If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Huffington Post)   Ten things intuitive people do that others don't. But you don't have RTFA --- you probably already know   (huffingtonpost.com) divider line 80
    More: Stupid, RTFM, Leadership Institute, Office of Naval Research, cultural bias  
•       •       •

9759 clicks; posted to Main » on 21 Mar 2014 at 11:33 AM (18 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



80 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2014-03-21 12:46:24 PM

I'm an Egyptian!: I would argue that it's still emotion. The difference being the use of logical thinking to forecast likely long term emotional experience to counteract the immediate emotional response.


Can you tell me the difference between calculating probable short- and long-term outcomes and weighing the desirability of each vs. rational thought?
 
2014-03-21 12:46:43 PM

squirrelflavoredyogurt: I love the pictures in the article. I hold onto an exercise ball and leap through my balcony door onto a fake bearskin rug all the time. I must be highly intuitive.


The one time I tried that I ended up in the pool. I guess I didn't realize that the Bearskin rug should be in the room not on the balcony. Should have thought about that more.
 
2014-03-21 12:46:54 PM

dv-ous: Remember when Huffington Post won a Pullitzer?


I'd settle for remembering when the site didn't cause my phone's browser to crash repeatedly.
 
2014-03-21 12:48:21 PM
I do most of the things on the list but I don't consider myself intuitive so much as analytical.
 
2014-03-21 12:48:57 PM

jdjoker: dv-ous: Remember when Huffington Post won a Pullitzer?

I'd settle for remembering when the site didn't cause my phone's browser to crash repeatedly.


You mean back before smart phones existed?
 
2014-03-21 12:51:39 PM

impaler: the result of research wasn't that people don't ever make rational decisions.


The research was based entirely on a brain-damaged sample. Do you think that sample might be biased in some way?

Haven't you ever made a decision you felt awful about, even though it was the right & rational thing to do?

/Every parent who out-stubborns a toddler, everyone who turns down that extra dessert, every jury who convicts someone that they like or pardons someone they don't like . . .
 
2014-03-21 12:53:37 PM

draypresct: Haven't you ever made a decision you felt awful about, even though it was the right & rational thing to do?


If you think the conclusion of that research is that what you said won't happen, you're too stupid to understand what it's saying.
 
2014-03-21 12:57:27 PM
Couldn't read past
"Steve Jobs called it, for instance, "more powerful than intellect." But however we put it into words, we all, well, intuitively know just what it is.  "

Circular BS.

Intuition is another word for common sense, which is built off past experience.  Depending on what you observed / learned, it may or may not give you correct guidance for future actions.
 
2014-03-21 12:59:20 PM
Not comment on posts with over 49 comments because then no one will see my genius?

You're right, I didn't have to rtfa
 
2014-03-21 12:59:49 PM

ikanreed: DerAppie: cgraves67: #11: They guess.

I prefer calling it "Extrapolating from incomplete datasets".

How the hell else does anyone extrapolate?  If you have a complete data set you don't need to extrapolate.


ikanreed: DerAppie: cgraves67: #11: They guess.

I prefer calling it "Extrapolating from incomplete datasets".

How the hell else does anyone extrapolate?  If you have a complete data set you don't need to extrapolate.


Extrapolating is inferring an unknown from the known.

If I have a complete dataset I can be completely certain about what happened in the past. That isn't extrapolating. If I want to say something about the future I need to look at the data I have and create scenarios of what might happen based on that data. That is extrapolating.

Assume there is a river delta that is prone to flooding. The most complete set of historical flood data, lets say it goes back 200 years, does not predict what is going to happen next year with 100% certainty. I can only extrapolate and create likely scenarios.
 
2014-03-21 01:12:11 PM

impaler: draypresct: Haven't you ever made a decision you felt awful about, even though it was the right & rational thing to do?

If you think the conclusion of that research is that what you said won't happen, you're too stupid to understand what it's saying.


Well, you've certainly convinced me, despite what the article actually said, so I guess decision-making isn't rational.
 
2014-03-21 01:39:14 PM
I hate these touch-feely articles that makes being intuitive sound all kubayah and magical. Intuitive people simply use experience as a guide. They are not necessarily more creative others. They just think and come to conclusions (wright or wrong) faster.
 
2014-03-21 02:30:33 PM
The article got something very wrong.
A gut feeling is instinct not intuition.  Instinct is an animal trait and is not hard to develop.
Intuition is simple enough to explain.  It is the spark which is needed for creativity.
The less simple part of intuition is closer to spirituality than science and is subjective.
 
