If you can’t think intuitively, you may be able to verify specific factual claims, but you certainly can’t think about history.
Well, maybe we can’t think about history. Intuition is unreliable. Just because you want to think intelligently about something doesn’t mean it’s possible to do so.
I would think this an irrationality quote? “Fuzzy” thinking skills are ridiculously important. “Intuition” may be somewhat unreliable, but in certain domains and under certain conditions, it can be—verifiably—a very powerful method.
I took as being rationality in the sense that it follows the form: “just because you want to action x does not mean that action x is possible”, which is always a good reminder.
Intuition is extremely powerful when correctly trained. Just because you want to have powerful intuitions about something doesn’t mean it’s possible to correctly train them.
Jewish Atheist, in reply to Mencius Moldbug
I would think this an irrationality quote? “Fuzzy” thinking skills are ridiculously important. “Intuition” may be somewhat unreliable, but in certain domains and under certain conditions, it can be—verifiably—a very powerful method.
I took as being rationality in the sense that it follows the form: “just because you want to action x does not mean that action x is possible”, which is always a good reminder.
That’s so, but it’s also true that just because you’re personally not good at X, that does not mean that X is impossible or worthless.
Maybe it would be best to shorten it?
Yes. It depends whether we are in the context of discovery (or of “getting things done”) or the context of justification.
You can’t reasonable talk about darkness without talking about light. It’s the same topic.
Do you mean to match up intuition and logic, or rationality quotes and irrationality quotes, or something else?
Intuition is extremely powerful when correctly trained. Just because you want to have powerful intuitions about something doesn’t mean it’s possible to correctly train them.