|Intuition received a peer review by Wikipedia editors, which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.|
|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
|In March 25, 2015, it was proposed that this article be moved from to Intuition. The result of the debate was page moved. (See discussion.)|
- 1 Some new information
- 2 Disputed warning, Intuition is a source of empirical knowledge
- 3 Some references for editing
- 4 Page move
- 5 Nonsense
- 6 Psychology Section
- 7 Proposal to split this article - Feb 9/2007
- 8 Intuition in Religion
- 9 Taxi driver intuition
- 10 Wow- so not neutral.
- 11 Frame of Reference
- 12 Gut feeling
- 13 What is the difference between the subject of this article and Intuition (philosophy)?
- 14 I am VERY bothered by this biased statement from the article
- 15 Improved Lead Wording?
- 16 What about the theory gut feelings actually come from the guts?
- 17 I do not understand this
- 18 Intuitive processes
- 19 This page is very poor quality / makes Wikipedia look bad
- 20 Re-structuring and re-writing the entire article
- 21 Requested move 25 March 2015
- 22 Reference to empiricism and rationalism needed in the philosophy section
- 23 please avoid blanketing the article
- 24 Discuss before mass deletion
- 25 Instinct vs intuition
Some new information
There is some work by Hope K Fitz on Intuition. She is a Philosophy Prof out of East Conneticut University. She would be critical of some of the claims in this article. I do not have time to expand on her work, but I think it is impressive. Her ideas derive out Western and Eastern (Indian) philosophical tranditions. Her central claims are that:
1) Intuition is not a form knowledge - but a means to knowledge 2) It is an integral process of the mind that cumulates in the process of insight 3) The process involves reasoning, but the end result (insight)does not
I have to say on a personal note that the use of the work by psychologists (and I have to say my research in this area is too flimsy for this statement to be categorical) is that they seriously abuse the term. There is a difference between the inuitive experience discussed by the likes of Henri Poincare who describes years of effort leading to a flash of understanding (this I believe is Fitz's view) and some of the psychology experiments I have read, which appear to be more experiments in instant perception. In general the Poincare view seems to describe the common experience of creative people.
One thing the current article does not cover is the work of Henri Bergson on this subject and that of Pantanjali (Yoga Sutras).
Hope this helps. If I get time I will add to this.Dave Catlin 08:25, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
Disputed warning, Intuition is a source of empirical knowledge
Heidimo, I have given this article a disputed warning because, to me, what you write sounds very untrue to me. For example, I develop intuition in chess by playing and observing (empiry), not the other way round. It is the experience that gives me intuition. Andries 19:51, 16 May 2004 (UTC)
- I didn't make it up. I now remember that I read it in a chess book somewhere. See also Andries 08:39, 20 May 2004 (UTC)
- Not sure (I didn't write that) but I think this is an opinion by some religious or philosophical group. I have heard similar things from people interested in Chinese philosophy. Might deserve mentioning but not as the only definition and a source should be given. 184.108.40.206 19:08, 18 May 2004 (UTC)
- Andries, you are attributing something to me that I did not write. Why can't you integrate your viewpoint into the article without removing another viewpoint? Why create a dispute? Contention is unnecessary. heidimo 04:37, 19 May 2004 (UTC)
- I will try very soon. Please be patient. But before I have done that I think it is better to included a disputed warning because I don't want the readers of Wikipedia to be misled. Andries 20:04, 19 May 2004 (UTC)
I like the way the current article reads. Thanks Andries and Heidimo for working on this. Jake 20:28, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)
- thanks Jake, I want to write that ituition may be influenced by wishful thinking if I can find a referenced source for it. This is my strong belief based on my own unfortunate experience. Do you think that this is a good idea? Andries 20:41, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)
- Thanks, Jake, but I don't think I can take much credit for this article. heidimo 22:00, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Some references for editing
The page was a sort of halfway house between disambiguation page and article. So I've moved it, and used the old Intuition article as a proper dab page. I haven't removed the clean up tag because this article does still need a lot of work. - Motor (talk) 14:34, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
