Intuition and the scientific approach
The London Times recently had an interesting article about intuition which I feel compelled to share with you simply because I can and also because you should know about it. The whole article is to be found here.
Before you race off in a flurry of activity, allow me to dissect it and draw your attention to the salient features of said reportage….
It is by Professor Eugene Sadler-Smith and is about his latest book
It opens nicely with the following:
‘We all have intuition – a gut feeling, a hunch or sometimes business instinct. It is a hallmark of how human beings think and behave. Though we are often exhorted to be cool and rational, to rely on hard data and logic, it is impossible to function without gut feelings when making decisions. Intuition presents itself to us in an instant, quite unbidden – a neurological alarm bell, if you like – and its effects can be life-changing. ‘
No-one could disagree with that, I feel. I particularly like the bit about it being the hallmark of how human beings think and behave. I’ve been saying that for a while now and it’s always nice when someone agrees with you.
However, I’m less enamored of the scientist’s natural narrowing of the arena in the following…
‘However, what my own research has proven, is that the unpremeditated, effortless spark of creativity does not arrive in an unprepared mind. It is the outcome of extensive learning and experience – a precondition for accurate intuition.’
Now, I’ll admit (and readily) that I have also urged the combination of intellect and intuition as being of paramount importance, but here he is saying that the only thing about intuition is that it has to come into a prepared mind. Hmmm. Not sure I’m 100% behind this yet.
To continue…
After discussing briefly some modern ideas about intuition, cognitive science and regions of the brain, he talks of the need to practice intuition daily, much as a concert pianist will practice. Again, I’m all for that. He also makes valid points about seeking feedback for your intuition. (Again something I have urged and, if you have been taking my newsletter, you’ll know about this. If you haven’t yet signed up for the newsletter, please hurry along right now and visit the Intuition Center and see what else you can get for free.)
He also says you have to learn to quieten the ‘incessant “voice in the head” that we all have’ . Again, I’m all for that as well.
His main premise, however, is that, until you have experience in a situation or a profession you will not be able to have good intuition. Here, I am less engaged with him. The reason? Well, you might be able to guess it, but I’ll wait a sentence or two before laying it out there, because I want to quote a couple of examples at you which the good professor supplies.
The examples are…
‘— Johnny Depp said it was love at first sight when he met his long-term partner Vanessa Paradis for the first time: “You have this feeling – I can’t really explain what it was, but I had it when I met Vanessa. I saw her across a room and I thought: ‘What’s happening to me?’ I had no way of knowing
— The most famous case of intuition in action in the world of sport occurred in the 1950 Monaco Grand Prix, when the great Argentinian driver Juan Fangio braked in the second lap – avoiding a serious accident out of sight around the next bend.
— Howard Schultz described physically shaking when he came up with the idea for Starbucks: “Like deciding to jump off the side of a building with no net.”
— Stravinsky said of Le Sacre du Printemps (The Rite of Spring): “I had a fleeting vision which came to me as a complete surprise. I had only my ear to help me. I ‘heard’ and wrote what I heard.”
— Jonas Salk discovered the polio vaccine after spotting an incongruity in a medical lecture at college. “The light went on at that point,” he said. “Intuition tells the thinking
So, tell me where it is that success or experience comes in with ALL of these? The Johnny Depp instance? I don’t think so. How about Howard Schultz? Doesn’t sound like it. OK, maybe with Jonas Salk and possible Stravinsky. But then you get JuanFangio!
How the heck does that fit in with the professor’s idea that experience counts? Is it a rule (or a tendency or something) that, after a certain number of laps in a Grand Prix, or a certain number of Grand Prix it is wise to slow down because the probability of an accident is greater then? No! Is that where the experience is?
And here, dear reader, is why I fall out with the good professor. Like most scientists, the idea of intuition in the widest sense is anathema. Intuition is only acceptable when it relates to small, measurable occurrences and is giving information which is related to the profession it is used in. It simply does not count (scientifically speaking, apparently) if it happens randomly or without warning or is about nothing to do with a profession.
Instances such as a mother knowing something is not right with one of her children (like this entry), or people not taking a plane, train or boat which would have ended up with them dead, or someone simply just knowing to avid a certain place (or, conversely, to go to a certain place); all would be rejected under this professor’s ruling because they don’t fit into what such investigators have now labeled as ‘intuition’.
Of course, I know why this is the case. It’s because without such limits, it’s impossible, under present scientific practices, to examine it with any kind of rigor.
And isn’t THAT just the most annoying thing of all? Embrace the wholeness of intuition, and don’t set bounds upon it. It’s like saying that humans are only properly human if they are white and male and drink beer a lot. (Hang on…I think that IS someone’s definition.)
Let’s try to spread the net of intuition to the widest possible extent and to heck with worrying about whether scientists will accept it or not. It’s not up to us intuitives to make science accept what we do, it’s up to science to make the leap and accept that there is a lot more to intuition than meets the MRI or the CAT scan, or the cognitive scientists or the research-seeking laboratory or…..
Let the scientists puzzle their brains and get grants for looking at what we already know exists and, while they’re doing that, let’s be really sneaky and get even better at it so that they have to run faster to catch up!
Popularity: 41% [?]
Related posts
Filed under: books, general stuff, stories, theories