It often seems to me that emotional evaluation frequently amounts to shallow, parallel processing. For example "feelings" based on previous experience which you

It often seems to me that emotional evaluation frequently amounts to shallow, parallel processing. For example "feelings" based on previous experience which you can't necessarily immediately deeply analyse and explain, but typically encompasses an enormously broad set of circumstances you've experienced in the past. When we hear a line like "I'll create a gui in visual basic, see if I can track an IP address" we don't immediately have an impartial, rational response as to why that doesn't make any sense, the shallow emotional response kicks in first and you roll your eyes and groan. If you then needed to explain in detail and in a logical way why that response was provoked, you can, but it's not what's at the immediate cognitive surface of the response. Take a far more complex example that just leaves you feeling kinda vaguely uneasy at first glance (spacetime is quantized) and I think that better illustrates what I'm getting at. Rational, logical evaluation on the other hand is a deep, focused analysis which can't quickly account for every little thing you've ever experienced, and often initially leaves you with the nagging feeling that "you're missing some little thing". The constant attempt to link intuition to emotion is probably based around the fact that people don't have deep objective reality based models of the universe as a general rule, so it's very difficult for them to be able to imagine the kind of person who does. On the other hand, it's not that hard to understand that there are intuitive patterns to human emotion, even amongst those that have trouble grasping those intuitive patterns, thus the two become linked in the minds of the majority.