Is it just me, or does this article entirely violate neutral point of view? I mean, come on, the biggest enemy to social science? And the bit about assuming it is wrong seems like rubbish to me. Intuition is not at all inherently wrong, it just may not represent a full picture or may be based on a feeling, rather than a logical conclusion. I strongly recommend the article be substantially revised, even rewritten. Nicholasink 01:57, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
I am new to Wikipedia so forgive me if I am doing anything wrong. I am a graduate student studying intuition, and I think this article needs a lot of work. I would like to contribute to that work. One major thing which I think would be useful is a psychology heading. Much work has been done in intuition by people like Westcott, Bastick, Eysenck, and many others, in the psychology domain. I will put some thought into this and add a section in a few days, if that's OK with everyone. I think much of this article is a bit vague and not clearly written, so I'd like to help with that too. Phronk 00:31, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
- Well, you can do that. Just edit the page. And don't forget to sign your posts with ~~~~. —The-thing (Talk) (Stuff I did) 23:50, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
Proposal to split this article - Feb 9/2007
Ed Poor has just tagged this page with a rewrite template, on the grounds that the intro is imprecise. I think the real problem is that the article needs to be split into several articles. It seems to me that the intro is OK if one is talking about intuition as it is understood by academic philosophers. Unfortunately, the word "intuition" is used in so many different contexts that no single lead paragraph can reasonably encompass them all. Any suggestions for what titles separate articles should have? -- WikiPedant 21:41, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
- I dunno, I better sleep on it. I need to give my powers of intuition a chance to work on this. ;-) --Uncle Ed 21:53, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
(User:Gofigure1998) I think part of the problem is that "intuition" has multiple levels of meaning. In western culture intuition is used synonymously with the term "hunch" and is considered unreliable or imaginary. In the east, by contrast, intuition is more clearly defined and is different from being superstitious or having a "hunch". The basic problem is the contamination of our "hunches" with our own opinions, ideas or past experience. By contrast, true intuition is a stable, reliable function of higher levels of consciousness. High level intution can be used to be creative in the external world....but can also be used to grasp the innermost nature of our being. This latter use, one which is highly developed in the east, can be used to deepen one's own level of consciousness and can be used to integrate the intellect and emotional aspects of our being. High level intuition can appear naturally and in some people is present at an early age. But this same high level intution can be developed and cultured through the practice of meditation and other internal practices. For those gifted with naturally occuring high level intuition the whole process seems random....but for those who meditate or do other internal practices the process of developing high level intuition is a gradual unfoldment, access to which is more systematic attained. 9:51 February 11, 2007
- So, Gofigure1998, getting back to the topic, do you favor splitting this article or not? -- WikiPedant 21:05, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
I'm in favour of the split. We need separate Intuition (psychology) and Intuition (philosophy) pages, as well as the current page which can be for the layman's use of the term intuition. The main (disambiguation) page at Intuition should also be updated. -- TimNelson 02:04, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
- Hello TimNelson -- I agree with creating Intuition (psychology) and Intuition (philosophy) pages. I'm less certain about leaving the current Intuition (knowledge) page as a catch-all for layman's uses of the term. I think it is controversial to assume that layman's uses all treat intuition as a kind of knowledge. In everyday English, "intuition" can mean "hunch" or "gut feeling", and I'm not so sure that those are names of kinds of knowledge. -- WikiPedant 04:23, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
- Hi, all. My interest is in any kind of perception or discovery which is not based purely on conscious thought or analysis. I came to the article from reading about "women's intution". But I'm sure both sexes have the faculty.
