a modal logic. In fact in such logics are regularly used to model interacting agents in an environment, where the information each agent has might differ from other’s information, and in fact might actually contradict other agent’s propositional knowledge. I fail to see why any such logic could not cope with subjective propositions that might contradict another’s.

The core technical issue at hand is the distinguishing of multiple contexts, wherein propositions are to be interpreted. And I would definitely characterize such reasoning as ‘logical thinking’, involving personal opinion or not.


The issue at hand here, is not so much any subjectivity, but rather the fact that the OP apparently somehow conflates the notions of a logic and truth. The idea that if some proposition is not necessarily true, for example because it is for example merely subjective, that the conclusions are not necessarily true. But as pointed out, we have this already. Axioms are not truths, merely hypothetical to be evaluated for their consequences. And there too, we already have therefore any conclusions drawn are only guaranteed to be true if the axioms are in fact true. However, that they would not be true, would change nothing about the fact that reasoning still simply is logical, is valid reasoning.

That is a good description.

Have you had psychological testing? Many aspects of intelligence are tested including memory, spatial relations, emotional blocks, etc. You might gain some insight.

Often mental blocks such anger, compartmentalizations, moral injunctions, being out of touch with emotions, lack of confidence, unwillingness to take risks, can impede thinking.

It’s like your mind can't “go there” because there is a ‘do not enter” sign. You cannot access all the information you are getting. Or it can be that you are not able to integrate information and form conclusions due to a lack of ex

That is a good description.

Have you had psychological testing? Many aspects of intelligence are tested including memory, spatial relations, emotional blocks, etc. You might gain some insight.

Often mental blocks such anger, compartmentalizations, moral injunctions, being out of touch with emotions, lack of confidence, unwillingness to take risks, can impede thinking.

It’s like your mind can't “go there” because there is a ‘do not enter” sign. You cannot access all the information you are getting. Or it can be that you are not able to integrate information and form conclusions due to a lack of experience or confidence. The fear of being wrong, being humiliated, made fun of can stop you from thinking or at least make it hard.

You are judging yourself as inadequate in some way. That judgement alone could cause trouble for your thinking ability. I will bet there are some things you understand others do not understand. You are measuring yourself against some yardstick.

Its best not to think in terms of black and white and assume there is a right and a wrong way to think. Some people (myself) are linear thinkers. I go from A to B to C and so on. I know people who are circular thinkers. The go from A to L to D to B. If everyone thought the same way and “"got it” in the same way, there would be no contrast in this world. It would all be gray.

I suggest you relax your scrutiny of your own brain and it's wrongness and instead do some Self research on what your mind does think and find the merit in it. You may be creative. You may be that 1 in a million who sees what nobody else sees.

Logic is a set of rules for determining truth. Following those rules is logical thinking. But, as Godel proved, any logical system that allows self-referencing is unable to be correct at all times: logical thinking will not necessarily always provide truth. Correct logical thinking does not always provide the correct answer, but it provides the best answer we are capable of. Isn’t that good enough?

Sometimes there is not enough data to make a concrete proof. If someone claims unicorns exist, it can not be proven false. However, the preponderance of evidence is so one sided that to believe they

Logic is a set of rules for determining truth. Following those rules is logical thinking. But, as Godel proved, any logical system that allows self-referencing is unable to be correct at all times: logical thinking will not necessarily always provide truth. Correct logical thinking does not always provide the correct answer, but it provides the best answer we are capable of. Isn’t that good enough?

Sometimes there is not enough data to make a concrete proof. If someone claims unicorns exist, it can not be proven false. However, the preponderance of evidence is so one sided that to believe they exist would be astronomically improbable if not impossible. In such a case we can logically assume they do not exist. It is not concrete proof, but it is close enough for thinking creatures.

Q, of Q-anon, predicted Hillary Clinton would be arrested, that Joe Biden would be arrested, and even gave a time that each would take place. Neither happened as predicted. Q said that there was a child sex-ring being run from the basement of a pizza place in D.C. That building has no basement. For anyone to believe in this nonsense after so many falsehoods is not only illogical, it is ignorant. There is no evidence anything Q has said is correct, yet there is plenty of evidence that Q’s stories are fictional. Why do people still believe in Q? Because people are, by and large, ignorant and illogical. That is not a value judgement, it is a sociological observation. Correct logical thinking would be to disbelieve anyone who you know has been wrong but who has not yet been right.

If you care about right answers, then you apply logical thinking. If you do not apply logical thinking, you do not care what is right. It’s that simple.

1.

The limbic system or paleomammalian brain, seat of our basic emotions and motivational circuitry and what Freud called the libido.

If one follows the evolution of the brain in higher organisms, it begins with the reptillian brain, which sits above the spinal cord and regulates basic functions like respiration and heartbeat.

Above that, one finds the paleomammalian brain, which is similar in all mammals, from mice to men. This is the area of the brain that learns from emotional experience, that means that a cat that sits on a hot stove won’t do so again.

