7 ms·

Intuition is a “superpower”

53 points by graderjs 5y ago

uniqueuid 5y ago
Not an expert, not my field, but this smells like hype. Intelligence is a precisely defined thing that you can't just attach new dimensions to. On top, a key feature of higher reasoning is mid- to long term prediction. It does not seem clear to me how intuition would help in planning behavior beyond the current situation.
- bryanrasmussen 5y ago
  >Intelligence is a precisely defined thing that you can't just attach new dimensions to. I mean everyone is always arguing about what intelligence is or even means, especially on here, so I find this a very strange thing for you say.
  - uniqueuid 5y ago
    What I mean is: There is a body of thousands of scientific studies discussing what intelligence means. Yes, some of them diverge in the precise definition, but if you want to add a new meaning that's useful, you need to convince people why the heaps of existing evidence are not sufficient. That's not an easy task.
    - WithinReason 5y ago
      > There is a body of thousands of scientific studies discussing what intelligence means Which don't agree on a single definition. See for example: https://arxiv.org/abs/0712.3329 https://arxiv.org/abs/0712.3329
      - uniqueuid 5y ago
        Yeah, sure, but that's not my argument. My argument is: There are established dimensions of intelligence. There are arbitrarily many potential new dimensions. Coming up with anything and calling it intelligence is not hard and not automatically helpful. The hard part is coming up with something new that makes sense in the context of all the existing findings.
        throw1234651234 5y ago
        There is not established definitions of intelligence. The closest I can get to is the high level break down of: 1. Crystallized intelligence - stuff you have memorized. This breaks down further with memorized vs experienced, with the latter leading to "wisdom", which really breaks down to how Asimov broke down knowledge - not only knowing the thing, but knowing how you know the thing is true. Because I am dumb, I can't think of a single good example. But it would be something like "We know an object in motion stays in motion because {PERSON} did an {EXPERIMENT} and {PERSON} is credible and you can replicate the {EXPERIMENT} like so". That's "true" knowledge. 2. Fluid intelligence - working memory. The number of things you can keep in your mind at the same time. Declines with age, or maybe disuse, we don't really know. IQ tests are out there. Working memory are out there too in terms of how they affect/correlate with life outcomes and/or IQ. I am obsessed with this topic, but I find nothing concrete past "sleep enough, exercise, learn things, some things, maybe music, maybe lang, we don't know."
        bryanrasmussen 5y ago
        I think there would have to be an upper level of true knowledge where you know it is true because you understand the math behind the theory, and the bottom level true knowledge it's true because it was validated by a lot of trustworthy people running experiments the outcomes of which would be explained by the theory. Also there should be a type of intelligence - conceives abstract ideas that are not just composed of things they have learned.
- thomcano 5y ago
  But it doesn't justify why you have coined the term as "hype". It doesn't make sense, please can you properly justify on your reasoning?
- derbOac 5y ago
  So, you're right to be skeptical of this. I think the website maybe isn't the most trust-inspiring one when it comes to this topic. There has been research, though, suggesting that when it comes to certain kinds of decision making, involving complex scenarios with lots of uncertainty, decisions made on intuition often are associated with greater satisfaction later. So I think there's something to it. The other tricky thing is that this is relatively difficult to study from a cognitive perspective. By its nature it's pretty vague but it also involves things that are difficult to capture in a lab. Creativity is sort of like this as well -- everyone has some sense that there's a thing such as creativity or generativity but studying it turns out to be difficult because it's hard to measure. My personal difficulty with intuitive decision-making is that because by definition almost it involves subconscious factors, it's difficult to know what to make of it, or when it is good versus bad. For example, you'll find a lot of articles here on HN and elsewhere about being rational in your decision making, and not letting emotions guide you. So is that "overriding intuition"? On the other hand, I think part of why intuitive decision making can be helpful sometimes is that sometimes there are factors that are difficult for you to fully appreciate the weight of, and your "rational" processes might not entirely grasp the significance of them. So you might later on look back and think "oh yeah that was way worse than I thought at the time; it's no wonder I wanted to avoid it so badly." But how do you know which scenario is which?
sebastialonso 5y ago
> It’s arriving to some sort of truth about something, an event or experience without using any type of analytic reasoning Intuition is analytic reasoning (and inductive as well) on steroids, but also done subconsciously, that's why it seems mysterious for some. A simple example is the moment of every episode of House M.D. when the actual answer comes: it's not magic, it's the brain continually re-examining information (analytic) and building models (mostly inductive) in the background. Also, that site is two articles away from claiming the Earth is actually flat.