- Like a hunch that someone is untrustworthy, but you can't quite "put your finger on it". Then you find out later he was arrested for embezzlement. The concept figures frequently in literature, but is there any actual research on it? Eric Berne claimed to be able to figure out the civilian occupation of military men simply be chatting with them a few minutes, and IIRC he attributed this to intuition. --Uncle Ed 20:01, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
- Joining this discussion so late, I don't know if anybody will even see this. I have read numerous boards on a myriad of topics, and this is the first one I felt compelled to respond to. First I'd like to begin by expressing how much I enjoyed and appreciated the comments by "gofigure", it was the first intelligent response I read. Secondly, and I should say lastly, who are the people on this board with only negative comments? What, do you sit around looking for topics you feel comfortable bashing, yet you really have no knowledge or experience on the actual subject? If you had any idea what it means to be intuitive, if you had ever experienced it, you wouldn't be capable of making such comments. It is not a hunch, you don't base your answer off of any already known idea, you just know. Without even thinking, guessing etc. It's not just answering questions, it's reading situations in an instant, it's knowing everything about a persons character before your even introduced. I shouldn't say everything, but it's 80% more than your spouse or friend will ever know for months, even years about that person. That's it, I'm done raving. Goodnight everyone. jlo1
Intuition in Religion
Reference to intuition can be found in many religions like Hinduism,Christianity,Sikhism and others.
For example in Christianity(New Testament)we have the story of 'Last Supper'.
In Hinduism one finds reference and incidents related to intuition in mythology and life of many saints like Tukaram,Sri Ramakrishna Paramhansa,Sai baba of Sirdi and others.
In Sikhism we have incidents relating intuition with regard to life of Guru Nanak.
--Badshah165 13:35, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
- Okay..? I have little trouble believing that intuition, being a part of humanity, woudl appear in humanity's religions. But theres little reason to list any of that here. By that logic we'd have to put sections about religion into every single aspect of life and reality. Beliefs notwithstanding, such things simply do not need inclusion. Infact, you could say that my intuition tells me that most religions pages have this coverd already. Wow, I feel ashamed that i just wrote that. And yet I hit submit anyway. 220.127.116.11 (talk) 02:46, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
This last comment is exactly correct. From my study of Hinduism over 40 years, I doubt there is anything specific to Hinduism that deals with "intuition", let alone that translates to that English word. Plus, two of the three examples were from very modern fringe and controversial authors that do not speak for mainstream Hinduism, and so are not good examples. The third example concerning Advaita is simply wrong, and is possibly a mistranslation - and the reference cannot be accessed to check.
Since the entry was a) not representative, and b) not instructive or helpful, I deleted it (something I rarely do on Wikipedia), since in this case, the entry simply adds nothing to anyone's knowledge about "intuition". 18.104.22.168 (talk) 21:20, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
Taxi driver intuition
I would love to see the results of any academic study of this, women's intuition, and the techniques that Kreskin uses mentioned in the article. I can assure you that Taxi driver intuition exists. It's when the driver often can tell where people want to go with little or no information, etc. Greg Bard 01:49, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
Surely that effect is simply explained by the drivers experience in how many people get into his cab and thechanceof themgoing to a givenlocation.
i.e. from an airport most people want to go to a particular hotel. A valid effect but one based on external factors and experience rather than plain intuition —Preceding unsigned comment added by 22.214.171.124 (talk) 05:10, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
Wow- so not neutral.
In one paragraph we talk about law enforcement "intuition"- and then not one bit of all the evidence that suggests that intuition is just a reinforcement of bias? Nothing that shows just how many law enforcement officers have "intuited" someone was a criminal and then were found to be wrong, often with deadly consequences? Wow. 126.96.36.199 (talk) 16:09, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
- Agreed. It is a great opener for an advocate of SUS laws. - Steve3849 talk 19:35, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
- I took a closer look at the source which clarifies that a more specific topic is preconscious with "intuition" and "gut feeling" used as less specific interchangable terms. - Steve3849 talk 19:48, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
(New comment) I am all for neutrality, as long as it does not become "The pendulum swinging the other way". As far as intuition is concerned, I read too many "Experts" who fall back on "we cannot prove it empirically beyond the shadow of a doubt to all humans" just to scream "Scam" in the "Name Of Science" and claim to be part of the highly enlightened "Skeptics Society". I have personally experienced highly intuitive experiences throughout my life and even though life would be so much more philosophically simple if I could disprove the phenomenon, I cannot deny/disprove/doubt the existence of intuition even by doing all I can to try to convince myself.
