![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 1 to 10 of 10. This is the beginning of the thread.
Posted by special_k on April 4, 2006, at 20:57:59
... In other words, emotion had a role to play in intuition, the sort of rapid cognitive process in which we come to a particular conclusion without being aware of all the immediate logical steps. It is not necessarily the case that the knowledge of intermediate steps is absent, only that emotion delivers the conclusion so directly and rapidly that not much knowledge need come to mind. This is in keeping with the old saying which tells us that 'intuition favors the prepared mind'... The quality of one's intuition depends on how well we have reasoned in the past; on how ewll we have classified the events of our past experience in relation to the emotions that preceded and followed them; and also on how well we have reflected on the successes and failures of past intuitions. Intuition is simply rapid cognition with the required knowledge partially swept under the carpet, all courtesy of emotion and much past practice'.
when all goes well ;-)
"Descartes Error" p. xii-xiii
Posted by gabbi~1 on April 4, 2006, at 21:28:56
In reply to a thought for today..., posted by special_k on April 4, 2006, at 20:57:59
well descartes it may be, but I have to disagree.
I find children, and the mentally challenged folks I've worked with, to be uncannily intuitive.
Not all of course, but enough to disagree w ith him, or at least his definition of knowledge.
Posted by special_k on April 4, 2006, at 22:28:02
In reply to Re: a thought for today... » special_k, posted by gabbi~1 on April 4, 2006, at 21:28:56
> well descartes it may be, but I have to disagree.
hmm. this is Damasio (neurologist)
he thinks 'Descartes' Error' is the notion that emotions are apart from body / brain states (aka he doesn't like Descartes dualism)that was just his thought on intuition...
> I find children, and the mentally challenged folks I've worked with, to be uncannily intuitive.
hmm. were the 'mentally challenged folk' always 'mentally challenged' or was it acquired (ie via degeneration or injury)?
interesting about children...
yup. i guess some intuition just doesn't work that way
(i was thinking that... children are a good eg ta for that):-)
>
Posted by special_k on April 4, 2006, at 22:29:21
In reply to a thought for today..., posted by special_k on April 4, 2006, at 20:57:59
though...
> It is not *necessarily* the case that the knowledge of intermediate steps is absent...
(emphasis added)
so maybe it runs a little differently in the case of children...
Posted by gabbi~1 on April 4, 2006, at 23:34:28
In reply to Re: a thought for today... » gabbi~1, posted by special_k on April 4, 2006, at 22:28:02
> > well descartes it may be, but I have to disagree.
>
> hmm. this is Damasio (neurologist)
> he thinks 'Descartes' Error' is the notion that emotions are apart from body / brain states (aka he doesn't like Descartes dualism)
>Oh thanks.. I guess I should read more thoroughly.
> that was just his thought on intuition...
>
> > I find children, and the mentally challenged folks I've worked with, to be uncannily intuitive.
>
> hmm. were the 'mentally challenged folk' always 'mentally challenged' or was it acquired (ie via degeneration or injury)?
>Both, however the one who "freaked us out" by her ability to even predict things (yes I know that sounds far fetched) had been "globally delayed" as they say, from birth.
I wish I could give more detail, in examples but it involves too much of my personal life :D
Posted by gardenergirl on April 5, 2006, at 14:22:04
In reply to Re: a thought for today... » special_k, posted by gabbi~1 on April 4, 2006, at 23:34:28
I think it might also relate a bit to bottom up versus top down processing. And I may confuse the two, because it's been a long time since this class...
But I'm an intuitive, big picture kind of thinker. I often know what I know, but if you ask me to give you the cognitive steps or the detiails that comprise the big picture, I can't always do it. I tend to wave my hands in the air and say, "you know..." It's always great when someone DOES know and I don't have to use words. Because when I have to use words to explain an intuition, and I struggle, that's when I start to feel stupid and doubt myself. :(
My husband, on the other hand, is the opposite. He can take FOREVER to get to conclusion, because he thinks through all the steps in between. He is not at all intuitive, and doesn't trust a feeling or intuition until he's reasoned it out. I would say that it's nice to have both ways between us, but only if we are patient and respect each other's process.
But at any rate, I tend to think that one's cognitive processing style might be to some degree hard-wired. Perhaps a tendency towards top down or bottom up processing that later gets reinforced or not as we develop?
interesting topic...:)
gg
Posted by special_k on April 5, 2006, at 22:55:01
In reply to Re: a thought for today... » special_k, posted by gabbi~1 on April 4, 2006, at 23:34:28
> Oh thanks.. I guess I should read more thoroughly.
mmm. i have to do that too. often have to read it a few times and even then misunderstand it lol. that is a fairly common problem (and i sometimes think the more ambiguous you are the more likely you are to inspire generations of interpreters eg wittgenstein...)
> > that was just his thought on intuition...
and after rereading a couple times... one particular variety of intuition that involves emotion and not necessarily explicit knowledge...