- heurisko 5y ago
  > Intuition is analytic reasoning on steroids > A simple example is the moment of every episode of House M.D. House M.D. was based on Sherlock Holmes, who uses inductive, rather than deductive reasoning. e.g. conclusions are not based on analytic reasoning of all the facts, but rather are supplanted by leaps of imagination, which made the series so compelling. Intuition is inductive reasoning. Because it's not solely analytic, it can also result in answers that are also completely wrong.
  - sebastialonso 5y ago
    Yes, I've fallen in the classic Holmes trap that appears everywhere. Allow me to rephrase with more detail then: intuition is a mix of strong analytic and strong inductive reasoning running non-stop in the background of consciousness.
  - ceceron 5y ago
    I don't want to sound nitpicking, but if you're correcting someone, you should be ready to be corrected yourself... Sherlock Holmes used abductive reasoning. Deduction: cause + deductive rule -> effect Induction: (cause + effect) x many times -> deductive rule Abduction: effect + deductive rule -> possible causes
    - chartpath 5y ago
      Thanks for the breakdown! Abductive reasoning ftw.
jack_riminton 5y ago
Is it not just another name for subconscious decision-making?
- mrweasel 5y ago
  That's my felling as well. I believe that intuition is my past experiences being used by my subconscious mind as a frame of reference for current events. The issue is that my subconscious mind is so quick to recognizing patterns in the environment/current situation and previous experiences that my conscious mind struggle to keep up. I had an issue today, where a co-worker had made a mistake, which happens, but now we have an angry customer. Almost right away I know what the problem is, but it takes me 45 minutes to actually dig into the problem, only to confirm that I'm right. If you're debugging in the middle of the night, having a mind that can tell you exactly where to look, even if it doesn't know why, is magnificent. When people want answers to "Why?", it's less helpful.
  - jack_riminton 5y ago
    It's interesting you used the word 'feeling' because unfortunately the English language uses the word synonymously with emotions. Whereas we both know in this context that you meant a thing that you 'can't quite put your finger on'. I have a theory that these feelings are more tied to the primitive parts of our brains/bodies. Especially if something causes danger/stress/exertion. I liken it to a hunter going through a jungle and they experience a dangerous/stressful experience, the brain puts a bookmark for all of the environmental stimuli that are present at that time/place. So when the same stimuli are experienced again the quick, primitive part can say "something isn't right, no time to explain!"
thenerdhead 5y ago
I think the big disconnect of recent times has been that of the connection between the mind and the gut. They are seen as separate systems, when they really influence each other in complementary fashions. The whole "you are what you eat" comes to mind. I'm excited to see the science behind these connections come more to the mainstream. They say "trust your gut" for a reason. Your gut acts almost as a second brain like the article mentions. Without going into too many details, it is a good basis of intuition because of the feelings that emerge from it whether right or wrong in the future, but best in the present moment. Your gut is your wisdom. It's your "gut reaction" to something that goes deeper than our conscious minds can go in a split second with many traits like past experience, sympathy/empathy, and even predictive ability. It would make sense that intuition is seen as a sixth-sense because of it. It would be cool to understand how to improve our intuition. Perhaps it is... why people who are more careful with their food choices, engage in regular exercise, stay hydrated, and constant capture of knowledge may have stronger intuition than others. Or perhaps it is the very nature of individuals who can accept the reality of the world better than others for a more plausible outcome. Which of course is much different than skepticism as it would be more stoicism at that point.
- idiocrat 5y ago
  Human gut has 500 million nerve cells, which is comparable with cat's brain, 760 million nerve cells. My gut is definitely planning something suspicious on its own.
- crowbahr 5y ago
  Your gut feeling is nothing more than the parasympathetic nervous system responding to stimuli. You can talk about it as some sort of magic choice maker all you want but it's not wisdom, it's automatic responses controlled by your unconscious mind. What you're really talking about here is the subconscious making changes to your body, and those changes being sent out and reported back via the vagus nerve. You can train that unconscious mind, but it's the same old lazy system one that operates 95% of your mortal existence: It's not literally your gut, that's just how you're experiencing it.
  - 5y ago
mountainwalker 5y ago
What the heck is heart coherence? All my red flags went off once I hit this. Oh look, they're selling guides for how to do it.
- _7muh 5y ago