Taxi driver's intuition?!!... In 2001 I was running seriously behind schedule as I needed (read: absolutely HAD) to be on time for a major ($$$$$$) I.T. director job interview in Pleasanton, CA. I landed very, very late at San Jose Airport, someone had damaged my cell phone at Sky Harbor in Phoenix and I only had 30 minutes to get there (almost impossible on a good traffic day). Oh and did I forget to mention?... I had never been there, had no map... all I had was an address and a mental picture of the building. I literally had to trust my intuition and "Use the Force" as I jokingly thought to myself. After getting the rental car on the 880, I had to make/take 8 exact exits and merges and NOT MISS a single one AND get there on time. Much to my amazement and stupefaction, I arrived at my intended destination within 29 minutes, with only intuition to get me there. Yes, I believe taxi driver's intuition is entirely possible.
This is only a "Mild" example of several dozen such private/personal/precious experiences I had with "Intuition".
Max Planck, Albert Einstein and Wolfgang Pauli ALL understood and made great use of "Intuition". I also know of too many other individuals, men, women and children who have experienced intuition personally.
A trained artist and painter can see subtle shades and color variations that the untrained eye cannot. Ophthalmologists regularly mention visual perception variances in order of 10 million color hues and more. Yet if you speak with "Normal" people, they will tell you "Are you kidding me man?! This apple is green and that apple is just the same shade of green you bozo! Heck they were even picked on the same tree branch!" and let's not even talk about Daltonism or Color blindness... if all of a sudden, through a rapid genetic degradation, almost all males were to become color blind, would the voice of 4 billion "Color skeptics" silence all others? If ALL members of the "Skeptics Society" and/or ALL members of ALL of the "Science Academies" world wide ALL were color blind, would all the uneducated painters in the world be "Fools"? To the untrained ear, an A440 on the piano sounds the same as an A442 or an A438. The expert piano tuner (those who are blind are especially good) CAN and WILL "Perceive" the difference.
Trying to explain this to someone who is tone deaf, is like trying to explain salt to someone who has never tasted it or trying to explain the color Fushia to someone who is color blind. Although some people seem to be naturally gifted at it, just as predisposed artists may be naturally gifted toward respective sensory acuity, intuition can actually be "Taught and trained" like many people can be trained to see more hues and shades and hear subtle tonal variations. I know many people who never had ANY intuitive experiences in their entire lives, who experienced intuition while taking a Silva Method training for the first time. Here is a "neutral" article on the matter:
Do not criticize, belittle or "Psha!" just yet. Before you do, open up your mind to the scientific possibilities... like Newton, Einstein et al... The Silva Organization has a no questions asked money back guarantee and all you have to lose is a bit of stubborn ignorance.
Please, oh please, oh please Let Us NOT Confuse Neutrality With Skepticism.
Remember that the great "Minds, Leaders, Popes, Potentates and Skeptics" 600 years ago all thought that Earth was flat... and there was NO WAY to demonstrate otherwise... yet.
We all "Knew" it was impossible to fly in 1569 and that "Man" never would... even though Leonardo Da Vinci had drafted several plans for flying machines decades earlier.
We all "Knew" it was impossible to travel to the moon in 1869 and Jules Verne was nearly laughed into oblivion then. Some "really smart and well educated skeptics" still believe it was all a cleverly orchestrated con job.
We all "Knew" Global warming was a scam. All the science academies knew... until they reversed themselves and signed a universal declaration a couple of years ago. Did you take a good look at satellite imagery of the North Pole lately?
Also, we all "Knew" it was impossible to travel at "Warp Speed"... until December 2012:
The last 150 years are filled with demonstrable proof, that the last thing we must do is "Encyclopedically educate ourselves" with the cleverly disguised and politically correct "Neutral" discourses of skeptics, naysayers and obtuse pseudo-intellectuals. There is a big difference between, what is real, what is unreal and what is perceived... or imperceptible... yet. This applies to you, me and all of "Us".
Frame of Reference
The definition of frame of reference is “A set of standards, beliefs, or assumptions governing perceptual or logical evaluation or social behaviour” (Oxford English Dictionary, 2005b). This applies strongly to intuitive thinking, and can be used in description with great effect. Some personalities build up "frameworks" that assist in processing information.