> ...the one who "freaked us out" by her ability to even predict things (yes I know that sounds far fetched) had been "globally delayed" as they say, from birth.ok. i think premonitions might be a bit different from the kind of intuition that Damasio was thinking of... but that is another interesting topic :-)
Posted by special_k on April 5, 2006, at 23:06:36
In reply to Re: a thought for today... » gabbi~1, posted by gardenergirl on April 5, 2006, at 14:22:04
> I think it might also relate a bit to bottom up versus top down processing. And I may confuse the two, because it's been a long time since this class...
mmm. i know a bit about 'bottom-up vs top-down'. 'bottom up' is empirically driven, information from the senses. 'top down' is rationally driven, information from memory / reason etc. there may be no hard and fast line... sometimes people talk about bottom up perception as
red square -> perception of red square
and top down perception as
imagining (from memory) -> perception of red square
but the distinction comes up in different contexts and maybe you encountered it in a slightly different one...
> But I'm an intuitive, big picture kind of thinker. I often know what I know, but if you ask me to give you the cognitive steps or the detiails that comprise the big picture, I can't always do it. I tend to wave my hands in the air and say, "you know..." It's always great when someone DOES know and I don't have to use words. Because when I have to use words to explain an intuition, and I struggle, that's when I start to feel stupid and doubt myself. :(yeah. sounds like you might be using Damasio's notion of intuition (where the correct answer is given emotional weight without your necessarily being able to say WHY the answer seems plausible to you).
he thinks that the reason (sometimes when all goes well) that the answer has emotional weight is because you have followed the rational / logical steps at some point and your emotional weighting was thus established on that basis and now gives you a rapid response so you don't have to plough through the logic again...
but maybe not... or maybe so. i don't see why trying to do the logic can't interfeare / confound things... kind of like trying to describe what you are doing when you are driving can interfeare / confound things... yet when you learned you probably did learn via following a description of what to do...
> My husband, on the other hand, is the opposite. He can take FOREVER to get to conclusion, because he thinks through all the steps in between. He is not at all intuitive, and doesn't trust a feeling or intuition until he's reasoned it out.
if that goes too much to an extreme... i've been reading about neurological disorders where people have intact rationality (score very well on verbal, memory, object, numerical tasks) and yet seem to exhibit the frame problem... basically... they can list all the options but because there isn't any emotional weights involved... they never manage to prioritise one and GET MOVING. some people have lost their emotions... they turn out to be very socially disabled re enacting future plans, looking out for their welfare, being able to prioritise tasks etc. not saying your husband is like that lol. just that there does seem to need to be a balance between rationality and emotion for proper / normal / adaptive functioning. either extreme is problematic...
> I would say that it's nice to have both ways between us, but only if we are patient and respect each other's process.
yeah. i guess people lie along a continuum. nice to complement rather than play on each others weaknesses...
> But at any rate, I tend to think that one's cognitive processing style might be to some degree hard-wired.yeah... serotonin in various areas... how well developed certain areas of the frontal lobes are... how intense emotional responses are to start with i guess... bloody complicated really
:-)
Posted by gardenergirl on April 6, 2006, at 0:20:36
In reply to Re: a thought for today... » gardenergirl, posted by special_k on April 5, 2006, at 23:06:36
> how intense emotional responses are to start with i guess... bloody complicated really
I appreciated your reply. Just have a minute here to respond...but I think I've said before that I married a Vulcan. Intensity of emotion? What's that, he might ask. He's actually moving a bit away from the end of the continuum more towards the middle. I'm not sure how much I might have moved. But I think we're a bit more in sight of each other.
Very complicated indeed.
gg
Posted by gabbi~1 on April 7, 2006, at 15:27:13
In reply to Re: a thought for today... » gabbi~1, posted by gardenergirl on April 5, 2006, at 14:22:04
> I think it might also relate a bit to bottom up versus top down processing. And I may confuse the two, because it's been a long time since this class...
>
> But I'm an intuitive, big picture kind of thinker. I often know what I know, but if you ask me to give you the cognitive steps or the detiails that comprise the big picture, I can't always do it. I tend to wave my hands in the air and say, "you know..." It's always great when someone DOES know and I don't have to use words. Because when I have to use words to explain an intuition, and I struggle, that's when I start to feel stupid and doubt myself. :(
>
>Yes, I agree with that, definitely. Sometimes
well, this is a specific example, and not really about intuition.. but you know (me anyway) sometimes I'll be making something and it calls for I cup and 3 tablespoons of milk. And I'll just throw some in the bowl because I can't find a measuring cup, and it won't ruin the recipe if it's a little over.. and then think.. well actually I should probably measure that.
And it will turn out to be exactly the right amount.
It happens so often that I know my mind has registered that information , and I'm completely unaware of it.
Or even looking at a math question (and I suck at math) and knowing the answer, but being unable to do the actual steps. That happened to me in school a lot.But.. the person whom Special K quoted seemed to exclude children because he said intuition is based on how well we've reasoned in the past.
I think that's probably very true in a lot of our cases, but I can't really see it with young children, although there is the scientific question of knowledge being passed down through genetics.Anyway.
What I want to say is
We are all right even Descartes, and that other guy and we all have brilliant points.
So there. : )
This is the end of the thread.
Psycho-Babble Social | Extras | FAQ
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.org
Script revised: February 4, 2008
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/cgi-bin/pb/mget.pl
Copyright 2006-17 Robert Hsiung.
Owned and operated by Dr. Bob LLC and not the University of Chicago.