  Well then your red flags are preventing you from seeing an aspect of reality that would be very much to your benefit. So you might want to revise those red flags and learn about reality rather than prejudging reality based on existing preconceptions when your don't know. Just a hint it's understandable if you've never heard of that to wonder what it is. But it's not understandable nor smart to assume it's bogus if you don't know what it is. You should try it and it's really quite simple It's this: https://thepulse.one/assets/uploads/2021/06/InnerBalanceCoherence.jpeg https://thepulse.one/assets/uploads/2021/06/InnerBalanceCohe... It's the emergence of more coherent patterns in the wave measurements of your heart's activity. You can apply the same concept to your brain so with a EEG you can see all those little different seismic looking channels and you can achieve some more coherence in that. Less entropic patterns more regularity more of the channels beating in sync with each other. That's one way to talk about more coherence. And you will physically and subjectively experience the difference. So please don't talk about something you don't know if it's focus. You just have to learn what it is. You don't want to discourage other people from knowing it. It's not bogus at all only those red flags that were getting in your way of knowing what that reality is are bogus. Anyway, if you are engineer or EE or signals person and in any way into sort of self-tracking I could really imagine you getting into this in a big way and becoming sort of an advocate for it. You can even order your own ECG EEG machine for cheap on the internet so you can sort of practice to get yourself into coherence. In order to get yourself into coherence there's a number of different exercise you can do and you can find them by searching online. And the benefits of being in coherence are sort of like meditation but it's also sort of different. I've done it a few times and I intend to do it more. I should it's really good. I don't have a machine but you can still practice the exercises and sense the difference. I should do it more. I encourage you to try as well
ghostpepper 5y ago
The argument I've heard about intuition, put forth in Gavin de Becker's book The Gift Of Fear, is that the unconscious mind is capable of collecting and synthesizing much more data from the world around us than the conscious mind can focus on. He admittedly leans on anecdote more than large studies but it all seems very plausible to me. When your conscious brain tells you everything is fine, but your intuition tells you something is wrong, you should "listen to your gut" because it (your subconscious) has likely picked up on as signal your conscious mind ignored. Everyone from sales/marketers to con-men to actual predators knows how to manipulate the signals that the conscious brain focuses on, but it's much more difficult to trick the unconscious with social signals. I am not an expert in the field so take with a grain of salt, but it seems to match up with my experience that "trusting your gut" when you meet a new person and get a "bad vibe" is generally good advice.
- ryandvm 5y ago
  This might be true, but with the caveat that your subconscious mind is likely not so worried about the ethical implications of its decision making. So your "I've got a bad feeling about this" intuition might be because your subconscious picked up on somebody's suspicious behavior, or maybe it's just because you're in a different cultural environment than you usually occupy.
  - ghostpepper 5y ago
    I think learning to tell the difference between healthy discomfort and unhealthy is a very important skill. There are multiple examples in that book of ways in which a predator will tailor their behavior in ways to make the victim feel social pressure to act in ways that would facilitate harm to the victim. eg. tailgating someone through a secure door by making them feel rude for not holding the door for you. At the same time, some of the most valuable life experiences come from pushing yourself outside your comfort zone. I'm not sure what the solution is. Maybe the advice is better expressed as "learn to listen to your intuition" rather than "always follow your intuition"?
- dSebastien 5y ago
  This point is also the central one in the book "Blink: The Power of Thinking Without Thinking" by Malcolm Gladwell.
huetius 5y ago
Polanyi’s work on intuition is incredible. The tendency (which I think came from Kuhn’s reading) to view Polanyi as some kind of relativist is a complete reversal and devaluation of what he actually wrote. EDIT: in my view, the most rigorous examination and definition of intuition comes from Rosmini, and overlaps with that of Polanyi, but the latter is much easier.
- heyoni 5y ago
  Got any reading recommendations from the two for a complete outsider to the field (psychology?).
  - huetius 5y ago
    Sure. Polanyi is easy. He wrote a trio of short, accessible, and engaging books outlining his ideas: Science, Faith, and Society (1946), Personal Knowledge (1958), and The Tacit Dimension (1966). He was a true polymath, and very up-to-date with psychological science of his day; I would be interested in your thoughts as a specialist. Rosmini is hard. He was a very bad writer, and wrote very long books, all of them referring to each other, which caused him a lot of difficulties[0]. His magnum opus is Theosophy, and all of his works will eventually lead there. My first book of his was Principles of Ethics, which convinced me of the value of his work, and I’m still trying to untangle the others. If I had to summarize his idea of intuition, it would be “analogical participation of the subject in the objective order of being.” Also crucial is that this capacity is innate. [0] You can read his biography, he was extremely controversial in his time. His work was (exhaustively) consistent with the ancient and medieval philosophy of the Church, but was absolutely devastating for a certain kind of neo-scholasticism which was the dominant mode of exposition in the Church at the time. This led those theologians to accuse him of liberalism, modernism, secularism, Deism, freemasonry, etc., and all of those groups were happy to claim that the most ambitious corpus of philosophy and theology that the Church had produced in the modern era was an endorsement of their views. Since his work is so difficult, it took a very long time for anyone to recognize that neither of these interpretations were true.
