Intuition is not magic. Intuition is something that cognitive scientists have been studying in depth for the past 40 years. Starting from the 70s and 80s, early versions of computerized axial tomography (CAT) scans and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) allowed them to see what actually happens in the brain while the mind is thinking, just like watching a video.
This is how scientists came to the conclusion that the mind is divided into two: an intuitive mind and an analytical mind. Thinking is the result of the constant and inextricable interconnection between these two minds. Learning how all this works will help us appreciate the importance of intuitive thinking and, more importantly, help us understand us how to apply it optimally.
The intuitive mind
The intuitive mind corresponds to the cognitive unconscious6. This is unconscious intelligence, which is constantly at work to solve problems, even when the mind appears to be resting or focused on something else. It is different from the Freudian interpretation of the unconscious, which concerns repressed drives
The cognitive unconscious is like a huge computer that stores everything learned in the course of a lifetime. By “everything” I really mean everything, even what may have been caught unwittingly with the corner of our eyes. So, the unconscious mind is like an enormous database with millions of chunks of information whose existence we are not even aware of. When trying to solve a problem, the mind crosschecks all the information acquired about a particular problem with the information already stored, and generates an infinite number of possible permutations, until everything is condensed into the optimal solution. The solution then emerges in the conscious mind in the form of an intuition or insight.
The analytical mind
When one of the ideas processed by the unconscious mind emerges at the conscious level and draws attention, the analytical mind will start reprocessing it. Analytical thinking works according to the “if … then …” logic: if this happens, then that will follow. This is also known as ‘linear’ thinking because it follows a straight line: C is consequential to B which is consequential to A. Another definition of analytical thinking is that of ‘ordinary’ thinking, since it is the kind of thinking that typically requires little effort. Psychologists also call this “reactive” thinking, because it often occurs as a mechanical reaction to external stimuli that do not lead to truly original and creative solutions: “If this happens, then I’ll do that.”
To summarize: by continuously cross-referencing information and producing new permutations, the intuitive mind keeps on generating new ideas. However, its activity is beyond control. On the other hand, the analytical mind’s process, though slow and limited, can be controlled. But it can also bend the results to fit expectations and lead to self-deception! What is therefore the relationship between the two minds? And how do they work best together? As far as problem solving is concerned, the intuitive mind generates the solutions that the analytical mind then verifies and channels into reality. Apparently, Einstein seems to have expressed the same idea: “The intuitive mind is a sacred gift and the rational mind is a faithful servant. We have created a society that honors the servant and has forgotten the gift.”
The 1970s view: two separate sides of the brain
The idea of the two minds became widely popular in the 1970s, when scientists believed that a flash of insight came from the right hemisphere of the brain, where creative, imaginative, and intuitive thoughts occur, and the left hemisphere of the brain handled logical, analytical, and rational thoughts. In 1981 Roger Sperry won the Nobel Prize for his research on the two-sided brain. In his Nobel lecture, he noted the following:
Figure 2. The nested system. The two minds are connected. The intuitive mind, as symbolized by the circle, represents the totality of our thinking. When we become aware of an idea and we start processing it analytically, that portion of thinking, represented by a point, corresponds to the analytical mind.
1. Evans and Frankish (2009) The duality of mind: An historical perspective. In Evans, J., & Frankish, K. (Eds.). In Two Minds: Dual Processes and Beyond. Oxford University Press, pp. 1–29, p. 18.
2. Epstein, S. (2002). Cognitive-experiential self-theory of personality. In Handbook of Psychology, Personality and Social Psychology (pp. 159–184).
3. Bargh, J. A., & Chartrand, T. L. (1999). The unbearable automaticity of being. American Psychologist, 54(7), 462–479.
4. Djiksterhuis, A. (2004). Think different: The merits of unconscious thought in preference development and decision making. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 87(5), 586–598. See also Djiksterhuis, A., & Nordgren, L. F. (2006). A theory of unconscious thought. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 1, 95–106.
