AddThis Feed Button

Recent Posts

  • Sprinting to Enlightenment
  • Once more, with barely any feeling
  • You’re not intuitive, you’re lazy
  • Now this really bugs me
  • Homicidal Homeopaths!
  • 98-pound positive thinking weaklings
  • Oh, and let’s be prepared for 12/22/2012
  • Add this to my 11 year history of alien abduction
  • You heard it here first
  • The Confidence Con Game
  • I couldn’t care less. Really. I tried.
  • Sitting in a room all alone
  • Spiritual Schmiritual
  • Do what you love and the money WON’T follow
  • Mantra power from Sweden
  • Start watching TV, Maitreya is coming, Maitreya is coming!
  • I’m not leaving, but I am moving… ish
  • Oh, those wacky Buddhists…
  • How to be successful in anything… finally, the truth revealed!
  • I think I can’t. I think I can’t. Oh… oops, I was wrong.
  • Who you are really… AS IF!
  • Buddha the Internet Marketer
  • Attractive ways to attract attraction-attracting attractiveness
  • Die your potential
  • Shoot me. Shoot me now! Why? It’s beyond a secret.
  • Water is not water (and other things Quantum Physics DOES NOT say)
  • What science says about enlightenment
  • You can be Tony Robbins!
  • Semper Ube Sub Ube
  • The Three Stooges of Truth…
  • Fundamentalist Physicists and Religious Atheists
  • Well, I’ll be reintarnated!
  • Mike Myers (as The Love Guru) is the root of all evil
  • Does my cat have free will… or is that a hairball?
  • Questioning Questions
  • Brain Waves Goodbye
  • You don’t deserve your rights
  • Physics Schmysics!
  • Why, yes, I AM rubber!
  • You can have ANYTHING you want… NOT!
  • I’m all blocked up…
  • Wrong about being right
  • Develop a New Habit? Give me 21 days, and I’ll give you… three weeks
  • What me spiritual?
  • You’re special… SO special
  • In fact, I DON’T want to ATTRACT anything to me
  • Okay, Oprah, let’s settle this once and for all…
  • Hoping to be a successhole
  • Manifrustration
  • If you think you can, or you think you can’t… who cares what you think!
  • Archives

  • March 2011
  • December 2010
  • November 2010
  • May 2010
  • December 2009
  • November 2009
  • October 2009
  • July 2009
  • May 2009
  • April 2009
  • March 2009
  • January 2009
  • December 2008
  • November 2008
  • October 2008
  • September 2008
  • August 2008
  • July 2008
  • June 2008
  • May 2008
  • April 2008
  • March 2008
  • February 2008
  • January 2008
  • December 2007
  • November 2007
  • October 2007
  • September 2007
  • August 2007
  • July 2007
  • June 2007
  • May 2007
  • April 2007
  • March 2007
  • February 2007
  • January 2007
  • November 2006
  • October 2006
  • September 2006
  • August 2006
  • Categories

  • argument (8)
  • atheism (1)
  • atheists (1)
  • binaural beat (1)
  • brain wave (1)
  • Buddhism (3)
  • cognitive psychology (11)
  • creationism (2)
  • debate (3)
  • deepak chopra (1)
  • Evolutionary Psychology (12)
  • goal setting (6)
  • Gurus (19)
  • homeopathy (2)
  • intelligent design (2)
  • manifestation (13)
  • Marianne Willamson (1)
  • Meditation (15)
  • mike myers (1)
  • Nelson Mandela (1)
  • New Age (12)
  • New Age thinking (22)
  • new word (1)
  • oprah (2)
  • past lives (1)
  • positive thinking (2)
  • Prescriptions for living (3)
  • Psychology (19)
  • quantum physics (4)
  • reincarnation (1)
  • self-help (7)
  • Self-Improvement (33)
  • sloppy thinking (20)
  • Spiritual Growth (28)
  • spirituality (4)
  • stupid science (3)
  • the love guru (1)
  • the secret (6)
  • Uncategorized (2)

  •  
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     

    You’re not intuitive, you’re lazy

    Another bit of dried grass just fractured a even-toed ungulate’s spine.