- lliamander 5y ago
nisegami 5y ago
Although I don't agree with his broader proposition, I've always wondered if Julian Jaynes' idea of the Bicameral Mind had some basis in the same mechanisms as intuition. In my personal experience, I rely very heavily on intuition and it comes to me sometimes in words not unlike what Jaynes described. Or maybe I'm conflating two different processes?
ddggdd 5y ago
my understanding of intuition is that it's a construction like all the other concepts, how it's constructed is not clear, but it's a construct non the less, just like someone really has a 'gut feeling' against mask, and use another our brain to construct a 'theory' and 'analysis' why it's wrong. this 'superpower' idea is as stupid as saying that 'freedom' and 'personal choice' can make you immune to virus.
- _7muh 5y ago
  I have this kind of intuition and it is only half the picture that it's a construct, and the extent to which is a construct is only like to the sense that other human senses and our experience of them are constructs too. I'm not sure we mean construct in the same way but for me intuition is a construct in the sense that you interpret the data. That's the same as saying visual data from your eyes your brain is interpreting that and you're constructing which is the sense in which it's a construct... You're constructing a picture of the reality of the visual landscape around you based on that sense data. For me intuition is another sense (a sixth or extra sense like they say in this article) and and when I'm operating or experiencing the sense I am interpreting the sense data. One thing which makes it different to other senses is that in other senses the interpretation happens almost seamlessly and imperceptibly. Except when you do things like maybe optical illusions or other things which reveal the nature of the you interpretive perceptual apparatus or whatever you want to call it. When I use my power then it's very clear that I am getting data and interpreting...it is almost two separate processes.
SMAAART 5y ago
I have a problem with articles like this one that popularizing "intuition" even more than it is right now. There are 2 definitions on intuitions that I see out there in the wild, one is wrong, one has merit. 1. The good intuition is what k by Malcolm Gladwell describes in his book "Blink: The Power of Thinking Without Thinking" and it's based on true, proven expertise. 2. The bad one is often the product of anxious behavior, where someone comes up with hundreds of possible scenarios prior to the fact, and then, post-mortem, when the IRL outcome matches one of those hundreds scenarios there's the "I knew it" moment. Hipotesis and assertions have an element of Intuition, but they are worthless without any action; and plain stupid if the actions are now hedged/diversified.
- _7muh 5y ago
  I have intuition in another sense which you don't mention here which is the psychic power and precognitive sense. So it is more alike to your first definition than the second one. The second one I think is more like thinking or imagining or scenarioizing and like you identify I think that can be an expression of anxiety... But it can also be what people do deliberately in brainstorming or policy planning sessions to come up with all the possible kind scenarios they might face. The psychic of precognitive intuition is similar to your definition 1 in the you're basing interpretations on sort of accumulated experiences, so the thinking without thinking the learned procedural memory, subconscious associative.. but it's important to make the distinction that those interpretive functions are distinct from the sensory functions: where the data is actually coming from. You're not generating the data from your subconscious experience you're sensing the data that is coming ostensibly from outside of you (I don't really understand how that part works but I have some theories) and then you are using your interpretive apparatus that includes the things which you list into your definition 1 to aid you in interpreting that data into some usable form.
loquor 5y ago
Edsger Dijkstra was suspicious of terms like intuition. He reasoned: My Pocket Oxford Dictionary --which requires a rather large pocket-- defines "intuition: immediate apprehension by the mind without reasoning". If we don't believe in miracles, we seem to have only two possibilities: either the reasoning required is so short and standard that it is hardly worth being recorded or mentioned, or the "immediate apprehension" does not amount to much. In the first case "intuitively clear" means "obvious", in the second case it probably means no more than the absence of obvious counterexamples. In both cases, mathematical texts "recommended" for their appeal to the reader's intuition should be ignored, for such texts promote non-reasoning instead of better reasoning. Despite the above, there are still people that believe that intuition is a good thing; there is no point in arguing with them for they prefer to believe in miracles. ----------------------- Source: https://www.cs.utexas.edu/users/EWD/transcriptions/EWD08xx/EWD800.html https://www.cs.utexas.edu/users/EWD/transcriptions/EWD08xx/E...