5. The expressions ‘intuitive mind’ and ‘analytical mind’ come from Eugene Sadler-Smith (‘Inside Intuition’. Routledge 2010 and ‘The Intuitive Mind. Profiting from the Power of Your Sixth Sense’, Wiley, 2010). In turn, Sadler-Smith has changed it from Seymour Epstein, who refers to System 1 intuitive processing as ‘intuitive-experiential’ (Epstein, S. (2011) The influence of valence and intensity of effect on intuitive processing. In Sinclair, M. (Ed.). Handbook of Intuition Research. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar, pp. 37–51, p. 37) and refers to System 2 analytical processing as ‘analyticalrational’ (Evans, J. S. B. (2007). On the resolution of conflict in dual process theories of reasoning. Thinking and Reasoning, 13: 321–339.; Hodgkinson, G. P., & Sadler-Smith, E. 2018. The dynamics of intuition and analysis in managerial and organizational decision making. Academy of Management Perspectives, 32(4): 473–492).
6. Frankish, K., & Evans, J. S. B. (2009) The duality of mind: An historical perspective. In Evans, J., & Frankish, K. (Eds.). In Two Minds: Dual Processes and Beyond. Oxford University Press, pp. 1–29, p. 14.
7. These figures are symbolic and their purpose is to provide an idea of the relative orders of magnitude. Zimmerman calculated the non-conscious information processing capacity to be 11.2 million bits per second, whilst for the conscious processing he calculated a figure of 40 bits. (Zimmermann, M. (1989). The nervous system in the context of information theory. In R. F. Schmidt & G. Thews (Eds.), Human physiology (pp. 166–173). Berlin: Springer). As regards to the conscious process Csikszentmihali argues that is possible to process at most 126 bits at second based on works by Simon (Simon, H. A. (1978).
Rationality as process and how as product of thought. The American Economic Review, 68(2), 1–16.) and Kahaneman (Kahneman, D. (1973). Attention and effort. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall.). Djiksterhuis et al. calculated between 30-50 bits (Djiksterhuis, A., Aarts, H., & Smith, P. K. (2006). The power of the subliminal: On subliminal persuasion and other potential applications. Oxford University Press.). More recent calculations on the processing ability of the non-conscious mind have come up with an even greater number. See, for example, M. E. P. Seligman, P. Railton, R.F. Baumeister, C. Sripada. ‘Homo Prospectus’, Oxford University Press (2016).
8. Buschman, T. J., Siegel, M., Roy, J. E., & Miller, E. K. (2011). Neural substrates of cognitive capacity limitations. PNAS, 108(27).
9. Miller, G. (1956). The magical number seven, plus or minus two: Some limits on our capacity for processing information. Psychological Review, 63, 81–97.
10. Dietrich, A. (2004). Neurocognitive mechanisms underlying the experience of flow. Consciousness and Cognition, 13, 746–761.
11. Just think of the myth of the chariot described by Plato in Phaedrus. Here the soul is represented by a chariot drawn by two horses – one clever but unruly, the other hot-blooded – that sometimes pull in the same direction and at other times in opposite directions, and disciplined by the auriga who represents the rational mind.
12. Roger W. Sperry, “Nobel Lecture” (lecture, Stockholm Concert Hall, Stockholm, December 8, 1981).
13. J. E. Bogen & G. M. Bogen (1969). The other side of the brain III: The corpus callosum and creativity. Bulletin of the Los Angeles Neurological Societies, 34, 141-203.
14. The inventor of brainstorming, American advertising executive Alex Osborn, researched the environment that his advertising team collaborated in and found that their creativity was most stimulated when certain rules were followed: 1. Generate as many ideas as possible; 2. Defer Judgment on all ideas; 3. Generate wild ideas; 4. Build upon each other’s ideas. (Alex Osborn, Applied Imagination: Principles and Procedures of Creative Problem Solving. Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1957).
15. For an accurate scientific description and a systematic review of the fields of application of intuition, see Eugene Sadler-Smith. Intuition in Business. Oxford University Press 2023. At the time of its publication the book outlined the state of the art of the science of intuition.
16. Järvilehto, Lauri. The Nature and Function of Intuitive Thought and Decision Making
17. Sadler Smith, 2023, page 36
Whether you're curious about features or you want a free trial, we're ready to answer any and all questions.
©2024 Marco Bassani. All rights reserved. Intuitive Thinking®, Sensing® and In-depth Brainstorming® are registered trademarks and the property of Marco Bassani. Privacy Policy