Creativity and Action

19 Responses to “Four questions about intuition”

1. Mitch // Sep 22, 2007 at 12:39 pm

   1. What do you think intuition is?

   I’d like to suggest that intuition is part perceptual acuity and part instinctive agility. Said another way, it’s the art and discipline of knowing how to:
   a) locate oneself in any situation and perceive what’s emerging (or trying to happen) underneath complex dynamics; and
   b) work with what’s in progress in a way that leads to the development of a viable response.

   2. How does intuition occur?

   If you accept that living systems are constantly engaged in the process of forming ways to survive and thrive amidst an ever-changing internal and external landscape, then intuition occurs by directing attention and effort to a process that is typically left to operate by habit.

   There are specific practices that increase the reliability of this effort to focus or “personalize” the way we influence a given trajectory. I’ll save that for another day.

   3. Would you say your actions are (normally) driven by emotions or the end process of rationalization?

   This question seems too confining for me to formulate a decent response.

   4. What is the process of your deciding to respond, or not respond to this post?

   These are “big questions”, so it took some intention and effort to respond. Even then, I’m not really satisfied with my responses. Therefore, it takes some guts and anticipation of some benefit to engage in the conversation. This combo of guts and hoped-for benefit has to out-weigh the risk of knowing that someone out there might misinterpret or misconstrue what I’ve said.

2. Christopher // Sep 22, 2007 at 7:50 pm

   Mitch,

   Thanks for sharing here. It’s quite likely that someone will misconstrue whatever one writes. I recently asked a question that got a hostile response. But in the end we came to a place of mutual respect and understanding. The initial response was ‘contact by conflict’ but we hung in and came to a place of clarification. There is something liberating about this for me.

   I appreciate the effort and especially your response to question 4. A recurring theme I’m seeing with the creative act is to try something out that you’ve never done before.

   I’m convinced risk is an integral part of creative action. I know intuition is not the same as creativity, but I think creativity is dependent on intuition (whatever that might be).

   You bring up an interesting point about a difference between instinct and intuition. I wonder what that would be?

   Thank you.

3. bill // Sep 23, 2007 at 4:00 am

   a) I believe that intuition is conclusions driven by the subconcious awareness of factors that we find significant. These factors may in fact not be significant, but we treat them as such. They can be new — things we’ve never seen before — or memory of similar prior encounters.
   b) It occurs when a similarily is perceived at the subconcious level.
   c) My actions are usually the result of rational thought, though the thoughts can be affected by emotion.
   d) I responded because it seemed an interesting question which was driven by personal observation and conclusions; therefore, not likely to result in the kind of one-upmanship seen on other sites. I was also affected by the comment that this is a new site; I know what it is like to try to get responses.

4. Christopher // Sep 23, 2007 at 10:53 am

   Bill,

   Thanks for your response. I’m learning that posting a four-part question is a bit much for a blog post. Next time, I’ll follow the less-is-more way and just post the one question. However, the responses on “why respond” make for some interesting reading.

   If I understand correctly, you are aware of intuition as a sort of déjà vu.

   It’s interesting that you see yourself as rational. I’m less rational that I thought, but I do rationalize my impulses.

   I’ve just read through Gerd Gigerenzer’s book, Gut Feelings, The Intelligence of the Unconscious, and I’m beginning to think the first part of my question is not going to render much by way of enlightenment.

   Maybe intuition isn’t definable, at least not in language. And, I’m not sure how else it might be defined. Maybe it resists explanation in the way a mystery explained is not a mystery. “Subconscious awareness,” is a tricky concept.

   There were obscenity trials in the UK during the 1960’s. The press made a big deal about how obscenity couldn’t be defined but you knew it when you saw it. Could intuition be like this?

