Logic vs. Intuition - the same thing after all?

Post Reply New Topic

I've often heard it said that Aspies lack the inituitive ToM that Nts use, and instead use one based on logic. That got me thinking what the difference between Intution and Logic was. The conclusion I cam to: that they are the same thing.

I'll explain. Intuition is logic operating subconsciously. This means that it doesn't take so much effort. The downside is that it can't be consciouslly controlled and used, and there is no way to check if it's correct. With logic, you can redo the calculation, and find out where you've gone wrong. So NTs don't get overloaded, but unfortunately that comes at the expense of accuracy.

I have both conscious and unconscious intuition, and I have some control of both. Much more control of the conscious than the subconscious, but I can dictate to the subconscious my requests for things I want it to work on or for it to teach me. Logic seems to me, to be an attribute that lives in another part of my brain, and often debates and checks the activities of the part of my brain where intuition seems to reside. But I'm odd, so that may not be your experience.

I think it's a bit like with e-mail. When you first register the domain and set up the MX servers, it takes longer for the mail to go through, until the full path has been cached on various servers. After that it's quick -- that cacheing of the end destination without the hops in between is the way I see NT intuition.

Then one fine day, they change the MX server, and the mail makes the wrong choice at first and doesn't go through for a while. That's an NT making an intuitive but incorrect decision.

I think some Aspies probably don't have the same cacheing ability, so they recalculate all the hops every time. Although some Aspies are pretty quick at it, and then it appears like intuition.

Just a guess... I could be all wrong.

You forgot to add instinct into the mix. All three do similar things, but each are slightly different.

Logic - Using your brain's processing power to form a conclusion about an event. It's sort of like an algorithm, if X = this, then Z will happen.

Intuition - Your own built-in navigation system through life. It's that inner voice, or gut feeling that tells you something is good, or bad.

Instinct - A heightened sensitivity to your surroundings. It's like you can "sense" another person's emotions, or intentions, etc...

Both logic and intuition are rule driven. Logic is consciously rule driven.

ruveyn

I like this analogy.

My AS BF is probably the most logical/analytical man alive. He won't believe anything that isn't logical and empirical. Faith means nothing to him. However, he will get a very strong "hunch" about something, swear it is true and later be right. He has done this repeatedly in showing me situations where I'm being taken advantage of or abused.

i think intuition is "prelogical"
i think all logical avenues of direction are inspired by an initial "intuition".

when you break it down, there is the "scene" (which is the external environment), and then there is the curiosity that leads to a logical appraisal of the scene.
but what connects the "scene" to the logical "starting point" for analysis? it is intuition.

one of my doctors once told me that "in-tuition" means "without being taught".

there must be the stage of intuition that conjoins the external world to the logical apparatus that we use to analyze it with.

many people think of "intuition" as meaning a magical vibe or some other thing. like some women say "i felt it in my waters", and other people think it is somehow supernatural.

all it is is the conduit from external reality to internal reality that sparks off a relevant logical appraisal.
without intuition, a persons mind would be a scramble of possible logical paths all ready to appraise the circumstance, and the chance that the right one would be chosen is astronomically small.

actually no path of appraisal could be chosen with out intuition.

Intuition is inductive reasoning. Logic is deductive reasoning. Just because you are an Introvert, doesn't mean you never extravert from bed.

I have had this happen to me many times. There intuition was telling them so it must be right, but they were wrong. I think this person's intuitions were based on pattern recognition, which can be correct often, but other behaviors and motivations can appear similarly.

Recognizing that something is true multiple times and assuming it will be true again is inductive reasoning. Establishing a complete logic equation of why things happen is deductive reasoning. Intuition. Logic. Both reasoning methods. Both essential to the ability to perform the other. You can't figure out a deductive explanation without inductive assumptions, you can't induce an assumption without deducing potential causes. You can't Extravert yourself if you never introvert to find out who that is.

I see logical actions as being initiated by the individual; whereas inutitive actions are initiated by the environment of said individual.

I think the Logic/Intuition/Instinct debate is a red herring.

AS is not so much a lack of these "skills" but rather a hard-wire error that prevents them from operating properly 100% of the time.

My instincts are pretty dead on, but I'm often clueless as to what to do with it where others seem to just react naturally and respond appropriately in most all cases. For me, if I don't carefully think of what would be an appropriate response, I'm likely going to vastly under-react or over-react to the situation.

Someone with AS has to use a lot more Logic to do things NTs do solely on an Intuition or Instinct level.

Just my 2 cents.

David Hume and Karl Popper proved that there is no such thing as "inductive reasoning, and it certainly has nothing to do with intuition. Hume showed that induction could not be logically justified and Popper showed that induction doesn't exist period, science begins in hypotheses and observations are used as a way to try to falsify the hypothesis. In fact, the myth of induction, the notion that science starts with concrete observations that are abstracted into hypotheses, is in large part the source of the nonsensical notion that Science and Intuition are at odds with each other, an notion pushed by New Agers, Religious Fundamentalists, and certain irrationalist philosophers in order to beat science with stick. The flaw in that notion is that the ideas that form the basis of the falsifiable hypotheses that are the basis of science are often more than not flashes of intuitive insight, Archimedes' "Eureka" moment being the classic example.

Hume and Popper demonstrated exactly what I just said, that separating them is an illusion. A false dichotomy, they are two sides of the same coin. You can't deduce a conclusion until you induce a hypothesis, you can't induce a hypothesis until you deduce a set of potential hypothesis, you can't deduce a set of potential hypothesis until you induce potential relationships, you can't induce a potential relationship until you deduce potential motivating forces, you can't deduce motivating forces until you induce potential force relationships. It is Turtles all the way down. Active reason versus passive reason is still Reason. Intuition and Logic are the semantic words for the two orientations of Reason.

You only intuitively know to be true that which you reason out with logict. Your last sentence got a little confused there. Are you propagating the myth that Archimedes had a Eureka moment that was singular, or trying to point out what he talked about as the moment when you set down the spear of your rhetorical position and take up the spear that you were all stabbing at and everybody recognizes that truth of that new spear and takes it up with great ease?