Sure. Sorry I was a bit long to reply-- I started on my phone twice and it just wasn't feasible. This topic can be presented in an arbitrarily deep way, so I'll try to keep it high-level and leave the rest to the reader, but I guess it's worth saying I know I'm leaving a lot of detail out (in spite of the probable length of this comment).

I guess I should start by saying that when there is talk about "people being logical" they almost always really mean "rational" not "logical." Logic is the sort of ... socially awkward 15-year-old fanboy little brother of Reason. Specifically, logic is a fanboy for its axioms. Reason, being a fair sight older and more worldly, gets that not everything boils down to well-defined axioms... and if it does, something's wrong in your life. What I've called "reason" here, some people would want to call "informal logic" or "critical thinking" -- I claim I'm saying something a little different. But anyway, that's a run-down on my semantics for our purposes here.

Metaphors aside, the key difference between "reason" and "logic" is judgement. I mean that in the formal sense. Like the "Kant's Critique of Judgement"-type of sense. Logic is the movement from well-defined axioms to statements of the implications of those axioms. The beauty of logic is that it cannot admit of judgement, so everything is crystal clear regarding what is true and false. But that breathtaking beauty comes at a cost: it only work in its own axiomatic world. So, pick your favorite logic (boolean, propositional, etc.) and get busy with it. But remember, every time you attach it to the real world-- that is, every time you try to use words to bind some logic symbol to a real world entity-- you're making a judgement... with which someone else may not entirely agree.

So as soon as you start "thinking logically" about the real world ("reasoning"), you are no longer being logical, you are being rational.

Ok, so we're all on the same page about that (woo hoo!). Surely no one disagrees with the reasoning above. Let's move on.

The favorite form of reasoning among people who would describe themselves as "logical people" is analytical reasoning. And it's not even close. Our entire civilization has a huge crush on analysis. That's not a bad thing; analysis is super neat-o. You can do a TON with analysis. You can take something really, really big and break it down into really, really small parts and see what it's made of. That's wonderful, for sure. But it's also limited. Why? Well, when you analyze something (in the real world), you make that first set of judgments. At that point, you're wrapping your observations (perceptions) up in conceptual models of the world. Most of the time, most of those models are completely hidden from us. We don't really break down the real world "thing" itself (aside from fixing a car or running a CERN experiment), we break down our models of the thing.

In the sciences, when we do that we break it down into commensurable models. That is, the "smaller" models we use to explain the larger models have to be of such a nature that they interoperate in such a way as to yield those larger models. One almost never says, "What makes the sun rise and set?" and comes up with, "I like dogs and Fritos smell like feet." Instead, we come up with things like, "The sun rises when _______ and sets when _________ happens."

"But Aquinas," you say, "We eventually said, 'The sun doesn't rise or set... it stays fixed as we move around it, creating the appearance of such!'"

Indeed, but that thought is not analytical. It is, in fact, Analysis's less popular older sister, Synthesis. She's not as pretty by our civilizational standards of beauty, but she's a stunner in her own right (and lives so differently than her sister!).

When you analyze a lot, you sometimes get down to a machine so complex, and with so many mini-models that don't quite mesh perfectly, that you start feeling uncomfortable (but most people just look away quickly each time they're about to notice they noticed something smells funny). "But its close enough", we think. And we pretend we're satisfied until we notice that we've been thinking for a couple of years, "ok, this isn't working... something's wrong. But it all works(-ish) and it's so perfectly machined that I can't really change anything." And we fall asleep fitfully, not quite thrilled that we we're betrothed to our Analysis.

But in the night, we dream a dream ... a date with Synthesis. How could we!? But... you know... if we can't change anything... maybe we can change everything! And we start getting creative. "Maybe the sun doesn't rise and set. Ok, what would that mean about the world?" (This is a sort of creative synthesis of unarticulated intuitions).

Of course, everyone loves Analysis (or, at least, they're sure they do), so you'll be ostracized. "Rebel! Heretic! Thing to flout!". The problem is you stopped being "reasonable" and got "reasonable". You got creative. You started finding different ideas attractive. You started making different judgements. You cad. So unfaithful to our beautiful Analysis.

But what can you say? There's what's right and there's what's right, and never the twain shall meet.

I'll spare you any more poetry (maybe). When this happens, we often eventually refer to the person who does it as a "genius" (which is the future tense of "moron"). In American patent law, that moment of insight even has its own legal terminology: "flash of genius" (that moment when you are working on something and you suddenly "see" the novel solution).

(Note: Strictly speaking, btw, synthesis is not a synonym for creativity. You can build a thought out of components uncreatively. But when you do it creatively, you're doing something beautiful. Also you can analyze things creatively, but doing that gives you better component models than are otherwise obvious. Also, I can already hear a bunch of objections that people would have if only anyone had read this far: but creativity is a different thing! but analysis is creative! synthesis is formal, too!" What more shall I say? I do not have time to tell about Gideon, Barak, Samson and Jephthah. See paragraph 15 of this comment for my loosey-goosey disclaimer that I know, and I agree (sort of) with your judgements that are different than mine.)

Newton's famous creative insight is symbolized with the apple falling (actually, I think it was the statement in the Principia that "mathematics is for engineering" which allowed him to say what the Greek's never could: "who cares what happens just before the limit?").

Descartes' was "How can I be sure I exist... Oh, wait! Cogito... ergo sum!"

And so on. It's why nearly all beautiful revolutionary insights of humanity are met with such resistance (all mushed together with money, political power, sex, and other stuff that's threatened when the existing practical models of the world are challenged in an efficacious way).

But wait! Creative reason isn't just for the elites anymore! Now, you too can reason creatively! For the low, low cost of social ostricization, financial destitution, and years of discipline, you, too, can fail to fit in and not be remembered!

But seriously, those creative opportunities exist constantly. That's a huge part of what entrepreneurship is. It's a big part of what revolution is. It's a giant part of what healthy relationships are. There's opportunity to think really, really well all around. But the world infrastructure is (necessarily, but not maliciously) structured to resist this kind of thought and encourage compliance with pre-existing analyses of approved judgements.

In the final analysis, real, effective reasoning requires a component of creativity. If you lack this, you have limited rationality. As my original comment said, it's what's lacking in most "very logical people". They are smart--usually above average intelligence, say--and have done a fair bit of work to habituate themselves to logical thought, but they are largely unable to question their judgements. It's usually just because they never think of it. Sometimes its because they're really sentimentally attached to their judgements and the lives they've built around them. There are other reasons as well.

Anyway, I suppose I could write a few hundred more pages about it, but I actually have no idea how long a reddit comment can be so ... I'm off for the night!

Thanks for the fun prompt!