Chapter 18: The Untimely Demise of Intuition

The Untimely Demise of Intuition begins by examining cognitive puzzles like the Monty Hall Dilemma, often used to demonstrate the fallibility of intuition, while countering with evidence that pure reasoning can also lead to errors, such as probability matching, where pigeons often outperform humans by relying on experiential reinforcement rather than flawed logical rules,. The text distinguishes between bias and prejudice, arguing—drawing on the philosophy of Hans-Georg Gadamer—that prejudice (pre-judgment) is an inevitable and often rational tool for survival based on accumulated experience, whereas the Enlightenment ideal of a completely unbiased mind is a dangerous illusion,. Significant attention is given to social psychology findings by Lee Jussim, which indicate that, contrary to popular belief, stereotypes regarding age, sex, and even personality traits often display high statistical accuracy and that humans generally prioritize specific individual information over stereotypes when it is available,. The chapter critiques the "heuristics and biases" program popularized by Daniel Kahneman, arguing that it unfairly disparages expert judgment by focusing on artificial laboratory conditions rather than ecological validity,. It contrasts this with the work of Gerd Gigerenzer, who demonstrates that simple heuristics ("fast and frugal" trees) often outperform complex computations in uncertain real-world environments, a phenomenon known as the "less-is-more" effect,. The discussion extends to the hemispheric hypothesis, suggesting that the left hemisphere is more prone to stubborn, theoretical biases and confabulation, while the right hemisphere manages the subtle, contextual inhibition necessary for accurate judgment,. Finally, the chapter explores the concept of sensus communis (common sense) through the lens of schizophrenia, specifically Wolfgang Blankenburg’s case studies, illustrating how the loss of intuitive, pre-reflective grounding in the world leads to a pathological hyper-rationality where the sufferer can no longer navigate everyday life without explicit, often impossible, rule-following,. The ultimate conclusion is that reason and intuition must work in tandem, with intuition providing the necessary foundation and final adjudication for rational thought,.