Don't Take This Seriously

Trusting intuition vs allowing emotion to supersede rationality: What's The Difference? 

    Is there a difference? Is intuition an emotion? Is a part of critical thinking knowing when to trust intuition over reason? In critical moments where quick-thinking is necessary, we largely rely on our intuitions. What makes an intuition better or worse?

    Let's pivot: I find that I often start writing with an idea, or a curiosity, and it becomes a bit of a binary. Different intuitions can be better or worse, therefore if I'm able to reason as to why this is, then I may better understand its importance relative to rationality. However, I think it might be better to explore this in different ways. I'll start with definitions.

Definitions:

Emotions - a feeling or sensation that is felt within the body that contributes to a certain mood. they affect and are affected by internal thoughts and other emotions as well as external events

Intuition - quick-thinking which leads us to a certain conclusion

Rationality - slow, deliberate thinking which explores concepts often in some amount of depth and often attempting to lead to a certain conclusion

My assumptions and biases: 

Specific emotions can incite either intuitive thinking or rational thinking. 

Rationality often allows us greater control over our emotions.

Intuitive thinking is good only insofar as it is trained by a valuable baseline, specifically regarding whatever the topic of thought is. 

Sometimes emotions that make us anxious can cause us to cling to intuitive thinking, which is easier than rational thinking.

People who have learned to think mostly intuitively, who therefore rely on easier forms of thinking, often have less valuable thoughts and opinions within intellectual discourse.

Rationality is more rigorous, and those who learn to think rationally often have more valuable thoughts and opinions within intellectual discourse. They also have more valuable intuitions, depending on the topic of thought, which are based on amount of time and level of rigor spent thinking rationally about a topic. They may also be able to move into rational thinking with greater ease than those who are largely intuitive thinkers. 

Intellectual discourse is important.

If you engage in intellectual discourse, it is vital to be aware of whether you are using intuitive thinking or rational thinking.

It is possible for people to not know whether they are using intuitive or rational thinking. It may be possible for people to have a diminished ability to distinguish between the two.

By not using one or the other, this perhaps atrophies one's ability to use either intuitive or rational thinking and distinguish between them. 

The ability to distinguish between them is formed in executive functioning which seems more closely related to rationality than intuition. Therefore, rationality is initially used to distinguish between the two, which takes some deliberate effort. Once this effort is practiced enough, it becomes an intuition. 

Deliberate rational thinking becomes intuitive when necessary, and requires the epistemic humility that good faith rationality demands. Therefore, those who have not developed this intuition have a diminished ability to think, debate, and learn in good faith.

Epistemic humility is demanded as Socrates pointed out when he said "I know that I know nothing." A person must determine the limits of their knowledge and understanding in order to grow or shift their current understanding in good faith. Good faith meaning in an honest attempt to come to the most reasonable conclusion.

Intuitive thinkers are less equipped to manage novel or complex information. Therefore, novel or complex information may be more difficult when attempting to parse through it using rationality. An internal acknowledgement of this difficulty could spark an anxiety or difficult emotion(s), especially in a social setting, which reinforces the comfort of their intuition. 

Consistent reinforcement of intuition over rationality, especially when the intuitive thinker can mimic or pretend to be a rational thinker, may create an internal feedback loop of validation and validation-seeking in the world around them. Heightened anxiety when challenged with new information, possibly defensive or aggressive behaviors, isolation. 

Rational thinkers are commonly considered "smart" and intuitive thinkers are often considered "stupid".

This does not mean that the rational thinker is more correct than intuitive thinkers, only that they may apply a more rigorous process to determining the validity of information. 

Rational thinkers are often involved in sciences, intuitive thinkers are the majority of people.

I'm returning to a binary. In fact, I think I may have contradicted my earlier assumption that rational thinkers are often better intuitive thinkers. When I say a "rational thinker" I mean somebody who has consistently practiced and engaged in rational thinking enough for it to be a greater skill, which is of course reinforced by their assumed relational skill of intuitive thinking. When I say intuitive thinker, I mean those who haven't practiced rationality enough so that ability then atrophies and they largely rely on intuitive thinking in their day-to-day life. Whereas a rational thinker may slip in and out of rational and intuitive thinking throughout the day and have their intuitive thinking reinforce and be reinforced by their rationality. 

