Hi Maria,

Thank you for your feedback, comments, and question. Intellect can be misled, too, so that is not appropriate criteria for evaluation. I'll give you an example from finance: what is the best valuation tool? This cannot be permanently, empirically evaluated. You might use p/e ratios because an academic research paper has indicated it is superior to discounted cash flow analysis. Then it turns out that another research paper argues an entirely different point of view. At the root of both intellect and intuition is human choice. So discussing how we can be misled when making choices is an interesting subject.

I would characterize 'recognizing patterns' or 'pattern recognition' as a subset of creativity. 'Pattern recognition' cannot explain radical context breaks such as Newton's 'calculus' or Kepler's laws. Look at the long history of scientific breakthrough, as well as comparison to the experience of non-scientists that have radical breakthroughs, and they do not attribute their success to instinct, but to intuition.

More on this to come in future posts. One about my own experiences with intuition, and another that takes issue with Kahneman's naming of System 1. I do not take issue with his work, or of his description of system 1, just its name. As you will see, even he recognizes the importance of getting nomenclature correct in order to hold meaningful discussions.

Again thanks for your engagement!

With smiles,

Jason