5. Bob Leckridge // Sep 23, 2007 at 1:54 pm

   Hi Christopher

   Intuition? Well, you know for a long time I’ve been pretty hostile to the concept, thinking myself, like Bill, a largely rational person. I suppose that’s because I tended to class intuition with guess work and hunches and some woo woo New Age “channeling the spirit” and stuff like that. But I’ve seen the error of my ways! It’s weird how the world works but I find that I go through phases when certain words or concepts keep seeming to crop up everywhere - beyond just my attention level picking them out I think - and in the last month or two it’s been this word “intuition”.
   One of the points that so impressed me in “Gut Feelings” was how trying to “rationally” take into consideration as much info as possible was not only often impossible (too much info to process in a lifetime) but not even the most successful method of understanding and acting - in particular situations. I like how he points out that rationalism is great for analysis after the event, but how in situations of uncertainty (the future for example), intuition is way more effective than analysis.
   That strikes a chord. It rings true.
   My judgements in acute medical emergencies have never been on the basis of in depth analysis - that comes later - deciding whether to act or not and what to do first has to be much quicker. A Paediatric specialist I once trained with told me he wanted to teach me how to instantly spot a sick child - and that’s just what he did.
   So intuition is for me at least two things working together - a kind of gestalt - a taking in of a situation holistically - appreciating what is as a whole - not focussing in on parts AND experience. Experience is especially necessary for the development of non-verbal skills I think - the instant reading of a situation from the signs, behaviours, body language and so on….
   How does this relate to creativity?
   Well, again I think you’re right - creativity, for me, is closely linked to the fairly new concept of “emergence” - this is a concept from complexity science and it catches that phenomenon we see in all complex systems (all living systems for example) of sudden, new behaviour, never seen before - the system moves to a “far from equilibrium” point and undergoes a “phase transition” at a “bifurcation point” - suddenly everything is different - this is one of the ways in which growth occurs (and for me creativity is a kind of growth)
   Oops! I think I got carried away on question one! I’d better stop there!
   Will I come back and do the other three some other time?

6. Rathi // Sep 23, 2007 at 3:51 pm

   I’d say intuition is a perception that rises above and beyond our other sense perceptions. When we perceive and intellectualize a thought, sometimes a wholly different feeling arises (you might say it arises in our gut) and we often will trust the judgment of this perception or feeling. Intuition is a kind of sixth sense, a sense that feeds off the stimuli received by the other senses. All our thoughts cannot rationalize why we instinctively respond in a certain way to certain circumstances. Yet, we will often have a “feeling” about a decision to be made or of the responses we receive from others. Listening to the promptings of this inner voice can often prove fortuitous.

7. Phil Wilson // Sep 23, 2007 at 6:38 pm

   Such simple questions which are so difficult to answer. I feel like my intuition was prompting my responses, which then had to be caught, filleted and prepared for digestion by others by a painful process of rationalization. The ideas and responses were all present in the same place, but the rational mind walked through them in a linear fashion.

   Some of the other responses resonated with me, particularly Bob’s highlighting of the holistic nature of intuition and the emergent nature of creativity. Emergent properties of complex systems are those which are not present in the components of which they are made - water molecules are not wet - just as original ideas are not present in the objects to which they refer, and yet depend upon their interactions.

   In turn:
   (1) Intuition may be a consciously-apprehendable outcome of the interplay of various unconscious mental processes, possibly with a bit of random noise thrown in. Our unconscious mind may work with objects which correspond to sense impressions of the perceived world as well as memories and “thoughts” about those impressions (I think Buddhists might be right in listing the mind as the sixth sense, the sixth way of sensing
   the world). I suspect that sense impressions and cognitions about things all combine to form unconscious objects which our conscious mind would not understand.
   These objects upon which the unconscious operates may not even be “objects” with clearly-defined boundaries at all.

   (2) But at some point, the unconscious may intrude upon the conscious. Then our conscious mind must “make sense” of the language, the objects, of the unconscious, in much the same way that it helps us survive by “making sense” of the perceived world by inventing useful lies like colour, solidity, sound, and so on. Sometimes our unconscious bypasses consciousness and directs our actions instead. Why sometimes overt, sometimes covert? Does fishing for unconscious clues, like I did for this response, change the outcome?

   Anyway, why should the mind be split like this? Why should our unconscious mind be sometimes so good at things, and does this freak anyone else out as much as
   it does me? Where is the self we value so much? Is it bad form to raise more questions than you answer on someone else’s blog?

   (3) I think I rationalise what my emotions, or rather my intuition, tells me.

