Skip to main content



Logic is concerned with the world of ideas, reasoning, data, categorization - everything that is a product of the activity of the human mind regardless of whether they have a material embodiment or not, completeness of thoughts, attitude towards the incoming information and its validity, how you value the pursuit of the truth, desire (or lack of thereof) for discussions, the ability to mentally see the essence of things and the cause and effect relationships between them.

Communicated through language.

Resultative Logic shows a preference for answers, Processional Logic shows a preference for questions. High logic can synthesize ideational content it is confident in, Low logic struggles to be confident in this content. Principal Logic is focused on its own structures more than those of others, Unprincipled Logic is focused more on the logic of other people than of their own.

Denoted by 'L'

1L - "Dogma"

The 1st Will sees in the Absolute an unconscious, blind volitional principle (Schopenhauer, Hartmann, Kierkegaard, etc.), and eternity rewards exclusively the human "spirit", the will.

Rationalists believe only in logic

- Afanasyev


The unconsciousness of 1L makes this aspect unconcerned for the process of reasoning, causing it to adhere to a distinct logical structure based on facts that are reliable according to the 1Ls standards. Speculation is always regarded as a means to a conclusion and without the conclusion there arises dissatisfaction. 1Ls can be predisposed to rambling in monologues whenever it finds the action necessary, such as when someone contradicts the logical consistency of their ideas. This makes them dialectic with a resent for dialogic thought.

The dialogic resent has two manifestations in the 1L. The first is that the opposition will be hit with extremely simplistic yet complete claims that clearly express disinterest in speculation. These claims are always refutable to others because they aren't supported with any additional verbal reasoning, but to the 1L they are irrefutable facts that need no discussion or clarification to be evident. This method is common to the 1L-1 and 1L-4

The second manifestation speaks on the habit of monologuing. The 1L will try to completely and absolutely refute any and all possible questions or counterarguments before the dialogue even has a chance to continue. Frustration may arise if the opposition continues to find a way continue the discussion, resulting in aggression and an incentive to give up entirely. This method is common to the 1L-2 and 1L-3

In "question and answer" dialogues the 1L refuses to see "question and-" and only sees "answer"


The 1L is constantly trying to get things to make sense and to adhere to their sense of logic so that solid structures of logical information can be relied on in navigating life. The definitive nature also makes them highly prone to black and white thinking, "it is, or it is not"

1L is an independent thinker, usually disinterested in sharing their thought processes or understanding those of other people and primarily concerned with the construction of their own strong opinions and ideas about the the way things are, or should be. They can be highly internally critical in this search for consistency and feel a need to adhere to this consistency, giving full weight to their opinions and ideas and views them as the fundamental building blocks of the world around them. The 1L is often predisposed to trying to understand everything and once it establishes a strong and unyielding structure about something it will seldom change, and if it does it will be very uncomfortable for the 1L who suddenly feels as though they should have been more equipped. It doesn't like to be put into a situation where it does not have a solid idea of something, so when these moments do arise they can occur as painful shocks. The 1L is a slow thinker because of this, preferring to mull over and carefully consider things before believing in them and making sure that they have a solid interlocking repertoire of internal ideas before they do anything else.

They are constantly weaving complex systems of rules and conditions that guide them in their life. While some may perceive this kind of thinking as an imprisonment (usually 2L and 4L), the 1L views these rules as a freeing form of intellectualism that allows them to walk forward with clarity.


It can be very difficult for a 1L to be externally convinced of a new way of thinking because they are so focused on relying on their own Logic, but in turn may like to impose their ideas onto other people in a fashion that "sets things right" according to their idea of "right". To convince someone else of something is always to the ends of establishing a sense of correctness, and the 1L will always do this with a preconceived pillar of what is correct. To convince someone simply for the sake of convincing them is never the 1Ls aim- it is one of the 2L- if it ever happens (and it rarely does) it is always towards a subjective sense of correct.

1L's method of influencing people is done through conveying raw syntactical symbols to them. This is how high L operates, through a mechanical view of information. They usually have an advanced vocabulary and excessively technical way of speaking, preferring to explain the fundamental properties of things around them as they typically have a reductionist way of thinking, and this technical formality can even bleed into their 2nd function. Even so, they might struggle with getting information across to other people as they lack the ability and incentives to simplify this information and can only speak on it from how they purely understand it themselves. 

According to BestSocionics

As you know, the owners of resultative logics do not tend to enter into lengthy discussions and prove anything (by the way, for this reason, one resultant logic can be easily mistaken for another - in particular, 1L may seem like 4L). Since the data carriers of logics value not thinking itself, but knowledge, they no longer rely on their own conclusions, but on information obtained on the basis of their experience or provided by some professional in their field.

In our case, for the carrier of 1L in any dispute, the typical answer will be that he does not have his own opinion on the issue under consideration, since he is incompetent in the area concerned. If the owner of the First Logic believes that he is sufficiently versed in the topic, then he will present his opinion not as a subjective vision, but as an indisputable fact that does not require special evidence. As a result, any dispute with 1L is doomed to never begin, or, having begun, immediately end.

