Self-imposed constraints of logic

I'm actually pretty good at making logical arguments that have a correct conclusion. People may think that's because I'm logical, but generally the trick is to have good intuition. If you have the correct conclusion, you can easily work backwards and back-fill the logic.

I didn't always provide the arguments to my conclusions, before I picked up the habit of *being rational*, I just often gave the intuitive conclusion without explanation.

The rational explanation is a useful skill for persuasion (and sometimes to double check myself), but it is also a self-imposed limitation to my abilities to intuit.

i.e. if there's no apparent connection between the situation and an outcome, then limiting myself to rational explanations means that I can't give a correct conclusion.

I will probably have to learn to lift this limit somehow. Otherwise my abilities are incomplete.