I can appreciate some of your points but I don’t see the value in forcing a strict binary choice between “logic lovers” and everyone else. In truth most people fall on a spectrum, some more logic driven, others less so.
One of your big beefs with the logic people is that they are closed off, unwilling to accept the unknown or the undefinable. Specifically you say “For me, a big put off about those folks that follow logic all the way down the rabbit hole is that many believe they have found THE ANSWER!!! Whatever the question, this is the only logical solution, hence this is the answer, the only possible answer… As if there ever was a single answer.” Yet, this is exactly what you do when you classify people into strict either/or categories. Either/or statements like statements of truth/falsity are mainstays of logical arguments. Thus, ironically, you make use of logical methods in your attack on logic and logical people.
Speaking for myself I try to appreciate the merits of as diverse a variety of methods/approaches to understanding the universe and our role in it as possible. I agree when you say there is no one single answer. I also agree that it’s not clear what the question even is or if we knew the question if it would be wise to seek the answer. That said I have yet to meet a person as committed to logic as you suggest. Certainly never met one who believed they had all the answers or the ANSWER!!! as you say. In my experience logical people avoid the use of all caps and exclamation points to the greatest extent possible.
Reading between the lines a bit I get the sense that what bothers you about logical people is not so much their certitude or lack of appreciation for the unknowable or undefinable, but instead it is what holding such beliefs and attitudes leads to. Ultimately it drives the logical person to a lack of faith in a higher power or a God or supreme being or whatever. This is what really makes you crazy about logic people isn’t it? Its no knock on you when I say that. Often times the faithful are hesitant to disclose their beliefs when they engage with non believers, particularly when the aim is to attack the unbelievers position. Maybe you could illuminate me on this as I always find that approach puzzling.
The non believer, those who lack faith rarely if ever are shy about loudly and repeatedly voicing their position especially when attacking the believers. I have no dog in that fight and honestly hold no opinion as the relative merits of either approach but I am genuinely curious as to the source of the believers hesitancy to clearly state their position from the outset. They are the clear majority and would seem to have all the advantages. It is only the logical people who, in principle at least, could be persuaded to give up their position and admit they are mistaken assuming strong enough logical arguments could be mustered to do so. There is no such option for persuading the believer since methodological and/or philosophical system based (logical, phenomonological, analytic, symbolic, existentialist, etc.) arguments are useless in attacking faith based belief systems.
Sorry as I went off on a massive tangent there. I tend to do that.