   (4) Christopher had mentioned that he would be interested in my opinion on this post, which certainly added a not-unpleasant sense of duty. Since I am also exploring ideas on my own blog and trying to get some feedback going, my emotions (deep, these ones) tell me that I should perform the favour for others that I wish them to perform for me. Besides, I’ve come to realise that I often don’t know consciously what I think until I have tried to explain it to others. But how does the conscious attempt at explanation fish up a story which corresponds to my unconscious feelings?

8. Truthteller // Sep 24, 2007 at 8:15 pm

   I believe hunches or intuition are usually based on facts hidden below the surface level on consiousness.

   Here’s a very short article I wrote on this a number of months ago, I think you might like it.

   http://www.reddeerblog.com/2007/03/i-have-hunch-you-are-going-to-like-this.html

   Eduardo

9. Dan/Peps // Sep 25, 2007 at 3:15 pm

   First of all, can I just say that I’m utterly fascinated by the concept of Emergence! Bob… have you read the non-fiction of Steven Johnson or the fiction of Stephen Baxter?

   My intuitive answers to the questions…

   1. Intuition is acting on that which we know, but don’t know we know.

   2. Intuition occurs… when it occurs! When one considers all the facts and then does something contrary to conscious logic.

   3. Even rationalization is emotionally driven! I think it is impossible to act totally without emotion. That said… I try, as far as possible, to live my life as a continual dialogue between the two.

   4. I love answering questions!

10. Bob Leckridge // Sep 26, 2007 at 1:13 pm

    No Dan/Peps I haven’t read either of these authors - are there particular books of theirs you’d recommend?
    Emergence by John H Holland was the book that made the concept really clear to me

11. Dan/Peps // Sep 27, 2007 at 1:15 pm

    Bob…

    Funnily enough, the S.Johnson book was also called “Emergence”! Although I may have to now seek that by John H Holland…

    Re Stephen Baxter, I have so far read 3 out of 4 of his books in the “Destiny’s Children” series (in order, “Coalescent,” “Exultant” & “Transcendent”). Although technically speaking books 2 & 3 are sequels, they are each very different stories in their own right, covering vast expanses of time and space, but with similar underlying themes. One of the stronger themes is the concept of emergence, which is explored in a number of contexts, specifically relating to human evolution. Tiz fascinating, deeply intelligent sci-fi, but also highly entertaining to boot!

12. Christopher // Sep 29, 2007 at 5:46 pm

    Bob,

    A big thank you for your, ‘emergence in a nutshell.’

    “…the system moves to a “far from equilibrium” point and undergoes a “phase transition” at a “bifurcation point” - suddenly everything is different.”

    Don’t you think you have to put your intuitive side to sleep in order to be rational? I know this is a matter of degree and the obvious response is to say there is a balance. I don’t see how one could go about making decisions using hedonic calculus and the maximized expected utility method. That’s because one is trying to project into the future how one would feel (which is a dodgy project), and one is suppressing feelings in the now in order to rationalize how one would feel in the future.

    Thanks for the example about medical emergency. There is more about this instant evaluation in the work of Paul Ekman and the Facial Action Coding System. You might be interested in this. However, FACS has a dark side. If one can intuit what people are feeling from a well-developed method of observation, then there are privacy and dignity issues to be considered.

    Yes come back often

    Rathi,

    Thank you for contributing. You’ve given us the idea of trusting a feeling and a judgment about the feeling. I wonder what makes us trust or ignore a feeling. Is there some price to pay for not paying attention to an intuition?

    Phil,

    It’s not at all bad to raise more questions than answers. Thank you.

    I agree with you about rationalization is painful. But why should that be?

    I’ve been ruminating about this notion of yours how original ideas are not present in the objects to which they refer but they depend on their interaction. If I understand correctly, two things bump up against each other and create the new. For example, you take your standard giraffe and a bicycle, then, you have all kinds of new forms of transport: The spotted bicycle, the tall bicycle designed for harvesting apples at the tops of trees, a four-wheel vehicle you can park on top of another vehicle at the same parking meter, etc.

    Thanks for the idea of unconscious objects. I agree with you about processes going on in us all the time that we cannot be aware of with our normal waking perception. So to access this state, which has been called all sorts of things from the Muse, to visions, you need to be in some other perceptual state.