53 points by graderjs 5y ago

Not an expert, not my field, but this smells like hype. Intelligence is a precisely defined thing that you can't just attach new dimensions to. On top, a key feature of higher reasoning is mid- to long term prediction. It does not seem clear to me how intuition would help in planning behavior beyond the current situation.

bryanrasmussen 5y ago
>Intelligence is a precisely defined thing that you can't just attach new dimensions to. I mean everyone is always arguing about what intelligence is or even means, especially on here, so I find this a very strange thing for you say.
- uniqueuid 5y ago
  What I mean is: There is a body of thousands of scientific studies discussing what intelligence means. Yes, some of them diverge in the precise definition, but if you want to add a new meaning that's useful, you need to convince people why the heaps of existing evidence are not sufficient. That's not an easy task.
  - WithinReason 5y ago
    > There is a body of thousands of scientific studies discussing what intelligence means Which don't agree on a single definition. See for example: https://arxiv.org/abs/0712.3329 https://arxiv.org/abs/0712.3329
    - uniqueuid 5y ago
      Yeah, sure, but that's not my argument. My argument is: There are established dimensions of intelligence. There are arbitrarily many potential new dimensions. Coming up with anything and calling it intelligence is not hard and not automatically helpful. The hard part is coming up with something new that makes sense in the context of all the existing findings.
      - throw1234651234 5y ago
        There is not established definitions of intelligence. The closest I can get to is the high level break down of: 1. Crystallized intelligence - stuff you have memorized. This breaks down further with memorized vs experienced, with the latter leading to "wisdom", which really breaks down to how Asimov broke down knowledge - not only knowing the thing, but knowing how you know the thing is true. Because I am dumb, I can't think of a single good example. But it would be something like "We know an object in motion stays in motion because {PERSON} did an {EXPERIMENT} and {PERSON} is credible and you can replicate the {EXPERIMENT} like so". That's "true" knowledge. 2. Fluid intelligence - working memory. The number of things you can keep in your mind at the same time. Declines with age, or maybe disuse, we don't really know. IQ tests are out there. Working memory are out there too in terms of how they affect/correlate with life outcomes and/or IQ. I am obsessed with this topic, but I find nothing concrete past "sleep enough, exercise, learn things, some things, maybe music, maybe lang, we don't know."
        bryanrasmussen 5y ago
        I think there would have to be an upper level of true knowledge where you know it is true because you understand the math behind the theory, and the bottom level true knowledge it's true because it was validated by a lot of trustworthy people running experiments the outcomes of which would be explained by the theory. Also there should be a type of intelligence - conceives abstract ideas that are not just composed of things they have learned.
thomcano 5y ago
But it doesn't justify why you have coined the term as "hype". It doesn't make sense, please can you properly justify on your reasoning?
derbOac 5y ago
So, you're right to be skeptical of this. I think the website maybe isn't the most trust-inspiring one when it comes to this topic. There has been research, though, suggesting that when it comes to certain kinds of decision making, involving complex scenarios with lots of uncertainty, decisions made on intuition often are associated with greater satisfaction later. So I think there's something to it. The other tricky thing is that this is relatively difficult to study from a cognitive perspective. By its nature it's pretty vague but it also involves things that are difficult to capture in a lab. Creativity is sort of like this as well -- everyone has some sense that there's a thing such as creativity or generativity but studying it turns out to be difficult because it's hard to measure. My personal difficulty with intuitive decision-making is that because by definition almost it involves subconscious factors, it's difficult to know what to make of it, or when it is good versus bad. For example, you'll find a lot of articles here on HN and elsewhere about being rational in your decision making, and not letting emotions guide you. So is that "overriding intuition"? On the other hand, I think part of why intuitive decision making can be helpful sometimes is that sometimes there are factors that are difficult for you to fully appreciate the weight of, and your "rational" processes might not entirely grasp the significance of them. So you might later on look back and think "oh yeah that was way worse than I thought at the time; it's no wonder I wanted to avoid it so badly." But how do you know which scenario is which?

sebastialonso 5y ago

> It’s arriving to some sort of truth about something, an event or experience without using any type of analytic reasoning Intuition is analytic reasoning (and inductive as well) on steroids, but also done subconsciously, that's why it seems mysterious for some. A simple example is the moment of every episode of House M.D. when the actual answer comes: it's not magic, it's the brain continually re-examining information (analytic) and building models (mostly inductive) in the background. Also, that site is two articles away from claiming the Earth is actually flat.