Above and around that, one finds the neoc

1.

The limbic system or paleomammalian brain, seat of our basic emotions and motivational circuitry and what Freud called the libido.

If one follows the evolution of the brain in higher organisms, it begins with the reptillian brain, which sits above the spinal cord and regulates basic functions like respiration and heartbeat.

Above that, one finds the paleomammalian brain, which is similar in all mammals, from mice to men. This is the area of the brain that learns from emotional experience, that means that a cat that sits on a hot stove won’t do so again.

Above and around that, one finds the neocortex, which fist evolved to process and interpret our sense impressions, identifying the class of objects known as stoves. It became the seat of our intellects, and it is what I am using to write and think about this, just as it is what you are using to read and think about it.

But our basic motivations are still determined by the limbic system, with its needs, pleasure, and pain. While the neocortex, which does our thinking and is the seat of our higher consciousness, likes to think that it’s in charge, it has only a limited ability to reprogram the paleomammalian brain — as anyone who has ever tried to stop smoking or lose weight knows.

The needs of the paleomammalian brain are so central to our survival that they ordinarily take precedence.

2.

Consider a pattern of behavior. Typically, we receive a sensory input. That is analyzed and classified by the neocortex, which takes into account our prior experience with that class of objects and then develops a strategy to maximize pleasure and minimize pain — what Freud called the pleasure principle.

In short, it is finding a behavioral strategy to serve the needs of the motivational circuitry in the limbic system.

Behavioral strategies that have been known to produce negative emotional results, such as sitting on a hot stove, are suppressed, while those that have known to succeed, like avoiding the stove and curling up in a beam of sunlight instead, are reinforced and become our default behaviors.

That is the origin of repression, the phenomenon Freud first observed whereby the neocortex suppresses a behavior and makes it unconscious. Even trying to think about a repressed behavior makes us anxious — what Freud called the reaction formation.

This is where the neocortex begins to depart from rationality. It evolved as a tool for behavior, rather than objective analysis. It will therefore repress thoughts that cause pain to the organism, even if those thoughts are true. It will even create fantasies that mislead us, because they serve the limbic system by making us feel good. If we look in the mirror and decide that we don’t look our age, we are probably fooling ourselves because it makes us feel good, thus serving the imperatives of our motivational circuitry.

3.

Man is a social animal, almost (though not quite) a eusocial species like bees and ants. Groups of people work cooperatively, like a single metaorganism. We have therefore evolved to internalize both the cognitions and emotions of the group, and of other members within the group. We are less individual than we think.

With the evolution of speech, humans have also taken culture, the learned behavior of a group of animals (not just humans) that is passed from one animal to another, to a high level of importance and development. We learn from one another, and are affected emotionally by the needs of the joint metaorganism. The process by which this affects our limbic system is called suggestion, and it is the mechanism that is used in hypnosis, as well as the enabling mechanism of art, which is itself a way of communicating the emotional/behavioral memes described above.

Because of this, we obtain beliefs from our parents and one another. Just as the desired behaviors in Section 2 can be irrational, so can belief. It is taken on faith, so to speak, and protected by the same defenses that protect behaviors based on experience.

Those are the main sources of human irrationality. Whether it’s believing that we are younger than we are, or believing that our society’s moral code is the one correct one, practical behavior takes precedence over objective analysis. To be objective, we must be more dedicated to the scientific truth than we are to our emotional needs. Few of us are able to do that; the so-called rational types, NT in the nomenclature of the Meyers-Briggs personality assessment, make up only 12–14% of the population. It seems to be in part a genetic characteristic, one that has gained importance as our society has become more knowledgeable and scientific. But even for NT’s, it involves work and a willingness to put the truth before what feels good.

One must challenge the very structure of one’s mind to achieve it, and few desire to do that, or even know that it is possible.

Algebra is a good example of logical thinking in common parlance.

When you try to get closer and closer to your own true inner self, you will be pushed more and more to question the most fundamental truths that you have been taking for granted before.

The very process of thinking is a great mystery! Logic is also not always logical!

Thoughts arise quite mysteriously and they are cognizant mysteriously and yet thoughts are self-luminous, self-evident and unmistakable.

You cannot convince any human being that he/she is not having any thoughts!

What then would be an example of logical thinking?

You and

Algebra is a good example of logical thinking in common parlance.

When you try to get closer and closer to your own true inner self, you will be pushed more and more to question the most fundamental truths that you have been taking for granted before.

The very process of thinking is a great mystery! Logic is also not always logical!

Thoughts arise quite mysteriously and they are cognizant mysteriously and yet thoughts are self-luminous, self-evident and unmistakable.

You cannot convince any human being that he/she is not having any thoughts!

What then would be an example of logical thinking?

You and I surely cannot see, hear, smell, taste or feel thought but this thought can say that it must “logically” arise from memory!

