Often times when I run into this question people seem to see it as only two camps (even after the disclaimers of 'everyone's a mix, but for polls sake pick a side' has been made).
So I feel the need to expand the camps a bit just to get my own position across.
*Remember even these camps are still greatly generalized, and by nature extreme. And no one is simply going to be just one of these camps, but rather simply share some aspects from them.
For those who just care about my own stance, I'd say I'm mainly a mix of Logic #4, #5 and Emotion #2. But since I'm more-so on the Logical side I voted for Logic.
Logic
1. Cold Logic
This is what most people first jump to when it comes to logic in this context. The guy whose cold, ruthless, calculating, and will say anything no matter how hurtful if they find it true. This could be from sheer a cold exterior, a big lack of social skills, maybe they have an insane fondness for honesty. But these types of people generally are a minority I find. Everyone has their moments of being here, but rarely are they in this state for a prolonged period of time.
2. Logical for themselves
The other kind people often tend to jump to when they hear logic. This is the person who isn't entirely cold/blunt, but rather looking at everything from a "How can this aid me?" perspective. Basically, look at politicians, GOT characters or most bandits in apocalypse situations. Like above though, this is usually something I find people more just tend to visit during bad times in their life, and not something people tend to stay in given the choice.
3. Logical for others
Spock being your prime example. They try to operate largely on logic, but not in a self benefit for cold manner but out of what's deemed as needed for people as a whole. They look at the big picture, and the community at large, not letting stuff like personal bias enter the picture much. This is the ideal of logic I think many people (including myself) envision Logic to be when they pick that side, but in practice it often doesn't work out that way... Because sadly we are not Vulcans but Humans.
4. Forced Logic
This camp is where one feels more forced into the logical role, of evaluating things, and trying to have it be separate from emotions. Not out of any ill-intent, but rather out of a perceived necessity. They've had enough moments of emotion hurting them they feel the best case of future well being is to simply try to cut it out (or at least limit it) of the equation. However, since this one is more emotionally inspired, you can make an argument for this one being more emotional than logical, and that the logic is more just a mask. And personally speaking I feel I also subscribe in this camp rather well.
5. Logic of Emotion
People who make use of a vast variety of normally seen emotional tactics. Sugar coating, withholding information, getting a bit too emotionally invested in something. But the motivations when dug into don't resemble that of an emotional person but rather a logical person. They've seen the benefits of emotion may it be through seeing the works of creative people, simply observing people, stuff like Autism therapy etc. But they themselves don't make decisions based on emotions, but rather just adopt the social customs or habits of one. In fact the author Daniel Pink of the book "A Whole New Mind" works a bit on this (granted he looks at it more as a Left Brained VS Right Brained sort of deal) where he considers himself rather logical by nature, but desires to be more emotional and creative as a result of seeing what they can do. This should honestly be divided into two camps of it's own, one being those who simply learn to imitate, and those who actively try to train/re-wire their brains differently.
*Note on Logical Truth Telling*
It should also be noted that being logically honest =/= just insulting them.
I've seen many cases of people who claim to be (and sometimes often are) logical people, but when they are trying to correct someone they don't like it comes a lot less like "This is a problem we need to talk about" but more "You are a problem. I don't like you, now fix it with this limited information or I have been proven correct". There are ways to getting the truth to something without attacking them, but also without being around the bush. You just usually require a certain level of sensitivity, care and understanding towards the individual in question to pull it off properly. And sometimes even if you do it right, the other person might still get defensive and shrug you off. But just because that happens doesn't mean truth telling isn't as black and white as "Insult their very core" VS "Ignore it because of bad feelings".
Emotion
1. Feelings are most Important
This is likely the main image of emotion for most people when it comes to this topic. Those who prize the feelings and mood of others, their priority isn't to get something right, but to get people happy. If everyone walks off with a smile that's the best answer they can think of. If that's not possible (assuming they accept that possibility) whatever leaves the least amount of people offended is best.
2. Going with their Gut
These people don't go so much off of what makes others smile, but rather off their own hunches. What do they feel is right? What do they feel like that should do? How does a certain decision feel like to them? If it's not something they feel they can morally get behind, they likely aren't going to support it. This could be from anything, pride, a set moral code, respect, loyalty, maybe it just varies a ton day to day.
3. Loyal to the Pack
Now, everyone has those individuals that they treasure more than others. Those they would go above and beyond for, sometimes even taking a bullet for them. This is that at another level though, this is those who would much rather at best keep a poles distance between most people, and at worst not give a single shit about everyone else. But when it comes to those they can warmed up to and gotten close to? They will consistently go above and beyond, not just in times of importance, but all the time. These people passed, they deserve to be respected for it. Or maybe they're not that outwardly expressive even then, but the shift in character between most people and their loved ones is much more drastic than it would be for most people.
There's probably more camps here (and for Logic too) than I can't think of at the moment. But being someone who usually likes surrounding myself with people on the Logic side of the fence, my exposure to this side just isn't as high. So if others have more to add, and/or want to correct one's I've made above then feel free to.
>_> My problem with polls that turn these complex things into a binary option is that it seems to imply that anyone who votes for one option is more clearly aligned with one thing than the other, when, like I said, I definitely think that this sort of thing depends on the situation at hand.
There is no particular situation. It's a gut reaction answer. I learned it from a psychology major friend of mine recently and thought it was neat, so I'll let you in on it, because you're pretty sharp, so I figure you might find this interesting too.
Well that answer/reasoning of Brovo's was interesting. XD
But I can still see the worry of people feeling either:
A) In the minority if the majority vote swings one way, even if by a small leaning
B) Starting to see others differently as a result
So I'd suggest at least giving a "Strongly Logic" "Logic" etc. options. So people still need to pick a side, but aren't instantly lumped with any extreme.
Or, would this still ruin the test for a reason I'm not catching here?
If you want someone to do something for you, or someone to understand your approach to life, you need to treat them like a human being. Everyone is motivated by some kind of emotion or need. The sooner you understand that, and the sooner you learn to work with it, the easier time you'll have in the real world. If you interact with people in any capacity, you need to learn at least basic social skills, and a lot of that is appealing to - or at least understanding - the emotional needs of people around you.
I know some people have a really hard time with this, especially some (some!) people on the autism spectrum, but I always have to shake my head when I see someone insist that logic is the most important thing ever, if you can't separate logic from emotion then you're bad at living! That's not how the real world works. That's not how any of this works.
True, but speaking as an Autistic person whose been in therapy from both the child and therapist side?
At that point I'd consider that a Logical person learning the tools of the trade, depending on how they used them.
Like, it's entirely possible for an autistic person to learn the social skills, grow attached to them, and follow them the same as most others because it feels right to.
But then you got those (like myself) who more learn it as an effective face, you understand the social game (at least the basics) and know to act and behave in order to appease people, and/or you know that by appealing to their emotions you are bound to get a better response. But your own reasoning for doing so isn't always emotional, but rather you simply know that it's bound to give you a better outcome.
Now note, there are plenty of cases where I'm appealing to emotions for my own sake, and not for any logical means. But I do also have a fair share of moments for no reason other than "If I don't the reaction will be awful", and in those cases it really is just logic riding the decision (minus my lack of desire to argue with people, which would be an emotional influence).
Basically, my #5 Logic of Emotion mentioned above.