heurisko 5y ago
> Intuition is analytic reasoning on steroids > A simple example is the moment of every episode of House M.D. House M.D. was based on Sherlock Holmes, who uses inductive, rather than deductive reasoning. e.g. conclusions are not based on analytic reasoning of all the facts, but rather are supplanted by leaps of imagination, which made the series so compelling. Intuition is inductive reasoning. Because it's not solely analytic, it can also result in answers that are also completely wrong.
- sebastialonso 5y ago
  Yes, I've fallen in the classic Holmes trap that appears everywhere. Allow me to rephrase with more detail then: intuition is a mix of strong analytic and strong inductive reasoning running non-stop in the background of consciousness.
- ceceron 5y ago
  I don't want to sound nitpicking, but if you're correcting someone, you should be ready to be corrected yourself... Sherlock Holmes used abductive reasoning. Deduction: cause + deductive rule -> effect Induction: (cause + effect) x many times -> deductive rule Abduction: effect + deductive rule -> possible causes
  - chartpath 5y ago
    Thanks for the breakdown! Abductive reasoning ftw.

jack_riminton 5y ago

Is it not just another name for subconscious decision-making?

mrweasel 5y ago
That's my felling as well. I believe that intuition is my past experiences being used by my subconscious mind as a frame of reference for current events. The issue is that my subconscious mind is so quick to recognizing patterns in the environment/current situation and previous experiences that my conscious mind struggle to keep up. I had an issue today, where a co-worker had made a mistake, which happens, but now we have an angry customer. Almost right away I know what the problem is, but it takes me 45 minutes to actually dig into the problem, only to confirm that I'm right. If you're debugging in the middle of the night, having a mind that can tell you exactly where to look, even if it doesn't know why, is magnificent. When people want answers to "Why?", it's less helpful.
- jack_riminton 5y ago
  It's interesting you used the word 'feeling' because unfortunately the English language uses the word synonymously with emotions. Whereas we both know in this context that you meant a thing that you 'can't quite put your finger on'. I have a theory that these feelings are more tied to the primitive parts of our brains/bodies. Especially if something causes danger/stress/exertion. I liken it to a hunter going through a jungle and they experience a dangerous/stressful experience, the brain puts a bookmark for all of the environmental stimuli that are present at that time/place. So when the same stimuli are experienced again the quick, primitive part can say "something isn't right, no time to explain!"

thenerdhead 5y ago

I think the big disconnect of recent times has been that of the connection between the mind and the gut. They are seen as separate systems, when they really influence each other in complementary fashions. The whole "you are what you eat" comes to mind. I'm excited to see the science behind these connections come more to the mainstream. They say "trust your gut" for a reason. Your gut acts almost as a second brain like the article mentions. Without going into too many details, it is a good basis of intuition because of the feelings that emerge from it whether right or wrong in the future, but best in the present moment. Your gut is your wisdom. It's your "gut reaction" to something that goes deeper than our conscious minds can go in a split second with many traits like past experience, sympathy/empathy, and even predictive ability. It would make sense that intuition is seen as a sixth-sense because of it. It would be cool to understand how to improve our intuition. Perhaps it is... why people who are more careful with their food choices, engage in regular exercise, stay hydrated, and constant capture of knowledge may have stronger intuition than others. Or perhaps it is the very nature of individuals who can accept the reality of the world better than others for a more plausible outcome. Which of course is much different than skepticism as it would be more stoicism at that point.

idiocrat 5y ago
Human gut has 500 million nerve cells, which is comparable with cat's brain, 760 million nerve cells. My gut is definitely planning something suspicious on its own.
crowbahr 5y ago
Your gut feeling is nothing more than the parasympathetic nervous system responding to stimuli. You can talk about it as some sort of magic choice maker all you want but it's not wisdom, it's automatic responses controlled by your unconscious mind. What you're really talking about here is the subconscious making changes to your body, and those changes being sent out and reported back via the vagus nerve. You can train that unconscious mind, but it's the same old lazy system one that operates 95% of your mortal existence: It's not literally your gut, that's just how you're experiencing it.
- 5y ago

mountainwalker 5y ago

What the heck is heart coherence? All my red flags went off once I hit this. Oh look, they're selling guides for how to do it.