All types with First Logic are very concise in conversation and do not like to utter unnecessary words. It is not so easy to convince them of something, but they themselves tend to impose their opinion and vision of the picture of the world on others. Like all high functions, 1Ls are weakly influenced, since they prefer to form their own beliefs on their own. The first logicians strive for stability in their opinions, therefore, before accepting any new knowledge, they first check and comprehend it for a long time. In principle, not a single 1L likes to change their beliefs once again.

In the process of searching for new useful knowledge, the First Logicians are more inclined to use books, articles and other resources than to receive them directly from other people. The fact is that information provided by a person without appropriate education and experience a priori causes distrust in 1L.

It is important to note that each holder of the First Logic is stubborn in his own way, but at the same time he absolutely does not want to devote his attention to persuading others. Often, if his point of view is not accepted by the interlocutor from the first time, the 1L carrier will prefer to “remain to each his own opinion”, stepping aside from the conversation, sincerely believing that sooner or later life itself will teach him how to really do it right.

2L - "Rhetorician"

For a "rhetor" there are no prohibitions, no limits, no rules that hold back the free play of thought. Everything is subject to the judgment of the 2nd Logic.

Moreover, this talkativeness of the "rhetor" exists, as it were, by itself, like a passion, like a disease, outside of personal and public interests. And sometimes in spite of them.

- Afanasyev


The most important facet of 2L is not just discussion, because even the love for discussion has a deeper underlying cause, it is the view that all ideas are ideas at play.

Imagine it like a game of pool: the balls represent ideas and you can choose from any idea that you want, when the ball is struck by the cue stick a question is asked, and when the ball strikes another ball it represents the continuation of ideating, and when a ball falls into a hole it represents an answer, but an answer is mostly only achieved after a successive series of strategic turns between player and opponent, that is what makes it interesting. If the answer is found with a direct line to the hole it is uninteresting and best left behind. But even after that answer the player is rewarded with an extra turn, an extra question. The allure behind this game of exchanges is that there are so many different ways to play on the ideas and, most importantly, so many questions. The 2L wants to question to question and loves answers only if they promise questions, no matter what happens, a question can be asked to set ideas at play into play. The 2L doesn't want to stop playing the game of questions.

This often makes them quick thinkers who enjoy thinking from a purely situational stance in order to play this game of questions:

Regardless of the speed and accuracy of the witticisms of the 2nd Logic, it should be noted as a whole as the most characteristic feature - the high speed of the processes going on in her brain. The necessary information is instantly extracted from the recesses of memory, instantly and immediately assimilated, options are rapidly calculated and hypotheses are born. One gets the impression that the impulse runs faster through the neurons of the "rhetor" than in other people.

It differs highly from 1L in that it is a dialogic thinker and has a resent for dialectic thought that doesn't contribute to the play between ideas. 1Ls and 4Ls may often frustrate the 2L because their style of communication leaves no room for questions. This does make the rhetor a lover of discussions, one who loves to see the way other people think and what they have to say about any given topic. They are driven by questions and with questions is how they begin,

First, unlike the "dogmatist", the "rhetor" never begins communication with a statement, but always with a question. Starts with a question even when the subject is known to him thoroughly. One owner of the most powerful 2nd Logic, switched off only at night, once explained to me: "If I ask you, it does not mean that I do not know the answer. It's just more convenient for me to talk like that."

In some circumstances the 2L may be prone to monologuing, especially if they take after special interests. They may be focused on the development of ideas in a game, story, anything that takes up their interest and want to talk freely and informally about it for long periods of time, simply for the sake of having something interesting to talk about with another person. They will want to find other people with like interests in order to discuss these things with them, but can and will discuss these things with people that know nothing about them. They will just start the conversation with another question, "did you know?" 


The 1L and 2L both essentially want the same thing, for people to think for themselves. But this is approached very differently as the 1L wants "thought" to be inherent in every single person so that everyone can align with a concept of correctness, but the 2L wants other people to open up their minds to thinking in general. It is obsessed with what other people think and wants to interact with what other people think because of its prospects for breadth and novelty. Of course logic on it's own can satisfy the 2L for a little while, like a ration, but the lack of novelty begins to bore it. When the 2L is on it's own, it turns to writing, though it mostly dislikes this kind of engagement.

The only time when the 2nd Logic willingly turns to paper is during forced loneliness. Precisely being doomed to silence, she turns to such a surrogate as paper, and usually starts a diary. But the one who thinks that this is a diary in the usual sense of the word, as a secret confidant of innermost thoughts, is greatly mistaken. Nothing like this. This is a ship's journal of thought, directly intended for outsiders to read. One of my acquaintances, after long absences, not only gave, but forced his wife to read his diary-magazine.

Socrates (VLEF) was a good example of this kind of Logic. He sought after truth in the form of virtue (1V) but was highly accepting and gluttonous for the reason and logic of other people (2L). Most of his thinking was done by putting ideas into play and interacting on them with these people, and he would only prove someone wrong until they stopped being able to answer his questions, of which they were endless, and due to them, he rarely had or imposed a strong opinion of his own. The focus was the search, the process. An answer is only achieved when the 2L runs out of questions.