    Thanks for the input. I’ll come over to your blog this weekend.

    Eduardo,

    Thanks for the link.

    Dan,

    Thanks for the comment on the impossibility of acting unemotionally. There are certainly people who seem to act unemotionally.

13. Dan/Peps // Sep 30, 2007 at 1:48 am

    Chris said… “Don’t you think you have to put your intuitive side to sleep in order to be rational?”

    But what about the “Eureka Moment”? Didn’t Einstein’s Theory of General Relativity (or the other one!), for example, come to him in a flash of inspiration or a dream? Maybe these flashes of inspiriation can then lead to periods of rationality… or… maybe innovative thought (scientific or otherwise) can consist of a constant interchange of the intuitive and the rational… When does this see-sawing between the 2 occur at such a rapid rate that a *third* mode of thought *emerges*…?

14. Christopher // Sep 30, 2007 at 8:36 pm

    Dan,

    Yes, but Einstein, Archimedes of Syracuse (who wisely spent time in the bath), King Alfred and his cakes, Robert the Bruce et al. were all in some state of reverie when they had their epiphany. Don’t you think they had put their rational side to sleep? I do.

    I am suggesting the opposite. In order to be rational you have not be in a state of reverie. You have to buck up your ideas, furrow the brow and be thoroughly D-mode (Guy Claxton).

15. Dan/Peps // Oct 1, 2007 at 8:43 am

    But what of a possible *third* mode, Chris? Rational intuition? Intuitive rationality?

    Applying an intuitive approach to the solution of “rational” problems? (not really sure if the opposite is possible, but… perhaps…)

    Is *rational* necessarily the exclusive domain of the “scentific”? Is *intuition* necessarily the exclusive domain of the “creative”?

    (PS. what is this “D-mode” of which you speak…?)

16. Phil Wilson // Oct 1, 2007 at 3:09 pm

    I’m intrigued by this notion of “rational intuition”, but my feeling is that it does not exist.

    The flashes of insipiration which have been quoted as striking some scientists seem to occur after a period in which the rational mind has been switched off, and visual, free-associative thinking takes over, as Christopher has mentioned. It is true that a lifetime of learning the rational arguments behind scientific claims, and a deep rational understanding of the concept-objects they refer to reinforces certain “scientificky” neural circuits, so that the objects of rumination have a scientific or rational feel. And naturally the inspiration is accepted or rejected on the basis of a logical argument, and it is this argument which is reported to one’s peers. But I think the sequence goes “logical understanding of concepts - phyiscal intuition to select key features - long period of rumination - flash of inspiration - test by logic - repeat ad nauseum”.

    Christopher, I love your giraffcycles! There’s certainly something curious about the way two ideas can mate to produce so many more. Or even taking one idea and breaking it down. Glasses have two arms which hook over your ears and two panes of glass in front of your eyes. Now change everything. One arm, over the head? A band around the back? Just one piece of glass? Why glass, why not plastic? (I think all of these have been done.) I want to write a post on my blog soon about the parallel idea in maths which lays this “mating” of ideas bare.

    By the way, I linked to a story about Archimedes’s Euerka moment here: http://reallyhardsums.wordpress.com/2006/12/13/a-golden-crown-a-life-in-the-balance-a-naked-mathematician/

17. Christopher // Oct 3, 2007 at 10:03 am

    Dan,

    Guy Claxton has at least two books I can recommend. He explains his D-mode (deliberate mode) thinking in his book Wise Up. But a more comprehensive look at a contrast between D-mode and what he terms the Undermind is in his book Hare Brain Tortoise Mind.

    D-Mode is the furrowed brow of rationality and the Undermind is that process that has a life of its own that informs our intuition. It’s softer thinking. Maybe it’s time for a new post on this subject.

18. Dan/Peps // Oct 8, 2007 at 2:53 pm

    Ta for the info, Chris!

    I shall store it in my “Stuff to Think About at Some Point” box…

19. Creativity and Action » Emergence: What is it? // Oct 10, 2007 at 10:12 am

    […] thanks to all for the participation on the intuition question. I’m sure we’ll come back to that. How something comes into being is one of those […]