I would argue that there isn't so much of a different between intuition and rational thinking as one might think. Rational thinking is mostly understood to be

I would argue that there isn't so much of a different between intuition and rational thinking as one might think. Rational thinking is mostly understood to be a deductive form of "thinking" that a electrical/mechanical device could simulate with the technology we have no. (Evidenced by, say, Mathematica.) Intuition is a more organic form of rational though; generally unchecked for errors (before your rational thought process gets ahold of it and examines it thoroughly), but exploring possibilities for solutions that may not immediately follow from the data you have in front of you. It skips the intermediate steps and delivers an abstract pathway to your solution, which you follow, and prove to work, with your rational thought. Intuition is more like +N un-processed rational steps at once, with a higher probability for error. As long as we assume there is some difference, they're are co-dependent and just as valuable as the other; you need equal "amounts" of both to solve the difficult problems.