I'm personally intrigued by the concept of a framework, reflecting on the way I think personally. Perhaps someone with a more extensive background in psychology could describe it here, possibly in a new article (as frame of reference currently only concerns physics). Mamyles (talk) 06:03, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
- The Buddhist meditative practice satipatthana is sometimes translated as "frames of reference": . Food for thought. Mitsube (talk) 06:24, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
- While its true that Websters defines the neologism truthiness as a "gut feeling", common use of the term "gut feeling" has a wider scope of meaning as described in the text of this article. While both terms share a lack of reason, truthiness specifically regards opting for non-truth and the broader term "gut feelings" does not necessarily exclude truth. "Gut feelings" are specifically addressed in the section "#Studies and claims" with content related to preconscious that clearly would not fit into the truthiness article. I think the the redirect should simply be to Intuition (knowledge) rather than to the specific section "#Intuition in psychology" which no longer exists. - Steve3849talk 19:56, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
What is the difference between the subject of this article and Intuition (philosophy)?
- Intuition (philosophy) is about a technical sense of the word "intuition"—a jargon term used in philosophy. Intuition (knowledge) is a catch-all article that covers all sorts of vague lay-usages of the word. I think it helps both topics to cover them separately. Above, it was proposed to move this article to Intuition (psychology). Indeed, the article in its current form is a mish-mash with no clear topic. Perhaps we'd gain some clarity and focus by limiting it to psychological theories and research about intuition. If no one objects within a week or so, I'll do that. —Ben Kovitz (talk) 04:14, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
- I agree "(knowledge)" does not fit precisely, but I question your rationale: "all sorts of vague lay-uses." I see only one trivial use and that is the section "Honor"; the "Honor" section and the section "Various definitions" can be deleted regardless of the name of this article. The section "spirituality" is not lay, it is one of the most significant sections and it is not "psychology". Jungian psychology does cross over in to both spirituality and New-Age which is part of the rationalist problem with the term. Aurobindo is a significant 20th century thinker (philosopher) and spiritual writer of India who wrote in English and wrote of this term (he is not lay). My point is that significant cultural use of the term as well as the content of this article is neither mish-mash, nor specifically psychology. Yet, I do not think there needs to be an article "(spirituality)". There could be the option of keeping "(psychology)" and moving some content to the "(philosophy)" article, but that discernment is somewhat arbitrary and I doubt anyone with this expertise is editing currently. I think it would be a disservice to this article "limiting (it) to psychological theories and research" without an actual spirituality solution. Spiritual writers may be vague, they obviously are not scientists, they write in metaphor, but they are significantly related to this term. Psychology generally disregards them, yet nor are they specifically philosophers. - Steve3849talk 16:07, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
- I don't have any strong reason to favor current division between articles, so I'm open to lots of possibilities, even reverting the move I just did. The current article does seem to me like a mish-mash, though. Its current topics are: Jung's concept of intuition, rapid decision-making, better cognition resulting from greater experience, a transcendent and more qualitative (!) mind, higher spiritual knowledge, knowing while losing sight of oneself as a knowing subject, union with the object of knowledge without loss of ego, empathy, nonverbal communication, and gut feelings. I don't disagree with you about whether these are lay-topics. That was very unclear writing on my part. I'll try to put the problem more clearly. Are there any comprehensive secondary sources about "intuition" that cover all of these topics in one place? I think no one specialized field includes all of them, even though, as I think you pointed out, there is some commonality that leads specialists to borrow the same ordinary word for all the different meanings (maybe like a Wittgensteinian "family resemblance term"). Putting them all on one page seems to me a bit like having a single page about all buttons: coat buttons, push-buttons, GUI buttons, button noses, psychological "buttons" that make people flip out, etc. There is actually a pretty strong commonality between any two of these, but I doubt that there are any secondary sources that authoritatively cover the common core of all of them in one place.
