Why is intuition not prized in academia?

[MENTION=3998]niffer[/MENTION] is on the right track.

Academia is about not only acquiring knowledge but also sharing it. To put simply, it's great that you have intuition, but in a shared knowledge setting your intuition doesn't necessarily benefit me. In other words it's great that you know you know but I don't really know that you know. I'd have to take your word for it and that is some times uncomfortable to do, especially given the fact that it is quite well documented that pure intuition can be wrong.
 
sprinkles said:
@niffer is on the right track.

Academia is about not only acquiring knowledge but also sharing it. To put simply, it's great that you have intuition, but in a shared knowledge setting your intuition doesn't necessarily benefit me. In other words it's great that you know you know but I don't really know that you know. I'd have to take your word for it and that is some times uncomfortable to do, especially given the fact that it is quite well documented that pure intuition can be wrong.
Click to expand...

Where is it documented that intuition can be wrong?

How do you know that the wrong stuff is intuition and not just mind chatter of the ego?
 
muir said:
Where is it documented that intuition can be wrong?

How do you know that the wrong stuff is intuition and not just mind chatter of the ego?
Click to expand...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monty_Hall_problem

Monty Hall problem is a good place to start. People still refuse to believe that you should switch doors even though it is quite well proven that you should. The mind gets confused and misses little clues which give the whole picture, or ends up stuck in a flawed perspective, for example not recognizing the fact that when a door is opened to reveal a goat that changes the odds of a car being behind that door to 0 (because the car is obviously not there) and if you stick with your door you picked, that is still a 1/3 chance, but the remaining door moves to a 2/3 chance of having the car which is why you should always change doors.
 
muir said:
Where is it documented that intuition can be wrong?

How do you know that the wrong stuff is intuition and not just mind chatter of the ego?
Click to expand...

Seriously? Intuition can be wrong. Anything can be wrong.
 
muir said:
Where is it documented that intuition can be wrong?

How do you know that the wrong stuff is intuition and not just mind chatter of the ego?
Click to expand...

Also even if there is a difference between intuition and ego chatter and only one of them is wrong, I have no way of knowing that you know the difference so I still can't necessarily take your word for it.
 
sprinkles said:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monty_Hall_problem

Monty Hall problem is a good place to start. People still refuse to believe that you should switch doors even though it is quite well proven that you should. The mind gets confused and misses little clues which give the whole picture, or ends up stuck in a flawed perspective, for example not recognizing the fact that when a door is opened to reveal a goat that changes the odds of a car being behind that door to 0 (because the car is obviously not there) and if you stick with your door you picked, that is still a 1/3 chance, but the remaining door moves to a 2/3 chance of having the car which is why you should always change doors.
Click to expand...

Ahh so you are defining 'intuition' in an academic psychological sense to be something that exists only within a hermetically sealed brain which is formed through our experiences and observations in life which are possibly etched onto a conscious tabula rasa brain hard disk which is then sometimes processed unconsciously by mechanisms as yet unseen and not understood

Personally i think there is processing of information going on at that level and that it is fallible but i think that intuition extends far further than the human brain and that the human brain is not hermetically sealed off from the wider reality

I think that everything is consciousness and therefore it is possible for communications of various kinds to occur over what we perceive through the limitations of the 5 senses to be 'space' and 'time'

These communications could be an insight into the future or an insight into the thoughts or feelings of another or they could be a flash of inspiration or insight for example leading to a breakthrough invention or deeper knowledge from another realm or even from our own DNA (what academia calls or 'junk' DNA because it doesn't know what it's for)

So i think there is unconscious processing going on but i think that there is more going on than that and that we are not actually seperate from the things and people around us except in our perceptions

The left brain field of academia seeks to categorise and define everything as seperate and to quantify and measure things but the right brain sees everything as unified; the right brain however is heavily suppressed in our society and methods of encouraging the right brain are banned
 
Last edited:
muir said:
Ahh so you are defining 'intuition' in an academic psychological sense to be something that exists only within a hermetically sealed brain which is formed through our experiences and observations in life which are possibly etched onto a conscious tabula rasa brain hard disk which is then sometimes processed unconsciously by mechanisms as yet unseen and not understood

Personally i think there is processing of information going on at that level and that it is fallible but i think that intuition extends far further than the human brain and that the human brain is not hermetically sealed off from the wider reality

I think that everything is consciousness and therefore it is possible for communications of various kinds to occur over what we perceive through the limitations of the 5 senses to be 'space' and 'time'

These communications could be an insight into the future or an insight into the thoughts or feelings of another or they could be a flash of inspiration or insight for example leading to a breakthrough invention or deeper knowledge from another realm or even from our own DNA (what academia calls or 'junk' DNA because it doesn't know what it's for)

So i think there is unconscious processing going on but i think that there is more going on than that and that we are not actually seperate from the things and people around us except in our perceptions
Click to expand...

