Intuition vs Reason

Can our gut feelings replace reason?

Consider the following puzzle, borrowed from Nobel-prize winner Daniel Kahneman's Thinking, Fast And Slow:

    A bat and ball cost $1.10.

    The bat costs one dollar more than the ball.

    How much does the ball cost?

The puzzle naturally evokes an intuitive answer: 10 cents (the correct answer is 5 cents). The puzzle is a very simple math puzzle that is easily solved using careful reasoning. But when we are intellectually lazy, we tend to follow our gut instincts or intuitions, even when the task is not the kind of task that should be handled in this way. Mathematical and logical exercises typically cannot be solved using our gut instinct.

Continue reading

Enjoy unlimited access to the world's leading thinkers.

Start by exploring our subscription options or joining our mailing list today.

Start Free Trial

Already a subscriber? Log in

Latest Releases
Join the conversation

J Silicon 16 April 2018

Good Article.
It brings up an interesting question about Intuition.
I agree with the Logic that the author uses.

I would like to agree with the article,
if it reached a final point of conclusion.

So, what does he deduce from his logic then ?

Julie Varley 11 April 2017

The artists that I have been around often cite 'intuition' as their methodology. There appears to be no embedded impetus to create something 'new' in the 'intuitive' method. What is required is doubt? Doubt occurs when someone sees an alternative. Doubt is not a function of intuition, it's a function of reasoning. In the realms of art? creating alternative perspectives to the 'fixed perspective' ? require us to doubt the current perspective.

kyoung21b 6 March 2017

Great piece ! While I think Kahneman and Tversky have made tremendously valuable contributions to the understanding of psychology, particularly re. how we're inherently bad at probability estimation, their deification (perhaps warranted in areas like economics) seems to have led to a bit of overreach in their followers, in ways so aptly pointed here. I loved the breakfast example re. why context matters in ways that Kahneman and Tversky don't account for, and will happily counter with that when people confidently cite the bank teller example re. where psychological tendencies typically lead people astray.