- Well, I think I have a solution: Add some factual material to cover any of them meaningfully. Mostly what we have now are vague and uninformative dabblings. (Not that I'm faulting anyone; you have to start somewhere.) Find a good source and summarize it. (I've already put some work into Jung's concept of intuition.) Once we have some developed material, then it will become more apparent where the pieces should go—maybe together, maybe on separate pages, maybe to subsections of larger topics. Trying to sort the material before we have it is premature (though sometimes delimiting a topic narrowly at least gets the ball rolling). Is there a source about a topic here that you'd like to read and summarize? —Ben Kovitz (talk) 17:30, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
I am VERY bothered by this biased statement from the article
Whether an intuitive ego function really exists, or MBTI results really tell whether a person's dominant function is intuition, is highly doubtful, and is rejected by most contemporary psychological research.
- Please improve this statement rather than delete it. The article would be biased if it presented Myers-Briggs statistics about people in whom Jung's intuition function is dominant without also mentioning that mainstream science doesn't accept either the existence of Jung's intuition function or the validity of the MBTI as a diagnostic test for its dominance; please see WP:WEIGHT. I restored the sentence and added a few references. I'm sure the wording could be much improved. Currently we have a couple interesting and detail-rich paragraphs about Jung's intuition function, and a couple intriguing facts about MBTI results, followed by one rather opaque sentence mentioning that all of the above is rejected by serious researchers. I'm not sure how best to remedy that. —Ben Kovitz (talk) 04:06, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
- I just took a crack at improving the wording. I put all the Jungian stuff in its own section, and made the paragraph about the MBTI talk only about the MBTI's attempt to diagnose which Jungian function is dominant, and how that provided evidence that Jungian functions don't exist. The new para spells out the nature of the studies so the conclusion is no longer opaque. It might be nice to mention that CAPT, the publisher of the MBTI, disagrees, offering a counterargument that the MBTI measures only clarity, not strength, of preference. I think, though, that that level of detail would stray too far from the topic of intuition, and is best left on the MBTI page. Anyway, if you see ways to improve it further, please do. —Ben Kovitz (talk) 05:19, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
Improved Lead Wording?
"Intuition is the ability to acquire knowledge without inference or the use of reason." Should this be changed to "without intentional inference or use of reason."? Clearly, some reasoning process is going on, or it would be hard to reach any conclusion. Does anyone know of any "wild child" type cases where such a person did NOT display such intuition? My point being that the reasoning is based off a life of built up knowledge of the course of certain repeatable events (always getting green lights, etc.) and while not actively knowing this, the person DOES know it, subconsciously.
On another note, are there any recorded cases of intuition for a particular scenario which the person could not possibly have any intuition regarding? (A tribal society who have never seen a plane, and upon doing so for the first time, are fairly certain it is human construction? Something along those lines.) 188.8.131.52 (talk) 02:35, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
What about the theory gut feelings actually come from the guts?
There is this theory that says that our guts actually kinda "think", is a second brain (not as complex as the one in the skull, but still somthing), and that many of the so called "gut feelings" people get about things actually really come from the guts. I think this should be included in the article. --TiagoTiago (talk) 01:03, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
I do not understand this
"Jung said that a person in whom intuition was dominant, an "intuitive type", acted not on the basis of rational judgment but on sheer intensity of perception. An extraverted intuitive type, "the natural champion of all minorities with a future", orients to new and promising but unproven possibilities, often leaving to chase after a new possibility before old ventures have borne fruit, oblivious to his or her own welfare in the constant pursuit of change. An introverted intuitive type orients by images from the unconscious, ever exploring the psychic world of the archetypes, seeking to perceive the meaning of events, but often having no interest in playing a role in those events and not seeing any connection between the contents of the psychic world and him- or herself. Jung thought that extraverted intuitive types were likely entrepreneurs, speculators, cultural revolutionaries, often undone by a desire to escape every situation before it becomes settled and constraining—even repeatedly leaving lovers for the sake of new romantic possibilities. His introverted intuitive types were likely mystics, prophets, or cranks, struggling with a tension between protecting their visions from influence by others and making their ideas comprehensible and reasonably persuasive to others—a necessity for those visions to bear real fruit."