"Could be's" don't teach us anything.
 
I love my sciences, chemistry and biology especially. When I answer something and they ask, It's not difficult to work it out via Ti. If you mean having a Dom-Ni, Ni-Ti is great for getting the big picture as well as knowing the details. If you mean purely Ni.. and you're Ti can't decipher it, I usually keep it to myself until I find out. Where did you get the conclusion that Ni isn't prized?

Ni bring out possibilities and new ideas. It should be prized.
 
sprinkles said:
"Could be's" don't teach us anything.
Click to expand...

lol

No but experience does

Here is a TEd talk by a woman who had a stroke which began to shut down her left brain allowing her right brain to take over

Why her testimony is particularly interesting is because she is an academic brain scientist

[video=youtube;UyyjU8fzEYU]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UyyjU8fzEYU[/video]
 
muir said:
lol

No but experience does

Here is a TEd talk by a woman who had a stroke which began to shut down her left brain allowing her right brain to take over

Why her testimony is particularly interesting is because she is an academic brain scientist

[video=youtube;UyyjU8fzEYU]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UyyjU8fzEYU[/video]
Click to expand...

Being a scientist means hardly anything these days.
 
sprinkles said:
Being a scientist means hardly anything these days.
Click to expand...

It means left brain academic thinkers will respect her because her background is in left brain academic thinking
 
muir said:
It means left brain academic thinkers will respect her because her background is in left brain academic thinking
Click to expand...

Well they shouldn't, not only because of that. That's argument from authority which is a fallacy.
 
sprinkles said:
Well they shouldn't, not only because of that. That's argument from authority which is a fallacy.
Click to expand...

You are committing the: ''i haven't bothered to look into the credentials of the person that muir has posted a TED talk of and i haven't even bothered watching the talk'' fallacy
 
sprinkles said:
Well sue me.
Click to expand...

If you want to debate with someone and you choose to make comments to try and discredit what they are saying and they then provide you with supporting evidence it is unreasonable to then not look at the evidence because without assessing it you will not know if what you were saying initially was right
 
muir said:
If you want to debate with someone and you choose to make comments to try and discredit what they are saying and they then provide you with supporting evidence it is unreasonable to then not look at the evidence because without assessing it you will not know if what you were saying initially was right
Click to expand...

I didn't want to debate with you. You started with me first. I don't want to do this which is why I'm not bothering.
 
sprinkles said:
I didn't want to debate with you. You started with me first. I don't want to do this which is why I'm not bothering.
Click to expand...

You DID bother...you posted the 'monty hall' problem and then i countered it with an experience had by an academic

I don't know why you would be so threatened by this extra layer to reality that you would be so dismissive of it

Are you trying to deny her experience?
 
muir said:
You DID bother...you posted an academic study and then i countered it with an experience had by an academic

I don't know why you would be so threatened by this extra layer to reality that you would be so dismissive of it
Click to expand...

I did not post an academic study.

Moreover I have not actually dismissed anything.
 
sprinkles said:
I did not post an academic study.
Click to expand...

I corrected my post

sprinkles said:
Moreover I have not actually dismissed anything.
Click to expand...

You have been dismissive; you said it means nothing to be a scientist these days thereby dismissing her as not worthy of listening to and i doubt in the time frame between posts that you watched the video and then you said 'well sue me' which shows a dismissive attitude to my point and then you said you're not bothered by the discussion which you'd been participating in showing a dismissive attitude towards it!

All this time spent arguing could have been spent watching that pretty amazing ted talk which sheds a huge amount of light on the subject of why academia doesn't respect intuition (ie because it is a LEFT brained field that dismisses the RIGHT brain perspective)
 
[MENTION=1871]muir[/MENTION]

All I am saying there is that credentials mean almost nothing. At best they're a rule of thumb on who to listen to, and at worst they're a red herring.

I was never trying to disprove what she is saying. I was delivering a caveat.

All in all I really don't care. The fact that Monty Hall problem was the best I came up with should show that. I'm not interested and I don't appreciate the fact you're trying to browbeat me and are basically attacking me for no reason just because I made a couple offhand comments. I'd like for you to leave me alone at this point.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top