[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
I think, Vhawk, that this is hitting 95% of it:
[ QUOTE ]
Intuition is just shoddy logic. It is the rough draft, the first instinct, the random guess. You can often rely on solely intuition because your brain is pretty awesome and your rough draft is very often right. But if you want to go a step further and drastically improve your accuracy, you codify your intuitions and use a systematic approach to decision-making.

And we call that logic.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think what may seem 'magical' is that people have the ability to make rational decisions at a level they're not aware of. Some people can consistantly make accurate judgements about something using what they might call 'intuition' without understanding how they're coming to the decision.

I think the OPs problem is trying to say one is better then the other when, in reality, they serve different functions and should be valued differently.

Intuition is a snap deduction. It may or may not be based on relevent criteria. As you've said, only in hindsight can one determine if the intuition was useful. But intuition is useful in that it is often reactive to subtle cues that one may not yet have formally articulated. It may allow someone to sense danger even though you haven't put your finger on what cues are scaring you.

To type anymore I'll drift into rambling... [img]/images/graemlins/smirk.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

Right. Logic is better than "the first 0.5 seconds of a logical decision" when you are judging solely based on accuracy and consistency. If you are judging based on "ability to avoid getting eaten by a bear" I think I'll take intuition.