Cognitive and Intuitive
The Primacy of the Intuitive , by Bruce Fenton and Jake Mazulewicz
The idea of the primacy of the intuitive may be more than an intriguing theoretical construct.
Recent brain-based research shores up the theory with direct physiological evidence. LeDoux
(1993) shows that mammalian
Brains are arranged so that incoming sensory information ollected at the thalamus goes through the amygdala first before reaching the neocortex -- long considered the seat of conscious, cognitive reasoning . The amygdala, which is strongly associated with emotion , renders an initial good/bad, approach/avoid response and triggers an autonomic response when it perceives a threat. This initial response can be overridden by the neocortex’s cognitive processing , but the implications are clear. The human brain seems to have evolved to favor quick , intuitive judgement first, followed only afterwards by slower, cognitive, conscious processing (Damasio, 1994).
Dual process models of human thinking incorporating some version of intuition and cognition are becoming more and more widely accepted in contemporary mainstream psychology (Haidt, 2000). While the nomenclature and details of each model vary, the differences between the various dual process models are dwarfed by the vast commonalities they share.
Summarizing the work of 13 authors in psychology and philosophy,
Haidt (2000) offers the following synthesis of the two aspects of the dual process model which I call respectively, the intuitive and the cognitive .

Table 1 Summary of Intuitive vs. Cognitive Processing Differences
Intuitive Aspect
Fast & Effortless
Process is unintentional and is cued automatically
Process is generally inaccessible, only results show up consciously
Pattern matching, thought is metaphorical, holistic
Common to all mammals
Cognitive Aspect
Slow & Effortful controllable
Process is intentional and consciously
Entire process is controllable and viewable in consciousness
Symbol manipulation, thought is truth preserving, analytical
Context dependent
Platform dependent
– inclusive to the brain and body that houses it
Unique to humans over age 2 and perhaps some language-trained apes
Context independent
Platform independent
– can be transmitted to other rule following organisms or machines
The intuitive aspect of thinking appears to be evolutionarily older and more established than the cognitive aspect . Many mammals demonstrate experience-based emotionally-related judgements as Solomon described, but few if any save humans demonstrate cognitive reasoning. (Zajonc, 1980). In addition, human infants clearly develop their ability to make experience-based emotionally-related, judgements well before they develop cognitive abilities (Guidano, 1987, p.25). In evolutionary terms then, cognition appears to still be in

relatively embryonic stages of its development compared to intuitive thinking.
Intuitive learning, then, may be the default style of human learning (Shirley & Langan-Fox, 1996).
Polanyi posited that intuitive thinking is more resistant to physical insult , and more established than cognitive reasoning (Polanyi, 1966). Supporting this is a long history of evidence revealing that individuals whose cognitive reasoning is often left damaged or destroyed from brain injury or illness are still able to reason intuitively on experimentally identical tasks (Reber , 1989; Shacter, 1987). ”While tacit knowledge can be possessed by itself, explicit knowledge must rely on being tacitly understood and applied. Hence all knowledge is either tacit or rooted in tacit knowledge. A wholly explicit knowledge is unthinkable.” (Polanyi,
1964, p.144).
Although William James did not theorize on intuition as such, he was certainly aware of the power of this aspect of thinking to sometimes confound cognition.
Why do we spend years straining after a certain scientific or practical problem, but all in vain – thought refusing to evolve the solution we desire? And why, some day, walking in the street with our attention miles away from the quest, does the answer saunter into our minds as carelessly as if it had never been called for – suggested possibly by the flowers on the bonnet of the lady in front of us, or possibly by nothing that we can discover? If reason can give us relief then, why did she not do so sooner? (James, 1890, p.45).
While the semantics used in the dual process models imply that intuitive thinking is unconscious, as compared with conscious, this may not be completely accurate. According to
Guidano (1984) it might more accurately to refer to intuitive thinking processes as
“superconscious… because they govern conscious processes without appearing in them.”
(Guidano, 1984, p.35)

Intuitive thinking obviously improves under certain conditions , as evidenced in many of the above studies. It seems a given that cognitive reasoning can improve as well .
Interestingly th ough, there is evidence from one study that, “…the former never caught up with the latter; that is, as subjects improved their ability to verbalize the rules that they were using, they also developed richer and more complex rules. Implicit [tacit] knowledge remained ahead of explicit knowledge.
” (Reber, 1989, p.229). Volunteers’ intuitive thinking abilities always remained slightly richer and more sophisticated than their cognitive abilities.
In a study of 60 highly successful entrepreneurs working with companies whose revenues range between 2 million and 400 million dollars, all but one of the entrepreneurs revealed that they depend on their intuitive judgments, not their cognitive decisionmaking abilities, for their major business decisions. The outlier admitted later that his final decisions were inevitably intuitive (Ehringer, 1995). In a study of 3,000 executives , those at the top in a wide range of fields were also those who most often used and trusted the results of their intuitive judgments ( Agor, 1986).
Volunteers who watched only a 30 second snippet of a teacher’s lecture were able to assess the teacher’s proficiency with almost 80% accuracy (Ambady & Rosenthal, 1993).
Nearly the same results have come from 44 other studies. See Ambady and Rosenthal (1992).
What then of cognition? Assuming for the moment that intuitive thinking is indeed our primary system of thinking, what part does cognition actually play?
It may be that the
result of a thinking process, not the thinking process itself, is what manifests as a conscious, cognitive thought (Nisbett & Wilson, 1977). What appears as cognitive reasoning may be more accurately described as ex post facto reasoning (Haidt, 2000). For example, participants in a dialogue each state a position, for example that they oppose abortion, and then proceed to explain cognitive arguments, like a lawyer, justifying their position. But even when a skillful and learned opponent defeats every single one of these espoused arguments, the

protagonist may concede defeat, but rarely changes his mind. Why? Because our position on the issue was not a result of cognitive reasoning in the first place. It was in fact an intuitive judgement which is not directly amenable to cognitive modification by even the most expert of debaters. What appeared to be an accurate cognitive explanation of the protagonist’s reasoning was in fact an ex post facto justification of an intuitive judgment he made without knowing exactly how or why (Haidt, 2000).
Rather than following the ancient Greeks in worshipping reason , we should instead look for the roots of human intelligence, rationality, and virtue in what the mind does best: perception, intuition, and other mental operations that are quick, effortless, and generally quite accurate (Haidt, 2000, p.8).