    I may have to punch the next person who tells me they’re “intuitive.” (Of course, if they’re really intuitive, they should be able to see it coming and avoid the blow… but I’m willing to bet there’s a contusion coming.)

    Why so anti-intuitive, Steven?

    Because I dislike lazy thinking and to call oneself (or another) intuitive, is not descriptive, it’s laziness.

    There are 2 reasons why.

    First, I haven’t met an “intuitive” yet who has kept an accurate “hit counter.” Simple thing, really. Write down every “intuitive hit” you have, as accurately as possible. Then, at a later date, check and see how accurate you really were.

    Now the problem with this method is the “as accurately as possible” part, combined with our brain’s entertaining ability to mis-remember, especially in the wake of information that could validate our beliefs.

    Let’s just say that every study ever done about precognitive dreaming shows that:

    1. When the dreamers were required to write down their dreams, their accuracy dropped to less-than-random
    2. After some event happened, they often misremembered dreaming about it.
    3. There are, of course, millions of events that did occur that they never dreamed about at all.

    So, it’s the same thing with “intuitives.” If they actually checked their batting average, and adjusted for mis-remembering or vague predictions, they’d find they aren’t so Sylvia Browne after all (or, more accurately, they’re EXACTLY like Sylvia Browne! That is, not intuitive.)

    Here’s the 2nd reason.

    Human beings are really good at identifying patterns. Too good, in fact (we “see” patterns where none actually exist).

    When our brain is looking for a pattern, it’s working hard, expending energy. This effort and glucose use takes up valuable CPU cycles that could be used for something else. We’re built to find patterns quickly so we can stop wasting energy.

    And when we “spot” a pattern, we get a nice hit of chemicals and a handful of interesting sensations — sometimes a feeling in our gut, even.

    Circling back: if we recorded and audited our “gut feelings” we’d find that we aren’t as accurate as we thought. But if we do get a hit…

    It’s not because we’re intuitive, it’s because our non-conscious pattern recognizer was working.

    That is, we’re not channeling some disembodied entity who is telling us that you may be coming down with a cold… we’re using our millenia-old pattern recognition circuits that are wired to identify “oncoming cold!”… and it happens below our consciousness.

    In other words, it ain’t magic Houdini.

    Think about this one: We often find it almost spooky that we can tell when someone is looking at us, right?

    Well, first of all, we can’t tell as accurately as we think. If we have no idea if someone is behind us, and we have no idea if they’re looking… we can’t tell.

    But we *DO* have millions of years of evolutionary hardware inside our cranium that responds to images of eyeballs (because seeing eyes could have been a life/death/sex moment).

    When we spot eyes pointing in our direction, we don’t “know” it or “think” about it discursively. The whole thing happens like a reflex. So, it’s not a mystery when we turn our head and catch someone’s gaze. It’s simply that we turned our head in response to a signal we had no conscious awareness of.

    Now THAT’s spooky because it makes you wonder: Hmmm… what else is going on where something automatic in my brain is running the show? Could it be… EVERYTHING?!

    Humans like to ignore that we have some of the same psychobiological history as other animals. We like to think that everything that goes on for us is something we can clearly feel, perceive, conceive and deliberately affect.

    It just isn’t so.

    I’d LOVE to see an example of “intuition” that isn’t covered by either luck, or some form of non-conscious pattern recognition. Just hasn’t happened yet.

    In the meantime, I like to remember a story that Richard Feynman tells about intuition: He was at home one evening and the phone rang and he knew, just KNEW, it was a call to tell him his mother died. He could feel it in his gut and dreaded picking up the phone. But not wanting to delay the bad news, he picked up the phone, ready to confirm his intuitive suspicion and… wouldn’t you know it… telemarketer.

