Talk:Intuition

message: 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)
thread_title:  Some new information 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: Thanks, Jake, but I don't think I can take much credit for this article.  heidimo  22:00, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Disputed warning, Intuition is a source of empirical knowledge

message: 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)
thread_title: Page move

message: 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)
thread_title:  Nonsense 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Psychology Section 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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. 74.132.249.206 (talk) 02:46, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Intuition in Religion 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Taxi driver intuition 

message: 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. 206.218.218.58 (talk) 16:09, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. It is a great opener for an advocate of SUS laws.  - Steve3849 talk 19:35, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Wow- so not neutral. 

message: 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)
replies: text: The Buddhist meditative practice satipatthana is sometimes translated as "frames of reference": . Food for thought. Mitsube (talk) 06:24, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Frame of Reference 

message: I think that gut feeling ought to redirect to Truthiness rather than this article. 92.24.191.208 (talk) 14:10, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  [[Gut feeling]] 

message: 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.[citation needed]
:Agreed, removed. --EPadmirateur (talk) 17:43, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title: I am VERY bothered by this biased statement from the article

message: "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.) 74.132.249.206 (talk) 02:35, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Improved Lead Wording? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  What about the theory gut feelings actually come from the guts? 

message: "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.[8]"
If intuitive types are irrational, why are NTs called "rationals"?--Johnny 42 (talk) 16:42, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  I do not understand this 

message: 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 50.11.194.185 (talk) 05:00, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  This page is very poor quality / makes Wikipedia look bad 

message: Night mare article! going to re-write and organise into one large article, before edit-warring please discuss here Shrikanthv (talk) 09:14, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: PLease discuss before panicking I need time to restructure and doing it for sure
Shrikanthv (talk) 14:31, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
replies: text:  done with major surgery for dec 2014 hope others contribute and the article grows Shrikanthv (talk) 18:33, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Re-structuring and re-writing the entire article

message: 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)
replies: text: Again, so do you want to write more eloborately on Descartes and Hume's take on intuition ? , please give the text below what you want to change or add we can add this up ! I am for expanding this section ! not against it! Shrikanthv (talk) 10:54, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reference to empiricism and rationalism needed in the philosophy section 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  please avoid blanketing the article

message: Discuss here before mass deletion Shrikanthv (talk) 09:47, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Discuss before mass deletion

message: ...Intuition is the practice of allowing observation of oneself in life...Intuition is not philosophy, psychology or physics...It maybe akin to Observation-Arnlodg (talk) 22:16, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Intuition is Practice 

message: The Intuitive experience of Monks, Fakirs, Yogis, others--toward Involution; A non-philosophical experience..Arnlodg (talk) 21:00, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  This article should be linked to a new main article--Practices and Ways 

message: In addition to being of interest to WikiProjects on spirituality, philosophy and religion, this article would surely be of interest to 
 Wikipedia: WikiProject Psychology.Vorbee (talk) 21:10, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Wikiproject Psychology

message: I am little bit concernd regarding claims under moder psychology section, seems like a some kind of marketing material, should it be completely axed ? Shrikanthv (talk) 12:52, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Modern Psychology

message: I notice we say Plato gave a definition of intuition. I think this begs a lot of questions. We should at least be clear about which Greek words he was using. Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:41, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  What Greek words are we equating to "intution"?