The second way: pretend to be a fool and start communication with a phrase similar to the famous Socratic one: "I only know that I know nothing." It is hard to imagine who would refuse to swallow such a bait - the opportunity to teach a fool

Combining the qualities of good humor and persuasive, it can be seen that the 2L doesn't care much for their own statements, they are merely hypothesis created at the convenience of the moment and can often fold back onto each other and can cancel each other out. It is concerned only with "ideas at play," not with whether they are true or not. Diogenes was a prominent example of this. He would formulate rhetorical fallacies often that simply played around with the logic at hand, and he once referenced Anaxagorean physics as a logical proof even though he denounced natural sciences. Nothing has to be consistent for the 2L, it just has to be available and show potential in the moment.

Being a character predisposed to discussion and debate, it is not at all scared- like the 1L is- to engage in a discussion of which it knows nothing about. It's sense of self confidence in it's own rhetorical abilities are more than enough to join any discussion, and it is protected by a failsafe: flexibility. There is no "fail" in discussion if no side is taken.


The influence of the 2L is often suggestive, humorous, and persuasive. They don't view the weight of an idea as particularly important, whether or not something is true doesn't matter as much as if its interesting, so influence can come from making a lot of light suggestions that open up avenues of thinking more than it provides answers. This can make them wonderful in the role of a teacher who will aim to assert a democratic environment and will practice the Socratic method often. In fact, influence from the 2L is more so a way of teaching one how to influence themselves in the ways of logic, which will reap benefits for the 2L. The more someone thinks for themselves and throws ideas into play, the more stimulation 2L gets. 

Because of the love for playing with ideas, the 2L is often in good humor and enjoys making absurdist or ironic jokes, especially because of their omnipresent awareness of irony in any situation. Thus, humor may be one of its favorite ways to exercise influence, especially because humor encourages banter and banter represents an exchange of ideas. 

2L's can also be very persuasive characters because of the way they can bend logic to what other people want to hear, and because they are always concerned with what other people are thinking they always know what other people want to hear. They can be expert articulators that know exactly how to convey information in a way its audience understands. They are naturally well-versed in rhetorical logos, which is why they are known as the rhetoricians. A rhetorical statement does not have to be complete, only convincing, done exactly by managing the ideas at play.

According to BestSocionics

The Second Logic, for example, provokes reflection and discussion. The owner of 2L can both ask tricky questions in a public speech, and initiate "srach" in the comments. Often he, deservedly or not, gives the impression of a troll who sneers at someone else's stupidity. But in fact, 2L is not happy with stupidity, on the contrary, he wants an interesting discussion in which there are arguments and logical chains. The second logicians ask questions not so much to find out the answer, but to hear someone else's point of view and discuss it. They are disappointed by stubborn "square" interlocutors who do not experience the joy of thinking

3L - "Skeptic"

Once again I will express heresy, but nevertheless I will say: skepticism is not philosophy at all, but psychology







According to BestSocionics

The holders of the Third Logic are both naive and mistrustful. On the one hand, they are ready to believe what is beautifully framed by arguments; on the other hand, “just information” is not trusted, even from an authoritative source. But 3Ls are touchingly grateful when they have something to explain or tell something interesting, or share unexpected conclusions from the situation.

These people often look like they are “interested in everything”. They can engage in completely different activities with the aim of simply learning, satisfying their curiosity. They love conversations on abstract topics, during which it is possible to reveal the patterns of the world order - politics, society, relationships, religion, etc. They are often very erudite, but have problems with structuring their knowledge.

The easiest way to recognize the Third Logic is in an argument: it immediately loses its confidence and reacts quite aggressively. This is due to the fact that she herself begins to doubt the correctness of her opinion and her knowledge. 3L is not able to “hush up the topic” like 2L, leaving everyone to their own opinion - no, she needs to get to the bottom of the truth.

Sometimes 3Ls have trouble putting their thoughts into words, which manifests as incoherent and confused speech. This is followed by attempts to express their thoughts again. 3Ls also have difficulty understanding simple things, because they expect a dirty trick in everything and are not inclined to trust their intellect.

4L - "Scholar"





According to BestSocionics

Fourth Logicians are people who are too lazy to think. They tend to adopt other people's opinions, and in ordinary life they filter information sources for themselves, choosing the most authoritative ones. But in a stressful situation, 4Ps become able to believe anything, without any filters. Such people usually create panic because of absurd rumors - because Physics, Emotion, Will, which are higher, immediately turn on, and they act on the basis of the information received. In a normal situation, the Fourth Logicians can look like smart interlocutors, in any case, they have clear simple formulations and the same clear simple understanding of the world. But if you ask 4L to explain or argue his opinion, then you immediately understand the lack of cause-and-effect relationships in his picture of the world - simply because he is too lazy to strain and think about them.

All Sources

Written and maintained by PDB users for PDB users.