_7muh 5y ago
Well then your red flags are preventing you from seeing an aspect of reality that would be very much to your benefit. So you might want to revise those red flags and learn about reality rather than prejudging reality based on existing preconceptions when your don't know. Just a hint it's understandable if you've never heard of that to wonder what it is. But it's not understandable nor smart to assume it's bogus if you don't know what it is. You should try it and it's really quite simple It's this: https://thepulse.one/assets/uploads/2021/06/InnerBalanceCoherence.jpeg https://thepulse.one/assets/uploads/2021/06/InnerBalanceCohe... It's the emergence of more coherent patterns in the wave measurements of your heart's activity. You can apply the same concept to your brain so with a EEG you can see all those little different seismic looking channels and you can achieve some more coherence in that. Less entropic patterns more regularity more of the channels beating in sync with each other. That's one way to talk about more coherence. And you will physically and subjectively experience the difference. So please don't talk about something you don't know if it's focus. You just have to learn what it is. You don't want to discourage other people from knowing it. It's not bogus at all only those red flags that were getting in your way of knowing what that reality is are bogus. Anyway, if you are engineer or EE or signals person and in any way into sort of self-tracking I could really imagine you getting into this in a big way and becoming sort of an advocate for it. You can even order your own ECG EEG machine for cheap on the internet so you can sort of practice to get yourself into coherence. In order to get yourself into coherence there's a number of different exercise you can do and you can find them by searching online. And the benefits of being in coherence are sort of like meditation but it's also sort of different. I've done it a few times and I intend to do it more. I should it's really good. I don't have a machine but you can still practice the exercises and sense the difference. I should do it more. I encourage you to try as well

ghostpepper 5y ago

The argument I've heard about intuition, put forth in Gavin de Becker's book The Gift Of Fear, is that the unconscious mind is capable of collecting and synthesizing much more data from the world around us than the conscious mind can focus on. He admittedly leans on anecdote more than large studies but it all seems very plausible to me. When your conscious brain tells you everything is fine, but your intuition tells you something is wrong, you should "listen to your gut" because it (your subconscious) has likely picked up on as signal your conscious mind ignored. Everyone from sales/marketers to con-men to actual predators knows how to manipulate the signals that the conscious brain focuses on, but it's much more difficult to trick the unconscious with social signals. I am not an expert in the field so take with a grain of salt, but it seems to match up with my experience that "trusting your gut" when you meet a new person and get a "bad vibe" is generally good advice.

ryandvm 5y ago
This might be true, but with the caveat that your subconscious mind is likely not so worried about the ethical implications of its decision making. So your "I've got a bad feeling about this" intuition might be because your subconscious picked up on somebody's suspicious behavior, or maybe it's just because you're in a different cultural environment than you usually occupy.
- ghostpepper 5y ago
  I think learning to tell the difference between healthy discomfort and unhealthy is a very important skill. There are multiple examples in that book of ways in which a predator will tailor their behavior in ways to make the victim feel social pressure to act in ways that would facilitate harm to the victim. eg. tailgating someone through a secure door by making them feel rude for not holding the door for you. At the same time, some of the most valuable life experiences come from pushing yourself outside your comfort zone. I'm not sure what the solution is. Maybe the advice is better expressed as "learn to listen to your intuition" rather than "always follow your intuition"?
dSebastien 5y ago
This point is also the central one in the book "Blink: The Power of Thinking Without Thinking" by Malcolm Gladwell.

huetius 5y ago

Polanyi’s work on intuition is incredible. The tendency (which I think came from Kuhn’s reading) to view Polanyi as some kind of relativist is a complete reversal and devaluation of what he actually wrote. EDIT: in my view, the most rigorous examination and definition of intuition comes from Rosmini, and overlaps with that of Polanyi, but the latter is much easier.

heyoni 5y ago
Got any reading recommendations from the two for a complete outsider to the field (psychology?).
- huetius 5y ago
  Sure. Polanyi is easy. He wrote a trio of short, accessible, and engaging books outlining his ideas: Science, Faith, and Society (1946), Personal Knowledge (1958), and The Tacit Dimension (1966). He was a true polymath, and very up-to-date with psychological science of his day; I would be interested in your thoughts as a specialist. Rosmini is hard. He was a very bad writer, and wrote very long books, all of them referring to each other, which caused him a lot of difficulties[0]. His magnum opus is Theosophy, and all of his works will eventually lead there. My first book of his was Principles of Ethics, which convinced me of the value of his work, and I’m still trying to untangle the others. If I had to summarize his idea of intuition, it would be “analogical participation of the subject in the objective order of being.” Also crucial is that this capacity is innate. [0] You can read his biography, he was extremely controversial in his time. His work was (exhaustively) consistent with the ancient and medieval philosophy of the Church, but was absolutely devastating for a certain kind of neo-scholasticism which was the dominant mode of exposition in the Church at the time. This led those theologians to accuse him of liberalism, modernism, secularism, Deism, freemasonry, etc., and all of those groups were happy to claim that the most ambitious corpus of philosophy and theology that the Church had produced in the modern era was an endorsement of their views. Since his work is so difficult, it took a very long time for anyone to recognize that neither of these interpretations were true.
lliamander 5y ago