Again you and I cannot see, hear, smell, taste or feel memory and we also cannot guarantee that logic is infallible and yet there is some mysterious faculty in us that is quite confident of itself when thought says that it must arise from memory.

What exactly is this mysterious faculty?

We call this faculty as “intuition” which is “logically” seen as arising from INTELLIGENCE which is synonymous with ALIVENESS. This is also called as the eye of wisdom.

This INTELLIGENCE/ALIVENESS is again “logically” seen as SUBJECTIVITY.

The SUBJECTIVITY that is behind all of our confident inference, intuition, logic and reason is the ONE and only REALITY that is most intimate, nameless, formless, dimension-less, non-local and non-temporal and IT IS our only CAPITAL that must be taken as an axiom.

You cannot question this SUBJECTIVITY!

You cannot possibly say that you don’t exist! That would be the greatest fallacy.

So you can see clearly that we really do not know anything for sure except the mysterious SUBJECTIVITY.

We have used what little tools we have at our disposal like logic, reason, intuition etc. to finally reach home to our inner self.

Once you have reached this SUBJECTIVITY, throw away all the tools and BE confident that this SUBJECTIVITY is the subtlest REALITY known and IT must be PURE ENERGY of this cosmos.

Cosmos is vibrations of PURE PRIMORDIAL ENERGY.

Solid is the grossest modification of this ENERGY followed by liquids, gases, fundamental forces, time-space, thought and SUBJECTIVITY.

Since the SUBJECTIVITY can perceive everything else but ITSELF it is clear that this SUBJECTIVITY is PURE ENERGY in its unmodified form (or formlessness).

This SUBJECTIVITY is the Creator and the Creation!

The primary differences are found in analytic rigor and intellectual will and discipline.

“Regular thinking” is stream of consciousness with no particular aim, goal, intent, purpose, or objective. Ordinary commonsense reasoning comes into play when that stream of consciousness acquires focus and perspective, and the one doing the thinking seeks truth, knowledge, understanding, or wisdom in order to establish values, set goals, make plans, and take actions.

The broader and deeper the truth, knowledge, and understanding needed to fulfill those values by achieving those goals using rational plans a

The primary differences are found in analytic rigor and intellectual will and discipline.

“Regular thinking” is stream of consciousness with no particular aim, goal, intent, purpose, or objective. Ordinary commonsense reasoning comes into play when that stream of consciousness acquires focus and perspective, and the one doing the thinking seeks truth, knowledge, understanding, or wisdom in order to establish values, set goals, make plans, and take actions.

The broader and deeper the truth, knowledge, and understanding needed to fulfill those values by achieving those goals using rational plans and effective humane actions, the more rigorous — i.e., logical — the thinking needs to be.

The difference isn’t a binary, on/off, in/out, black/white distinction. Emotions, ego, and many non-rational and irrational factors may come into play when the effort is made to think and act logically. The difference is in knowing those risks, being self-aware and self-disciplined enough to acknowledge and mitigate them, and following principles of logic and rationality in spite of them, so they do not disrupt or undermine logical and rational mental processes.

The process of thinking can be called Inference. It is of two types: Induction amd deduction( There is another type which we will not consider here to make the answer simple).

All of our thoughts have a sequence either in the deductive or the inductive path.

In the inductive thinking we try to establish an objective proposition coherent and universally acceptable from particular instances.

In the deductive process on the other hand, we take a generally accepted proposition and try to derive its consequences to specific instances.

Since all our thinking process follow these two methods they must al

The process of thinking can be called Inference. It is of two types: Induction amd deduction( There is another type which we will not consider here to make the answer simple).

All of our thoughts have a sequence either in the deductive or the inductive path.

In the inductive thinking we try to establish an objective proposition coherent and universally acceptable from particular instances.

In the deductive process on the other hand, we take a generally accepted proposition and try to derive its consequences to specific instances.

Since all our thinking process follow these two methods they must always be logical but often our subjective dispositions, beliefs and emotions deviate and contrive to distort the sequence to arrive at a conclusion that suits our taste and that's when it turns illogical.

Thus to think logical is to keep away all personal prejudices and let the rational sequence establish the cause- effect relation that it naturally searches for. Such a though process would be generally universal.

Critical thinking undoes logic by criticising it.

Logic only works when we don’t demand the reason for our reason or the truth of our truth. Axioms exist absolutely. Don’t ask how or why - that results in Semantic Despair (or Making Sense)

The picture looks like reality, doesn’t it? It seems like it should work. On its own it doesn’t. It’s an irony that represents a relationship expressed in the words from above it.

Practical thinking has the foundation of emptiness. Unbiased stand point which has 360 degree seeing and knowing. Practical thinking is natural, existential, not addressed to a particular thought. It is waiting for answer.

Logical thinking has the pre foundation of logic. Logic is one faculty which is supported by reasoning. Generally logical thinking is about things,objects, about one particular thing or situation.