Society, Intuition and Logic

[Splendour]

Actually I think we left out some quotes. luckyme's quote starts with "a fair chunk and I think you're mixing his quote up with mine.

My point is that the intuition is an under appreciated area of intelligence that may also be more developed in some people and/or unconsciously under utilized by people in general. Probably the people with the best intuition parameters, the ones with the best intuitive sorting capabilities have the highest intuition.

[kurto]

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]

[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.

[Splendour]

Why do you want to put up a shrine to logic? Is that your personal disposition talking?

Next time you're at a poker table you'll probably see both logic and intuition at work and in those funny little bluffing situations where you're flying in the dark I'd rather be holding onto a little intuition not just logic.

Take a look at Phil Ivey again sometime. His eyes darting all over the place. They don't dart for logic. They dart for all those subtle little cues he's trying to pick up that he feeds into his gestalt apparatus, his intuition.

So build your shrine but remember that codification is a boundary setter. Usually progress is about breaking the limits not setting 'em in stone.

[kurto]

[ QUOTE ]

Take a look at Phil Ivey again sometime. His eyes darting all over the place. They don't dart for logic. They dart for all those subtle little cues he's trying to pick up that he feeds into his gestalt apparatus, his intuition.



[/ QUOTE ]

Splendour -- if Ivey's eyes are darting about looking for INFORMATION. He then uses that information to make a LOGICAL decision. You even acknowledge that he's looking for SUBTLE CLUES. One doesn't take clues and GUESS. You use clues to make good judgements.... ie, you reason.

Intuition USES LOGIC. The problem with intuition is that it happens quickly, therefore, it doesn't also deduce based on good premises.

LOGIC/REASON IS like intuition but much slower for it takes the time to make sure that the reasoning is sound. Where intuition makes snap judgements quickly that may or may not be accurate.

When you need a quick decision, intuition is what you listen to. But its not the best way to make a decision when you have the time to work it out.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
Why do you want to put up a shrine to logic? Is that your personal disposition talking?

Next time you're at a poker table you'll probably see both logic and intuition at work and in those funny little bluffing situations where you're flying in the dark I'd rather be holding onto a little intuition not just logic.

Take a look at Phil Ivey again sometime. His eyes darting all over the place. They don't dart for logic. They dart for all those subtle little cues he's trying to pick up that he feeds into his gestalt apparatus, his intuition.

So build your shrine but remember that codification is a boundary setter. Usually progress is about breaking the limits not setting 'em in stone.

[/ QUOTE ]

You keep referring to intuition and logic as if they are diametrically opposed or somehow competing with one another and you arent even listening to me when I explain that intuition is a subset of logic. Yes, at the poker table I will see both intuition and logic, which is exactly the same as saying at the poker table I will see shoddy logic, mediocre logic and superb logic (actually I wouldnt sit at a table with much superb logic going on).

PS. Every conclusion you come to and every point you are trying to make in this post is a logical one. Why are you so enamored with logic? Why do you use logic to make your points? Get over your logic obsession!

[Splendour]

I think I already mentioned that intuition and logic work together in my oxen post above addressed to luckyme.

I'm not pushing a position on logic/intuition as much as I am examining the nature of intuition and why society doesn't recognize it's important role throughout history.

[Aver-aging]

[ QUOTE ]
Poker players are often making quick logical deductions and calling it intuition. They are responding to cues that they may even have trouble rationalizing. That doesn't mean its 'magic' or 'paranormal.' For instance, if a person breaks a pattern, you may subconsciously recognize that something is different even if you haven't figured out what it is. You may then decide that a player is very strong because of this change. Because you can't articulate the change, you call it 'intuition' when in reality you are simply processing information readily available to your senses.

[/ QUOTE ]

What you just described is modern psychology's understanding of intuition. Quickly processing subtle environmental cues is the process of intuition. I can't stress how important it is for a person to understand neo-cortical neurology to better understand any neurological phenomenon. The design of the neocortex is hierarchical in nature, and the higher the activity, the more the thought is understood by the individual (or so its thought, at least). Lower areas of the neo-cortical hierarchy are more sensitive to small changes in the environment because they are less subject to interpretation from other areas of the neo-cortex. That's precisely why logic can actually be inaccurate.

The neo-cortex is a feedback system, and the higher parts of the hierarchy are more reliant on feedback from other levels than the lower, as they receive no direct information from sensory input. The lower levels, however, receive input from both the higher levels (there is actually more connections going from the top to the bottom then there is going from the bottom to the top) and sensory organs. If you've ever watched that special on the man with 'The highest IQ in the world' that is a perfect example of how having excellent logic can be detrimental to one's ability to perceive reality accurately. My guess is that if you looked at his brain it would have a low cell count in the lower areas of the neo-cortical hierarchy.

Also, its important to mention that some people would naturally have better intuition than others. It all depends on the individuals particular neo-cortical arrangement. It's my guess that having a high amount of direct sensory to low-hierarchy connection/cell count AND having low-hierarchy to the highest levels of neo-cortical hierarchy connection count would result in individuals with phenomenal intuitive abilities.

I mean, there needs to be more research though. This whole field is very fuzzy, and very misunderstood. They need to start dissecting people's neo-cortex after they die (from causes that were not a result of brain trauma or degenerative diseases), while attaining as much personal information about these people while they are still alive and healthy.

*EDIT*

To whoever said intuition is just shoddy logic, you obviously don't know what you are talking about. Intuition is so much more than 'shoddy logic'. For some people it's more reliable than actually being logical. For others, its a lot less reliable. It really varies from individual to individual.

[borisp]

[ QUOTE ]
the ancient Yogi masters said it was the highest form of intelligence...intuition...is linked to telepathy, precognition, deja vu, telekinesis, after death communications...

[/ QUOTE ]
umm, yeah, good points

[vulturesrow]

Did anyone in this thread read Blink?