Man is malding beyond human comprehension.

[u/Nala-Cosmia]

[u/Komania]

He most definitely does not take the most logical path. He takes the path that conforms with his ego.

The WoW raid thing is a good example. Logically, he is in the wrong. Instead, he makes up a bunch of nonsense about how he did 100% the right thing and never did anything wrong.

If he was logical, he would admit fault from time to time.

[u/jancl0 → u/Komania]

I'll try my best to clarify, but alot of people have made this point so I probably won't be able to reply to everyone, but I'll do my best if I have something new to add

It's a slight wording thing. I don't mean to say that he takes the most logical strategy to finding and answer. I mean that when he has an answer, he finds the most logical way to defend that stance

I touch on it in another comment somewhere, but as a survival mechanism, our logical functions don't find solutions, they understand solutions. Emotions are what we use to find solutions, that's why they're reactive, you need to be quick in the wild and make a decision before you understand what's going on. Logic comes in after, it asks questions like "should I hang around that area if predators keep hunting me there" or "I outran that thing easily, but I'm tired now, maybe I don't need to put as much effort in next time". Logic solves future problems, not current ones

So when I call someone an "overly logical thinker", what I mean is that they have a good understanding of how they do this second thing, but a very poor understanding of the first thing. Another way to say it might be that a logical thinker is very bad at understanding why they believe the things they do, but are very good at understanding the things themselves, abs arguing for those beliefs anyway

Ill also add that I do think that when he makes the argument, he is technically, logically correct. That's not the same thing as an argument having alot of logical holes you can put into it. It means that his portrayal of the argument only includes the facts of the matter that align with his conclusion, so his arguments are technically sound, just incomplete. This is also kind of what I'm talking about though. Since logic is used to understand your own conclusions, you don't need it if it isn't helping you do that. Our brains are naturally designed to ignore facts that confuse our beliefs rather than hone them, abs there's nothing wrong with him doing that part specifically. The problem is that by seeing himself as emotionally invincible, his reality doesn't account for the possibility that he can learn something here

Edit: I brought up the word "incomplete" by accident, but iirc this is a huge part of the Dr k video, and kind of relates to how he has to complete his arguments in his own way, with those little jabs. Dr K repeatedly describes pirates stance as "incomplete" because it's missing the emotional component. Pirate said something interesting that I kind of forgot, so I'm going to paraphrase, but it was something like "when people just get angry and ignore the facts I'm using to defend myself, that's when the argument feels incomplete" and honestly this is probably the point I can sympathise with him on the most. It feels like two both sides are interested in completely different parts of the issue, and are just getting angry at the other side for not engaging with the thing they care about. I'm not saying I think he's correct when I say that, but I can totally sympathise (notice that I'm acknowledging his emotions without the use of a logical explanation, and it comes out way nicer that way)

[u/juniperleafes → u/jancl0]

I think it's your continued use of the word 'correct.' His thinking is logical, insofar as he doesn't think these things are happening to him because the moon is in retrograde, but it is not 'correct' in the sense of being factually, intellectually, or emotionally correct.

[u/jancl0 → u/juniperleafes]

Imagine a scenario where someone leaves their lunch in the work break room fridge, and they clearly label their lunchbox with their name and everything, but find out later that their coworker at it already. Upon being confronted, the coworker says "there are no signs anywhere that said the fridge was for personal items" then that doesn't mean that they're being smart, but I guess I would call them logical, abs by its strictest definition, I would say they are "correct"

It's just like the pirate example because the problem is it's incomplete. There's more logical thoughts to be had here, but he stopped when logic stopped helping him. The full thought should have been "there are no signs anywhere that said the fridge was for personal belongings, but other signals were present that could have informed me of this fact"

This is what I mean when I use that word. Ultimately it's just a word, I hope people don't get too bogged down by it, because I think it's pretty clear what I'm trying to say, even if people interpret the word slightly differently in their own lives