There have been lots of studies regarding problems with intuition. But, have there been studies regarding the intuition of people who are also excellent thinkers of the abstract? Or the intuition of skilled rationalists?
That does sound very controversial—but that’s the point. I personally have slight confidence—be it intuitive if you wish—that the intuition of the entire population on average does not match the intuition of some filtered population. For an example Luke went ahead and said that you’re better off catching a basketball using your intuition rather than calculating trajectories algebraically—and some people are really bad at catching basket balls, while others excel at it.
I think what you do intuitively can be changed to some extent and what results intuition produces varies between people, despite general tendencies. I also think that the brain does lots of work automatically, and it can really fit into some situations much better than deliberate thinking, in particular if A) You’re under time pressure B) The task is hard to analyze, calculate
For an example if you were to figure out if a painting would be a “pleasant sight” for most people, more often than not, I think it would be a realm where you would have to use intuition. Although I guess that’s circular logic, because the “pleasantness” of the experience is a product of intuition. But then there are good painters and bad painters, good critics and bad critics. There are good cooks and bad cooks.
I’m feel that not all people share similar intuition in terms of arriving at correct expectations or conclusions about the world just as there is variance in abilities of deliberate reasoning. Maybe that’s just my intuition going wrong. Or rather I think I intuitively felt that was the case, then applied some superficial analogies and tried to extract additional information from them—primarily to support the intuition.
There have been lots of studies regarding problems with intuition. But, have there been studies regarding the intuition of people who are also excellent thinkers of the abstract? Or the intuition of skilled rationalists?
That does sound very controversial—but that’s the point. I personally have slight confidence—be it intuitive if you wish—that the intuition of the entire population on average does not match the intuition of some filtered population. For an example Luke went ahead and said that you’re better off catching a basketball using your intuition rather than calculating trajectories algebraically—and some people are really bad at catching basket balls, while others excel at it.
I think what you do intuitively can be changed to some extent and what results intuition produces varies between people, despite general tendencies. I also think that the brain does lots of work automatically, and it can really fit into some situations much better than deliberate thinking, in particular if A) You’re under time pressure B) The task is hard to analyze, calculate
For an example if you were to figure out if a painting would be a “pleasant sight” for most people, more often than not, I think it would be a realm where you would have to use intuition. Although I guess that’s circular logic, because the “pleasantness” of the experience is a product of intuition. But then there are good painters and bad painters, good critics and bad critics. There are good cooks and bad cooks.
I’m feel that not all people share similar intuition in terms of arriving at correct expectations or conclusions about the world just as there is variance in abilities of deliberate reasoning. Maybe that’s just my intuition going wrong. Or rather I think I intuitively felt that was the case, then applied some superficial analogies and tried to extract additional information from them—primarily to support the intuition.