- Here's why. In Jungian psychology, an "intuitive type" is someone whose dominant function is intuition. Jung called intuition and sensation the "irrational" functions, as opposed to thinking and feeling. In Myers-Briggs terminology, you get an N in your four-letter code if either your dominant or auxiliary function is intuition. Calling NTs "rationals" happens in yet another theory: David Keirsey's. Keirsey rejects the Jungian theory of functions. He borrows some terminology from Myers-Briggs (which borrowed from Jung), but not Jung's rational/irrational distinction. —Ben Kovitz (talk) 15:23, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
The term intuition is commonly used in 2 ways, maybe rightly so. The first meaning is the one dealt with in the article, which may be defined as:
- A result, felt as exceptional, of thinking processes which we don't know or of which we don't understand how they work.
There are 3 characters here : it is a result, exceptional, and we lack knowledge of how it happened.
However, like work or thought, intuition can be used for both a process or activity and its result, if any. We would not split the article on thought for this reason only, would we? Thus the present article should probably deal with intuitive processes --even if what we know is presently few or dubious. A similar point may be made about the source ability to "intuit", whatever abilities contribute to it, its ontogenetical or phylogenetical origins, etc --again, just as for thought.
The other meaning is precisely about such processes, be they inconscious. We commonly say that a chess player, a footballer, a designer, make intuitive "computations", evaluations, decisions, and more. This usually points to 2 aspects:
- that we lack knowledge about the processes at play, as said above;
- that, considering their stages or result, the processes seem to be global (not analytical), complete (not partial), as well as highly complex (like the problem) or sophisticated or subtile (like the result).
They are also incomparably fast, or conceptual thought looks or is terribly slow.
In this case, the point of view is not on the outcomes, and they need not be exceptional, actually they are not (almost literally, we constantly intuit). The focus here is on the activity which we feel mysterious and strangely powerful or efficient --even whenever the result may be seen wrong. Such processes are compared to the other kind of thinking, verbal or conceptual, which we seem to be able to observe, rightly or not, precisely due to the words and concepts involved. (Note that conceptual thought is seen as necessarily verbal, for concepts require "labels".)
As far as we know, there aren't 2 kinds of intuitive processes: one for exceptional results, the other for mondane ones. Neither popular view nore research assert such a point, AFAIK. And there aren't 2 words or idioms distinguishing them (again, AFAIK). Thus, it seems to me inevitable to deal with the whole in the article. Or else, where are we supposed to deal with the rest of the topic? and where are readers supposed to search for it? where am I supposed to find the state of the knowledge --if any-- about intuitive thinking, intuitive processes?
I would define intuition as follows:
- Intuition is a kind of thinking activity, which remains mostly unknown in ordinary situations, and seems to be able to deal with complex topics whith surprising efficiency or quality. Intuition is also used to denote an outcome of such a process, especially whenever it is considered as exceptional, as in case of an eureka! or satori experience.
- Denis, thanks for the proposal. The definition (and everything else) really could use some improvement. Two thoughts:
- 1. It's very common in English for the same word to denote both an action and the result of that action. For example: "research" means both the process of doing research, as well as the findings of that research. Similarly with "thought" (the action of thinking as well as what thinking produces), "design" (the action of designing as well as the pattern or plan made), etc. So, I don't think we need to draw special attention to this.
- 2. Wikipedia is mainly a summary of material in other published sources. A good definition for the article would summarize the definitions in the leading published sources, rather than try to advance the field (see WP:OR). Can you recommend a leading book that summarizes psychological research about intuition?