    3 Responses to “You’re not intuitive, you’re lazy”

    1. Ed Says:

      Well, I’ve got an example of intuition that isn’t covered by luck or non-conscious pattern recognition. It was when I “knew” what the winning lottery numbers would be. Unfortunately, my intuition has failed to tell me *when* those would be the winning lottery tickets. But I promise you… someday! Someday they will be! And it won’t be luck and it can’t possibly be pattern recognition when it happens, because the pattern won’t have happened yet, will it?

      On a serious note, though, I think there is something worthwhile in listening to your ‘intuitive’ side if you do so recognizing it as a pattern recognizer. Bringing that recognition to consciousness can be a bit of a trick, but my personal experience has been that when I can, I usually spot something better than I was analytically able to find.

    2. Andi Says:

      I have an (intuitive) aversion against extreme positions such as the neurotic hyper-analytical “You have to analyze everything and always think everything trough” as well as “Always listen to your guts”. The word Intuition is pretty much an umbrella-term for all sorts of unconscious cognitive processing. I am not even sure, if its always the same sort of unconscious ‘thinking’. Some ‘intuitions’ may be more reliable than others. However, because this cognitive processing happens without our conscious awareness, does not mean that its always right nor does it means that its always wrong. To me, when i have some good reasons to doubt my intuitions about something, its a good idea to check them with my analytical and critical thinking skills….but sometimes, i am really just too lazy.

      I also think, that the word intuition has been hijacked by the New Age and ‘Spiritual’ Subculture, which uses it as synonym for ‘wishful thinking’ and ‘When something feels good, it means that it must be true!’. I think that this has given the Intuition a much worse reputation among more ‘rational people’ than it may deserve.

    3. J. Nelson Leith Says:

      I also dislike lazy thinking. And the Dunning-Kruger Effect.

      Datum 1.
      “I dislike lazy thinking and to call oneself (or another) intuitive, is not descriptive, it’s laziness.” Although it may not be accurate, calling someone intuitive is in fact descriptive, even in a scientific sense. (Note that even falsified descriptions are descriptions.)

      Describing the use of the descriptor “intuitive” as laziness is also descriptive. But, the way you do this in the above sentence, it is also lazy and (put forth as exclusive of “laziness”) inaccurate.

      Datum 2.
      You say: “I haven’t met an ‘intuitive’ yet who has kept an accurate ‘hit counter.'” Are we to assume that you’ve kept an accurate hit counter of every intuitive you’ve ever met, and the result was zero? Or, are you simply noticing a pattern?

      Datum 3.
      “If they actually checked their batting average, and adjusted for mis-remembering or vague predictions, they’d find they aren’t so Sylvia Browne after all.” Again, where’s the data? If they haven’t checked the batting averages themselves, how can you be so certain? Have you surreptitiously kept accurate “hit counters” and checked the batting averages for a statistically significant number of them?

      Datum 4.
      “Let’s just say that every study…” Let’s not “just say.” Let’s show. Let’s cite. Let’s do more than vaguely convey a pattern you have noticed in the studies about which you have read or heard.

      Datum 5.
      “It’s not because we’re intuitive, it’s because our non-conscious pattern recognizer was working.” It’s not because we’re happy, it’s because the neurons are firing in the pleasure centers of our brain? Since it is quite possible to define intuition as the experience of subconscious pattern recognition, here is where it becomes clear that you haven’t even provided a valid definition against which to make a logical case, reducing the entire rant to mere out-group denigration. In other words, hooting derisively at the Other Troop of primates in order to boost your social status.

      It is quite possible for someone to arrive at correct conclusions by way of a completely irrational thought process — for example by simply adopting them, cult-style, from more rational people you’ve read or heard about. Judging from the thought process so clearly and consistently revealed in this barely coherent rant, it is a reasonable conclusion that this is the case in your opposition to those you ironically label “lazy” thinkers.




     

     

     

     

    Religion Blogs - Blog Top Sites