2014-03-21 02:46:43 PM

DerAppie: ikanreed: DerAppie: cgraves67: #11: They guess.

I prefer calling it "Extrapolating from incomplete datasets".

How the hell else does anyone extrapolate?  If you have a complete data set you don't need to extrapolate.

ikanreed: DerAppie: cgraves67: #11: They guess.

I prefer calling it "Extrapolating from incomplete datasets".

How the hell else does anyone extrapolate?  If you have a complete data set you don't need to extrapolate.

Extrapolating is inferring an unknown from the known.

If I have a complete dataset I can be completely certain about what happened in the past. That isn't extrapolating. If I want to say something about the future I need to look at the data I have and create scenarios of what might happen based on that data. That is extrapolating.

Assume there is a river delta that is prone to flooding. The most complete set of historical flood data, lets say it goes back 200 years, does not predict what is going to happen next year with 100% certainty. I can only extrapolate and create likely scenarios.


If you don't have the future information, you can hardly call your dataset complete.
 
2014-03-21 03:05:26 PM

ikanreed: DerAppie: ikanreed: DerAppie: cgraves67: #11: They guess.

I prefer calling it "Extrapolating from incomplete datasets".

How the hell else does anyone extrapolate?  If you have a complete data set you don't need to extrapolate.

ikanreed: DerAppie: cgraves67: #11: They guess.

I prefer calling it "Extrapolating from incomplete datasets".

How the hell else does anyone extrapolate?  If you have a complete data set you don't need to extrapolate.

Extrapolating is inferring an unknown from the known.

If I have a complete dataset I can be completely certain about what happened in the past. That isn't extrapolating. If I want to say something about the future I need to look at the data I have and create scenarios of what might happen based on that data. That is extrapolating.

Assume there is a river delta that is prone to flooding. The most complete set of historical flood data, lets say it goes back 200 years, does not predict what is going to happen next year with 100% certainty. I can only extrapolate and create likely scenarios.

If you don't have the future information, you can hardly call your dataset complete.


...

...

...

Are we really going there?
 
2014-03-21 03:20:17 PM

Pitabred: Trayal: TFA does not give enough emphasis to the fallibility of the brain.  Blindly trusting intuition is dangerous - it is a good way to find the path to confirmation bias and closes the door to discovering the fallacies in one's conclusions.  In my experience, intuition (hunches, flashes of insight, etc.) can be useful, but only in providing a direction to explore; they can be wrong. Verify with the tools of reason, logic, and evidence.

"Trust but verify"?

I agree. What most people call "intuition" is really just them not being aware of the actual processing they're doing in a situation, and sometimes just making half-assed guesses, and not knowing the difference.


Both of these.

Based on the article, intuition results in "successful business man."  But it more often results in the Tea Party and purchasing 10k of commemorative gold coins.
 
2014-03-21 03:30:41 PM
Intuitive doesn't imply factual correctness. Plenty of people are intuitive morons.
 
2014-03-21 03:51:43 PM

DerAppie: Are we really going there?


Yes.  Seriously.  We are.  Since it was my point to begin with.
 
2014-03-21 04:07:21 PM

Pitabred: Trayal: TFA does not give enough emphasis to the fallibility of the brain.  Blindly trusting intuition is dangerous - it is a good way to find the path to confirmation bias and closes the door to discovering the fallacies in one's conclusions.  In my experience, intuition (hunches, flashes of insight, etc.) can be useful, but only in providing a direction to explore; they can be wrong. Verify with the tools of reason, logic, and evidence.

"Trust but verify"?

I agree. What most people call "intuition" is really just them not being aware of the actual processing they're doing in a situation, and sometimes just making half-assed guesses, and not knowing the difference.


The word 'intuition', in spoken English, refers to the quick processing of options that the person is unaware of, which the brain presents as a solution. Because the person is unaware of it, they call it 'intuition', 'psychic', or some other magic-related word. This is a typical phenomenon for humans. It is totally normal, and yes, most people can work on it, and yes, TFA's list is inane as hell.

/damnit TFA higher empathic accuracy is a  symptom not a  result; people with lower empathic accuracy have screwy intuition  because they can't read situations well
//yes I've been watching this subject for years and trying to figure out how it works. It's not incredibly mystical or complex, just unknown.
 
