Would you say, then, that there is some inherent value to reasoning ability, and that there is some correlation between high reasoning ability and admirable character and interesting personality (which I will define as being dynamic with depth)?
We may only disagree on how much. (And I already admit that I was wrong in my previous assumption of a strong correlation [in the case of law students at least].)
Oh, I definitely think reasoning ability is a valuable and generally positive quality. Very useful, etc.
That said, performance on the LSAT is not a perfect reflection of reasoning ability (some people perform poorly due to test anxiety, time pressure, not all forms of reasoning are tested, test prep has effects, etc.). Additionally, the ability to apply logical reasoning in one type of circumstance (a game-like standardized test) does not guarantee or even really imply an ability to apply logical reasoning in everyday life. Personally, I can do LSAT logic pretty well, but am often horribly unreasonable and illogical when it comes to real life problems and decisions.
Finally, while being "reasonable" is a good thing, I don't think it really has much to do with being "interesting" and enjoyable to be around, but those are pretty subjective qualities.
I agree that the LSAT is far from a perfect measure of reasoning ability. Your mention of the time factor hits home with me. I have a slight learning disability--visual processing speed--but did not take the test with accommodation. As a result, I ran out of time in most sections. I actually sent a photocopy of my Scantron along with my application to a couple of the very top law schools hoping it would tell the story: columns of bubbled C's. I didn't "get to" (guessed C) more questions than the total number of questions I answered incorrectly. Ironically, bubbling B instead of C would have raised my score a couple of percentile points.
So ... I guess my argument is that any correlation there is would probably be weak enough as to be masked by all of the other factors that contribute to whether or not one is interesting and admirable.
Maybe so. As you know, I had hoped otherwise.
And even if we were to say that good reasoning ability is necessary if one is to be a good/interesting/admirable person, I wouldn't think that it could possibly be sufficient in and of itself.
Agreed.
What do you think "interesting" and "admirable" mean, anyway? We're arguing about something pretty vague.
For definition of "admirable character" I kind of have in mind the original definition of character. Edith Hamilton wrote of how the ancient Greeks celebrated what we had in common rather than our differences as we tend to do today, and how they especially celebrated those who showed an exceptional amount of a particular type of character. They imprinted coins with the faces of those individuals, which is actually how the meaning of the word "character" originated.
When I say someone has character, I usually mean he has a great amount of some of the qualities that most people admire and respect: honesty, compassion, loyalty, etc. (By the way, I rather suspect that you have character, beano.)
As for "interesting," I don't have a definition in mind really, and it's more subjective. I haven't gotten around to making a case for that correlation. I can say, however, that people who have the ability to reason well are more interesting
to me. They can hold an intellectual conversation and can engage my interest when others might bore.