I'm aware of the connotation here. I am implicitly making a value judgment that it is generally better to be a rational thinker than it is to be an intuitive thinker, specifically in the realm of sciences and intellectual discourse. Also, perhaps most importantly, in politics. 

US politics, democracy, where everybody has a say. Theoretically, this type of political system would provide a greater scrutiny on every individual to be a good faith rational thinker. I assume this because of the sheer weight of political decisions that affect the lives of themselves and so many people. I would assume, given this supposedly fundamental understanding, it would kick people into a different gear. One that prioritizes the health of ourselves and each other, which requires an understanding of what policies do or do not affect the many aspects of a person's health. I'm making an implicit assumption that health of the self does not outweigh, but matches, the health of every individual. However, this necessitates a sense of unity among voters and the population as a whole. 

If we go back and assume that anxiety and difficult emotions do in fact play a role in maintaining uncritical intuitive thinking, then we start to see things a bit differently. Fear, anxiety, and chaos in a nation where each individual effectively decides the lives of everybody would create an existential anxiety about the importance of one's individual choices as well as the choices and intentions of others. If others are deemed to have bad intentions, then it provides reason for trusting and maintaining the intuitive thinking that may provide comfort. It feels unproductive and even against your own interests to think "I know that I know nothing."

In fact, to think rationally, to consider alternative possibilities and to understand that it's not reasonable to be in an echo chamber would incite the self-reflection necessary to understand the limitations of one's understanding and ability. This creates a threat to one's identity. This threat to identity has implications beyond political, but also social, relational, and professional. It has the threat of reframing the context of our lives. It may create a newfound weight of moral decision-making and an uncertainty, guilt, or shame about past actions. It may shift how one views themself in relation to society, the labels they identify with. A deeper search for meaning and purpose. Redefining love, compassion, empathy, ignorance, hatred, good, and evil. Wondering where to start and regretting the time wasted. Wondering about innate vs imposed limitations. Possibly becoming a social pariah within their groups. All of these consequences exist as possibilities as a result of engaging with rational thinking and self-reflection. Then online and on the television, we see endless opinions. We see fearmongering, deeply opposed groups, and extremism. "There's no time, I have to make a choice."

Final Thoughts:

    What began as an "assumptions and biases" self-reflection challenge ultimately turned into me building the same binary construct I was attempting to avoid in the first place. Ironically, much of this was written intuitively rather than rationally, as it may appear to an uncritical eye. This was partially intentional, as is the way I often write, I wanted to write down my thought process in order to better understand it. I often find ways to lead myself into some existential anxiety. Once I introduced certain assumptions or arguments, there was possibly an intuitive gnawing that I was missing something important, or not providing enough evidence to support my claims. However, instead of circling back to my own self-image as I often do, I instead attempted to extrapolate my thinking to society. This was an intentional way for me to avoid the very intuitive feedback loop I was discussing.

    It is intuitive for me to write about myself, my cognitive difficulties, and a self-scrutiny that instead of propelling me into rationality, deepens my epistemic uncertainty. An uncertainty which provides a safe-haven that, I guess according to a part of me, is worth the accompanying anxiety. It is not philosophical skepticism, though sometimes they touch hands in passing. It is not genuine curiosity and it is not rigorous rationality. It's a feeling and it's a self-image. It's a framework, a disorder, a disease, or an injury. But I can trick myself.

    It's just as easy to believe myself a natural intellectual as it is to impose feelings of shame around my ability to intellectualize. So I've spent time killing the former and accepting the truth of my cognitive ability. But I fear becoming the binarily-defined intuitive thinker I've described here. I fear I can not be the rational thinker, the true intellectual. But all it may take is honest rational thinking in this direction to expose the errors in my thinking. Which, paradoxically, would confirm both my inferiority and my superiority over it. Can I practice recognizing errors in my thinking so that I can think without being overly anxious about errors in my thinking? The brain can adapt to learn to do this, so as long as I practice in good faith, and I have rational faith in the process, I will learn. Barring, ya know, debilitating disease, disorder, injury, or disability.