2014-03-21 04:15:05 PM

ikanreed: DerAppie: Are we really going there?

Yes.  Seriously.  We are.  Since it was my point to begin with.


You don't see how a complete dataset doesn't need to include any future data? Because it is impossible to collect data from the future? To keep the dataset complete it needs to be updated with new information as it comes available.

What you are talking about would be more like a omniscient dataset. If you are going to maintain that a dataset about the flooding of a river needs to contain all future floods as well to be "complete" I'm stopping the discussion here. What you are describing is akin to calling bullshiat on the collected works of Shakespeare at the halfway point of his career because he will write more books in his future.
 
2014-03-21 04:26:40 PM

DerAppie: ikanreed: DerAppie: Are we really going there?

Yes.  Seriously.  We are.  Since it was my point to begin with.

You don't see how a complete dataset doesn't need to include any future data? Because it is impossible to collect data from the future? To keep the dataset complete it needs to be updated with new information as it comes available.

What you are talking about would be more like a omniscient dataset. If you are going to maintain that a dataset about the flooding of a river needs to contain all future floods as well to be "complete" I'm stopping the discussion here. What you are describing is akin to calling bullshiat on the collected works of Shakespeare at the halfway point of his career because he will write more books in his future.


I'm saying you're prematurely calling it complete.
 
2014-03-21 04:38:20 PM

ikanreed: DerAppie: ikanreed: DerAppie: Are we really going there?

Yes.  Seriously.  We are.  Since it was my point to begin with.

You don't see how a complete dataset doesn't need to include any future data? Because it is impossible to collect data from the future? To keep the dataset complete it needs to be updated with new information as it comes available.

What you are talking about would be more like a omniscient dataset. If you are going to maintain that a dataset about the flooding of a river needs to contain all future floods as well to be "complete" I'm stopping the discussion here. What you are describing is akin to calling bullshiat on the collected works of Shakespeare at the halfway point of his career because he will write more books in his future.

I'm saying you're prematurely calling it complete.


"Complete" isn't the end of the line. It is "as far as we are now". Saying it isn't complete because it doesn't contain non-existing data is retarded.

/Last post in this line of discussion
 
2014-03-21 05:05:44 PM
I'm happy to see my first intuition has been completely validated here.
 
2014-03-21 05:12:25 PM

rev. dave: The article got something very wrong.
A gut feeling is instinct not intuition.  Instinct is an animal trait and is not hard to develop.
Intuition is simple enough to explain.  It is the spark which is needed for creativity.
The less simple part of intuition is closer to spirituality than science and is subjective.


I had no idea "gut feeling" had a scientific definition. Is it the same as a "vague feeling in the stomach", and how closely related are they to heart burn and vertigo?
 
2014-03-21 05:53:17 PM
This confirms my intuition that BuzzFeed had a sleeper cell at HuffPo.
 
2014-03-21 08:24:48 PM
#1 jump to conclusions
#2 refuse to appologize for punching my mom, because 'in their gut' the know she was an hired assassin
 
2014-03-21 09:22:31 PM
anyone who is an NT does this.
 
2014-03-21 09:42:00 PM

Machiavelli70: This confirms my intuition that BuzzFeed had a sleeper cell at HuffPo.


Sorry, I've done some research and found that BuzzFeed is actually a radical splinter cell from the main intellectual terror group at HuffPo.

/waiting for the Seals to find Arianna.
 
2014-03-21 10:06:53 PM

DerAppie: ikanreed: DerAppie: ikanreed: DerAppie: Are we really going there?

Yes.  Seriously.  We are.  Since it was my point to begin with.

You don't see how a complete dataset doesn't need to include any future data? Because it is impossible to collect data from the future? To keep the dataset complete it needs to be updated with new information as it comes available.

What you are talking about would be more like a omniscient dataset. If you are going to maintain that a dataset about the flooding of a river needs to contain all future floods as well to be "complete" I'm stopping the discussion here. What you are describing is akin to calling bullshiat on the collected works of Shakespeare at the halfway point of his career because he will write more books in his future.

I'm saying you're prematurely calling it complete.

"Complete" isn't the end of the line. It is "as far as we are now". Saying it isn't complete because it doesn't contain non-existing data is retarded.

/Last post in this line of discussion


Aw, c'mon. I was just about to go get some popcorn.
 
2014-03-22 01:39:27 AM
You humans are a curious lot.
 
Displayed 30 of 80 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report