nisegami 5y ago

Although I don't agree with his broader proposition, I've always wondered if Julian Jaynes' idea of the Bicameral Mind had some basis in the same mechanisms as intuition. In my personal experience, I rely very heavily on intuition and it comes to me sometimes in words not unlike what Jaynes described. Or maybe I'm conflating two different processes?

ddggdd 5y ago

my understanding of intuition is that it's a construction like all the other concepts, how it's constructed is not clear, but it's a construct non the less, just like someone really has a 'gut feeling' against mask, and use another our brain to construct a 'theory' and 'analysis' why it's wrong. this 'superpower' idea is as stupid as saying that 'freedom' and 'personal choice' can make you immune to virus.

_7muh 5y ago
I have this kind of intuition and it is only half the picture that it's a construct, and the extent to which is a construct is only like to the sense that other human senses and our experience of them are constructs too. I'm not sure we mean construct in the same way but for me intuition is a construct in the sense that you interpret the data. That's the same as saying visual data from your eyes your brain is interpreting that and you're constructing which is the sense in which it's a construct... You're constructing a picture of the reality of the visual landscape around you based on that sense data. For me intuition is another sense (a sixth or extra sense like they say in this article) and and when I'm operating or experiencing the sense I am interpreting the sense data. One thing which makes it different to other senses is that in other senses the interpretation happens almost seamlessly and imperceptibly. Except when you do things like maybe optical illusions or other things which reveal the nature of the you interpretive perceptual apparatus or whatever you want to call it. When I use my power then it's very clear that I am getting data and interpreting...it is almost two separate processes.

SMAAART 5y ago

I have a problem with articles like this one that popularizing "intuition" even more than it is right now. There are 2 definitions on intuitions that I see out there in the wild, one is wrong, one has merit. 1. The good intuition is what k by Malcolm Gladwell describes in his book "Blink: The Power of Thinking Without Thinking" and it's based on true, proven expertise. 2. The bad one is often the product of anxious behavior, where someone comes up with hundreds of possible scenarios prior to the fact, and then, post-mortem, when the IRL outcome matches one of those hundreds scenarios there's the "I knew it" moment. Hipotesis and assertions have an element of Intuition, but they are worthless without any action; and plain stupid if the actions are now hedged/diversified.

_7muh 5y ago
I have intuition in another sense which you don't mention here which is the psychic power and precognitive sense. So it is more alike to your first definition than the second one. The second one I think is more like thinking or imagining or scenarioizing and like you identify I think that can be an expression of anxiety... But it can also be what people do deliberately in brainstorming or policy planning sessions to come up with all the possible kind scenarios they might face. The psychic of precognitive intuition is similar to your definition 1 in the you're basing interpretations on sort of accumulated experiences, so the thinking without thinking the learned procedural memory, subconscious associative.. but it's important to make the distinction that those interpretive functions are distinct from the sensory functions: where the data is actually coming from. You're not generating the data from your subconscious experience you're sensing the data that is coming ostensibly from outside of you (I don't really understand how that part works but I have some theories) and then you are using your interpretive apparatus that includes the things which you list into your definition 1 to aid you in interpreting that data into some usable form.

loquor 5y ago

Edsger Dijkstra was suspicious of terms like intuition. He reasoned: My Pocket Oxford Dictionary --which requires a rather large pocket-- defines "intuition: immediate apprehension by the mind without reasoning". If we don't believe in miracles, we seem to have only two possibilities: either the reasoning required is so short and standard that it is hardly worth being recorded or mentioned, or the "immediate apprehension" does not amount to much. In the first case "intuitively clear" means "obvious", in the second case it probably means no more than the absence of obvious counterexamples. In both cases, mathematical texts "recommended" for their appeal to the reader's intuition should be ignored, for such texts promote non-reasoning instead of better reasoning. Despite the above, there are still people that believe that intuition is a good thing; there is no point in arguing with them for they prefer to believe in miracles. ----------------------- Source: https://www.cs.utexas.edu/users/EWD/transcriptions/EWD08xx/EWD800.html https://www.cs.utexas.edu/users/EWD/transcriptions/EWD08xx/E...