- —Ben Kovitz (talk) 15:34, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
Can someone include observations, or write a new article, on intuition in animals? I am sure it would be VERY controversial, with accusations of publishing gossips, fantasies, legends, being un-academic - on one hand, and of being narrow-minded or dumb, on the other. For me it is an undeniable fact that animals sometimes act as if they had the information which in reality they had no way of having. Coyots were amazing the Native American people in this respect. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sadvictim (talk • contribs) 21:11, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
This page is very poor quality / makes Wikipedia look bad
Unacademic and incredibly aggressively offensive / opinionated / derisive / slanted -- none of the content rings true to my studies in these areas. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.108.40.206 (talk) 05:00, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
Subjects like intuition will always raise fierce controversies, but there is a biological reason for this. Human minds are of two groups: 1) Those dominated by the left half of the brain (rational, organized thinking, convinced that thinking is based on words and cannot exist without words; comparable to a digital computer) 2) Those with the right-half of the brain dominating (like the electronic "fuzzy logic" or the old-fashion analog computers; thinking fast and impresisely, not using words for the process, but often scrolling images or "ghosts" of ideas and concepts). These two groups of humans, being so different, will never agree. They often believe that the representatives of the other groups are idiots. This is why so many requests for complete re-editing of this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sadvictim (talk • contribs) 20:57, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
Re-structuring and re-writing the entire article
|Text and/or other creative content from Intuition (philosophy) was copied or moved into Intuition (psychology) with [complete copy paste to the main article this edit]. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted so long as the latter page exists. The former page's talk page can be accessed at Talk:Intuition (philosophy).|
- PLease discuss before panicking I need time to restructure and doing it for sure
Requested move 25 March 2015
Reference to empiricism and rationalism needed in the philosophy section
It seems to me this page ought to reference the much more carefully drawn distinction between rationalism (the claim that a priori synthetic truths exist) and empiricism (denial of that claim). Many but not all of the statements here appear to be versions of rationalism. It should be made clear whether that is or is not intended. Note that e.g. John Stuart Mill distinguished approaches to ethics based on experience versus intuition, meaning about the same thing as empiricism versus rationalism. Burressd (talk) 22:21, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
I am not a professional philosopher and am not knowledgeable enough to trace the historic development of the term "intuition," but I do know that the discussion of Descartes and Hume cited here is actually referring back to the concepts of rationalism and empiricism (respectively), which as I understand it are both more precisely defined in philosophy than is the concept of "intuition." Burressd (talk) 23:08, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
please avoid blanketing the article
Do not blanket the article without discussion, these has often lead to confusion, also note that the western philo is not the only philo and putting blanket group of being the "only philosophy" and others in respective religious heading is unbalancing the article as mentioned in east there philosophical school of thought is not too far from religion unlike west Shrikanthv (talk) 09:53, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
- Blanketing the article? No content was removed except one dubious claim. On your religious additions, it's a simply thing, religion isn't philosophy. If you want to separate the religion from the philosophy do so (and if the sources do so), but what you are currently doing is putting what is mostly theological speculation and treating it as philosophy. Second Quantization (talk) 11:29, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
- philosophy is little deeper than your claims or thought of what it is!, yes it does start with speculations then only it treads the area where other subjects do not tread upon, Please suggest a eastern philosophical texts which does not depend on western school of thoughts and stands by its own and which does not cite a religious tex. call it theological speculative mambo jambo or what ever you feel is right, but that does not conclude that eastern philosophy is intertwined with religion. Shrikanthv (talk) 13:18, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
Discuss before mass deletion
Instinct vs intuition
There is a line that contrasts intuition and instinct (which is incorrectly defined). From the article on Instinct, it has nothing to do with knowledge, but is rather:
""an innate behavior or inherent inclination of a living organism towards a particular complex behavior. The simplest example of an instinctive behavior (FAP), in which a very short to medium length sequence of actions, without variation, are carried out in response to a clearly defined stimulus. An instinctive behavior of shaking water from wet fur. A baby leatherback turtle makes its way to the open ocean. Any behavior is instinctive if it is performed without being based upon prior experience (that is, in the absence of learning), and is therefore an expression of innate biological factors.""
At least one of the authors of Intuition, are confusing the concept, with the concept of instinct. Despite authors suggestion, intuition is generally regarded to be enhanced by expertise (which is essentially knowledge accompanied by high inter-fluency of information). From the works of modern Cognitive and behavioral scientists (Daniel Khaneman and others), intuition is regarded a pre-analytical process for distant thoughts to intermix to form newly invented 'models' (for example, associating the letter 3 together with the letter W. These models are than examined through the contrasting partner of intuition: analysis.