I want to thank /u/2gunsgetsome for encouraging me to write this post as well as providing much needed editing.

Many of us struggle to separate reasonable vs. logical arguments, especially during the transition period when we establish our frame as the leader. Even though it seems like our wives are making good points in the exchange, these arguments come from an emotional frame. Women tend to overwhelm men with rhetoric using very reasonable arguments, but when you look at the core of them they are rarely logical. Using reason is not the same as being rational or logical. Logic needs true conclusion and premises, and therefore is sound; a reasonable argument is much broader and uses rhetoric to make its point. A reasonable argument does use evidence to support it's view point, but rarely constitute proof.

Far too many people in this day misuse the terms logic and reason, and confuse them. Often reasonable arguments are considered logical and while that can be true, for the most part they are not. This is most often the case when something is a deep seated belief and nothing more.
Belief, after all, is knowledge in the absence of fact. Having a belief is fine, it’s how you start to gather knowledge, but not being able to set it aside once you have fact is bad.

It is also important to understand that logic alone is not concerned with reality. It is concerned with truth. You can be wrong and be logical because you understand that being wrong is on the path to truth…I digress.

This is why humans have reasoning, so that we can sort it all out. Yet like in all things our ego gets in the way. Thus reason has supplanted logic and has clouded the difference.

Many times we all will encounter something that doesn't seem right. We don't know why, it seems ok, but something about it will be off center. This is because we instinctually know that it is illogical but are not equipped to push back.

The following will be a discussion on logic and reason within relationships. I will do this in 3 parts mainly due to formatting.

• Discussion on Logic
• Discussion on Reason
• Examples of Reasonable Arguments.

I won't get far into the philosophy of logic because it is an extremely deep subject and I could go on at length. It would be too much. For this I am confining it to the realm of logic vs reason and then compare it to dialog in a relationship. I will have to explain at some level what logic is, but please understand it is a basic level, though sufficient.

I suggest, if you are interested, that you grab a college textbook. Many can be torrented and downloaded.

Education is free.

For the more informed you will recognize what I am writing as abductive, deductive, and inductive arguments. This is true, but I am deliberately avoiding those terms and discussions in order to keep it framed within the MRP context. I will attempt to point out differences when they diverge from the philosophy without getting too far off track. Also, to a large degree, I am discussing the fallacious nature that inductive arguments can become. It is harder to be wrong using deductive logic, but not impossible, and deductive arguments don’t fit every situation which is why the other two forms exist. A good example is the reboot of Sherlock from BBC.

Sherlock uses very good deductive logic, but he has completely lost the ability to reason outside of his deductive frame. He lacks any inductive reasoning ability, though it comes off as autistic, and antisocial. Yet when you look at it another way some he is merely lucky because he on only has a deep base of knowledge. He would die without the ability to store large amounts of data and recall it instantly. It is almost as if he lacks the knowledge or data the situation could not exist. There was a TV episode of Psych were this happened. The main character, with a Sherlock-like ability, had a case completely devoid of facts. He was lost and fought to reason his way out of it.

Within the philosophy of logic there are rules, processes, and guides to create valid, true arguments. Furthermore there are subsets of logical reasoning called: Deductive, abductive, and inductive. They have strengths and weaknesses. Yet for the purpose of this discussion I am putting logic over here, and reasoning over there. Please understand it from this context. It will make things much easier to discuss. Keeping it simple is best for this medium.

Logic is an organized body of knowledge that evaluates arguments. Without surprise we use arguments every day. The aim of logic is to have a set of methods and principles that are used as criteria for evaluating the arguments of others and as guides in constructing arguments of our own. Something I will point out is that once you begin studying logic you can't unsee it. Meaning you will begin to see how ridiculous and how unorganized the thoughts of others are. Yes...this means your hamster will come back full force (you're logical how can YOU be wrong?). Be very aware of this.

A logical argument, consists of two or more premises that are to provide support for, or reasons to believe, the conclusion. An argument can only be one of two things:

A good argument (or sound) in which all premises are true and therefore the conclusion is true.

Or they can be a bad argument, in which one or more premises are false and therefore do not support the conclusion, or the conclusion itself is bad.

In a formal sense simple logical arguments will follow this form

A+B=C

Or

Premise 1: If it's a Guns and Roses Album it's a rock album Premise 2: It's a Guns and Roses Album

Therefore,

Conclusion: It's a Rock Album

But in real life arguments are anything but this simple. They will be disorganized and all over the place. In many cases this is a tactic (often in politics) but it usually comes from a disorganized mind. Conclusions are sometimes stated before their premises, premises are left incomplete or unsaid. Yet the work is the same. Identifying true premises and determining if they support a true conclusion.

The argument I gave above (Guns and Roses) is true. It does not mean it’s iron clad, and I will get into this in the reasoning area. Yet the premises and the conclusion are sound therefore the argument is true. To attack this argument you have choices. You can either attack the premise or the conclusion…if you are truly gifted you can attack all of them.

WARNING: Engaging someone about the premise of their argument is a messy affair if the individual is incapable of introspection. A premise is usually a deeply held belief or philosophical outlook. In a relationship it can be a nuclear event. I have lost friends over this, I have made my sister in laws literally break down in tears…all unintentional but you can well and truly hurt people if you are not careful.

Something else that occurs when you proceed from a logical outlook is that you want to stick to the premise you are attacking. Your opposition will be every where all at once. They don’t see how their premises are separate facts that add to the conclusion. They will see it as one thing. While you are arguing against premise 1, they will be wondering how you’re ignoring premise 2,3,4,and they just created a 5th. So to you they will appear to be running off at the mouth, but to them you aren’t getting all the facts. Something to think about as you argue/discuss with your wife. She sees it as one thing. You see it as separate items that equal the answer.

This is why in a relationship coming from a completely logical mind is dangerous. You are ignoring your beta and Oak like tendencies for cold hard logic. This is fine if this the response you want, but be forewarned. It can be emotionally damaging to the other person if you are unable to yield for a moment. So while looking at things from a logical view can be amoral and without ego staying within that mindset because it is right, is merely falling to the same errors. I know a few professors of logic and they are jovial people. Mainly because they delight in the absurdity that is human nature. They see the Matrix as it is (in this context any way).

Internet tough guys like to memorize the list of fallacies and then point out fallacious arguments assuming then that they, themselves, are logical. While it is important to recognize and understand fallacious arguments it is a far better use of your time to be able to recognize good/bad arguments, and argue against them. Fallacies will take care of themselves. Just declaring someone or something as false doesn’t mean it is, nor does it make the other person rethink their argument. It just makes you look like an ass. When dealing with truly fallacious arguments, I just smirk and say “you’re an idiot” and leave it at that.

As I said before logic is unconcerned with reality, which is why reasoning is added to the mix. Like this example:

if the United States had not killed Bin Laden, ISIS would not be a threat.

This is all true. Well, maybe, maybe not. Bin Laden was going to die someday (kidney failure). Would ISIS have come to power then? How do we know ISIS would not have just killed him themselves in their bid for power? The point can be argued. The argument is not necessarily sound.

In the next part I will discuss Reason and how it differs from logic in the context I have framed this. It will be clear how shit tests appear absolutely reasonable on the surface and why they leave men perplexed, and why we fall for them each time. It is recommended that you listen to /u/Bluepillprofessor YouTube videos on shit tests. We are about to go further and dissect a shit test.