Society, Intuition and Logic

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
This is somewhat related to (1), in that it probably springs from people's failure to realize two things: logic doesn't speak to emotion, and emotion is relevant.

[/ QUOTE ]

The girls that fall in love with abusers and child-molesters, etc. Would you say their intuition/emotion served them well? On what basis would you be able to say that? Would you base that on logical analysis or just wait for an emotion to come by with the answer?

Emotion tells us how we feel about something, it can't judge whether that feeling is getting a correct evaluation of the situation. People that get taken advantage of, even by a mother, can claim their emotions/intuitions were 'right' if they want, but the scars should prove otherwise, even though it's a mere logical conclusion.

It's "the wife is the last to know" or "my son wouldn't do that" situations that help illustrate this. Outsiders can see the manipulation of a gold-digger, say, because they are using logical analysis.

I like carrots, brunettes and convertibles. I get 'hunches' at the poker table that I act on ( people reading ones, not "my flush is rivering" ones). None of that is immune to logical analysis and in fact that is how I will judge whether my emotions are screwing me or not. If carrots constipate me, brunettes swindle me and convertibles cause bug-throat I may still be stuck with the 'liking' but now avoid the activity.

We can't help how we feel but we don't have to pretend that the hunches, intuitions or feelings are some mysterious source of deep wisdom. Slugs and barnacles react to their environment too, and some trout would have done better if the did a bit more hmmmmming before they snapped at the fly.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sorry, but this doesn't address what I've actually said. For example:

[ QUOTE ]
Of course some aspects of those relationships should and will be analyzed rationally. . .

[/ QUOTE ]

My point is simply that there are some kinds of information that logic does a relatively poor job of illuminating. That's all.

[/ QUOTE ]

Give me an example.

[vhawk01]

I really do feel like I'm arguing against some stereotyped, pejorative definition of "logic" that is really common among idiots but is a little surprising on SMP. Its like what happens whenever we talk about science. For some reason people think science is the part of reality that deals with beakers and animals and lab coats. Science is a process, logic is a process. Science is primarily based on logic, it just has a few axioms built in. Other than that its basically the same CPU.

[bunny]

I dont think it's to do with ego, I think it's to do with utility. If you can logically demonstrate something then it is 100% certain to be true. Unfortunately, the class of assertions we can logically demonstrate is small due to limited knowledge.

So, although intuition has the advantage that it can apply to anything it suffers from the big disadvantage that logic is the only way to know if you're right or not.

[Taraz]

Can we all agree on what we are talking about?

The 'logic' we are referring to a longer, conscious process of figuring things out. It involves analyzing the situation in some sort of detail.

'Intuition' refers to snap judgments that we make. This is probably occurring on a subconscious level and does not involve stopping and reflecting on the choices.

While logic is normally the better way to go, there are actually many cases where this "intuition" is superior to logic. Any practiced motor skill actually gets worse if you think about it. You are much more precise if you just move. Also, lots of visual judgments work better on the intuitive level. Sometimes something just "seems wrong" but we can't articulate why.

Whoever mentioned the book Blink by Malcolm Gladwell was on the right track. He deals with many examples where our snap judgments are the best judgments.

[madnak]

[ QUOTE ]
Ummm...it is not an "arbitrary" view that logic is a process. Logic cannot be an input for anything. You can input whatever you want into a logical framework, and depending on what you put in, you will get some result. But logic cannot be the input. Its pretty important that you understand this.

[/ QUOTE ]

But the outputs of logic can be fed into another process. Probably what he meant.

I don't like the view of emotion as a process. Emotional inputs affect logical outputs to a high degree, but the reverse isn't true.

"Logic" and "thought" aren't the same thing. Thought does affect emotion (albeit not, IMO, to anywhere near the extent that emotion affects thought). However, I don't think the process of logic actually affects emotion much - I think it affects thought, and thought can then affect emotion, so it's indirect. On the other hand, it seems that many assumptions used in logical processes come directly from the emotions - they're unexamined and almost instinctual.

A lot of people go nuts about this stuff. There's this new kind of philosophy cropping up of the opposed realms of art and science. You have your right versus your left brain, you have nature versus technology, you have emotion versus thought, you have intuition versus reason. Only, these pairs are neither exclusive nor opposed.

[madnak]

[ QUOTE ]
While logic is normally the better way to go, there are actually many cases where this "intuition" is superior to logic. Any practiced motor skill actually gets worse if you think about it. You are much more precise if you just move. Also, lots of visual judgments work better on the intuitive level. Sometimes something just "seems wrong" but we can't articulate why.

[/ QUOTE ]

Humans are great at responding to physical threats, meeting physical needs, and interacting socially. Our intuitions in these areas tend to be good. Our intuitions in the areas of science, math, and philosophy tend to be awful.

Some people like to argue that intuition is the correct approach for determining whether God exists, whether humans have free will, and whether the universe was designed. I think that's the position relevant to this thread. And I don't think it can be supported.

[Splendour]

I had another question today which probably should have its own thread but the question grew out of this thread.

The question is: Is Genius more like Logic or Intuition?

[Taraz]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
While logic is normally the better way to go, there are actually many cases where this "intuition" is superior to logic. Any practiced motor skill actually gets worse if you think about it. You are much more precise if you just move. Also, lots of visual judgments work better on the intuitive level. Sometimes something just "seems wrong" but we can't articulate why.

[/ QUOTE ]

Humans are great at responding to physical threats, meeting physical needs, and interacting socially. Our intuitions in these areas tend to be good. Our intuitions in the areas of science, math, and philosophy tend to be awful.

Some people like to argue that intuition is the correct approach for determining whether God exists, whether humans have free will, and whether the universe was designed. I think that's the position relevant to this thread. And I don't think it can be supported.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree 100%. I specifically didn't like the characterization of intuition as "shoddy logic" (cough, vhawk, cough [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img] ) Intuition is pretty non-logical and is quite useful in certain scenarios. Clearly learning the structure of the natural world is not one of these scenarios.

[Taraz]

[ QUOTE ]
I had another question today which probably should have its own thread but the question grew out of this thread.

The question is: Is Genius more like Logic or Intuition?

[/ QUOTE ]

It's a false dichotomy, I would say geniuses use both quite well. With that said, I doubt I would call anybody a genius who had poor deductive skills.

[bunny]

[ QUOTE ]
Can we all agree on what we are talking about?

The 'logic' we are referring to a longer, conscious process of figuring things out. It involves analyzing the situation in some sort of detail.

'Intuition' refers to snap judgments that we make. This is probably occurring on a subconscious level and does not involve stopping and reflecting on the choices.

While logic is normally the better way to go, there are actually many cases where this "intuition" is superior to logic. Any practiced motor skill actually gets worse if you think about it. You are much more precise if you just move. Also, lots of visual judgments work better on the intuitive level. Sometimes something just "seems wrong" but we can't articulate why.

Whoever mentioned the book Blink by Malcolm Gladwell was on the right track. He deals with many examples where our snap judgments are the best judgments.

[/ QUOTE ]
I dont think the speed of decision is the essential distinguishing factor between logic and intuition, although I agree it is often the case. I think a logical approach involves only accepting what can be deduced from prior, accepted axioms or theorems. I understood Splendour to be labelling intuition "everything else".

I consider it at least possible to mull things over and still form an intuitive judgement. Similarly, I think kurto and vhawk have referred to intuition as a kind of "snap-logic". I think the logical amongst us will be better (ie more accurate) at utilising this form of "intuition" than those to whom deduction is more alien.