I guess. I seem to be trained to sense or feel them, but I do not have immediate access to the logical ins and outs and refutations. I wish more people had your definition. In fact this is precisely the confusion I often notice in 'rationalists': what they say makes sense, but they miss the fact that it does not rule out what the other person said, or that in context what 'made sense' acted in a cruel, abusive, misleading, confusing....and so on way. Or that it is an apples and oranges kind of thing. Or that they are not quite responding to what was said. Or that their use of language is culturally specific - say to science or to American English or to people over 30 - and they think it is universal. Or that it is one case amongst many possible. Or that other interpretations are possible. And so on. Yes, if you want to broaden out rationality to include these kinds of things then I am rational in many more situations. But I cannot always verbalize this rationality. It sounded like when you were confronted with logical fallacies or paradoxes you felt a pressure to resolve this in a way that could, for example, be put down on paper. I can't do that, often and certainly not immediately in all cases or even most. And that's OK with me. Well said. And then you fall in love with the map instead of yourself.