What is the power of intuition — instant understanding of something without reasoning and analysis? Proponents of “intuitive control” believe that we should tune in to our hunches. When forming judgments about others, they say, we must “listen to the illogical arguments” of the right hemisphere of the brain. When hiring someone, firing them from their job, or investing capital, a person should listen to their inner voice. When we judge others, we need to follow the example of Luke Skywalker, the hero of the movie “Star Wars”: turn off our computer-controlled systems and rely on inner strength. Are intuitionists right in claiming that important information becomes available to us immediately and without conscious analysis? Or are the skeptics right when they say that intuition is “the conviction of one’s own rightness, regardless of whether we are right or wrong.” The results of the study of priming suggest that the subconscious mind can indeed be a “cognitive monster” that controls most of our actions. “A person’s daily life is determined primarily not by his conscious intentions and conscious choices, but by mental processes that are set in motion by the characteristic signs of the situation and act outside conscious awareness, not obeying conscious guidance” (Bargh & Chartrand, 1999). For example, after subconsciously perceiving an image of a puppy, subjects realize faster than after subconsciously perceiving an image of a cockroach that the word “beautiful” is good (Giner-Sorola et al., 1999). In everyday life, such priming happens all the time. When a red light turns on, we react to it and slow down before we consciously decide to do so. “In order to be able to do anything (for example, drive a car, go on dates, dance), it is necessary to separate the initiation of action from the inefficient (i.e. slow, consistent, and resource-consuming) work of consciousness; otherwise, inaction will inevitably prevail” (Macrae & Johnston, 1998).

“The heart has its own reasons, unknown to the mind.” These words belong to the philosopher and mathematician Blaise Pascal, who lived in the 17th century. Three centuries have passed, and scientists have proved him right. Our knowledge is not limited to what we know that we know: we know more. The study of human unconscious information processing confirms the limited access we have to what is going on in our minds (Bargh, 1994; Greenwald & Banaji, 1995). Our thinking is partly controlled (deliberate and conscious) and, to a much greater extent than most of us think, partly automatic (effortless and unconscious). Automatic thinking takes place not “on the screen”, but “behind the scenes”, “out of sight”, where the mind has no access. Remember what was said in chapter 2 about the duality of our attitudes, that sometimes they are implicit (automatic, habitual), and sometimes they are explicit (conscious, verbalized). Consider the following facts. — Schemas — patterns of consciousness — automatically, intuitively guide our perception and interpretation of our experience. Whether we hear someone talking about religious sects or sex depends not only on how clearly the word was pronounced, but also on how we automatically interpreted that sound. — Emotional reactions often occur almost instantly, and we don’t always have enough time for unhurried reflection. Before the cerebral cortex has any chance to interfere with what is happening, the neurons transmit visual or auditory information to the hypothalamus, which plays the role of the sensory dashboard of the brain, and further to its emotional control center (amygdala) (LeDoux, 1994, 1996). Such simple emotions as sympathy, antipathy or fear, as a rule, requires almost no analysis. Although our intuitive reactions sometimes ignore logic, they can still be adaptive. Our ancestors intuitively became alarmed when they heard a sound in the forest, and they were often unnecessarily frightened, but they had a better chance of surviving and passing on their genes to us than their more reasonable “cousins.” — With enough experience, people can solve a problem intuitively. Key information about the situation is stored in their memory. Without knowing exactly how we do it, we recognize a friend’s voice as soon as he says the first word on the phone. Experienced chess players intuitively recognize meaningful combinations that beginners pass by. — Some things — facts, names, and previous experiences — we remember explicitly (on a conscious level). But others — skills and conditioned dispositions — we remember implicitly, without having conscious knowledge and without declaring it. This is true for all people, but this phenomenon is most pronounced in people who have suffered a brain injury and have lost the ability to form new explicit memories. Having learned how to solve a puzzle or play golf, they will deny that they have ever done this before. However (to their own surprise) they act like trained people. — The cases of scotoma are no less dramatic.Scotomas are blind spots that occur in the visual field of people who have lost part of their visual cortex due to stroke or surgery. If the sticks shown to them fall precisely on these blind spots of the field of vision, they say they don’t see anything. When such subjects correctly answer the question, vertical or horizontal sticks were shown to them, they are surprised. We can only repeat what we have already said: these people also underestimate their knowledge. It seems that there are some “small brains” — structures that remain invisible and process information in parallel and invisibly. — Prosopagnosia is a disease that affects people who have suffered an injury to a part of the brain involved in processing information related to facial recognition. They realize that they are familiar people in front of them, but they are unable to recognize their spouses or children in them. Nevertheless, when such patients are shown photos of their loved ones, they do not remain indifferent, but “recognize them with their hearts”: a rapid heartbeat indicates an unconscious recognition. — In this regard, think about your own ability to intuitively recognize faces, which you take for granted. When you look at a photograph, your brain decomposes visual information into components such as color, depth, movement, and shape, and before putting them back together, it “works” on each of them separately. In the end, one way or another, your brain compares the perceived image with those images that have been stored in it since earlier times. There is! Instantly and effortlessly, you will recognize your grandmother. If intuition is the immediate knowledge of something without logical analysis, then perception is a high—class intuition. — Although subconscious stimuli lie below the threshold of conscious perception, they can still have an intriguing effect. When certain geometric shapes are presented to subjects for less than 0.01 seconds, they claim to have seen nothing but a flash of light. However, they will later demonstrate a preference for the shapes they have seen. Sometimes we intuitively feel something, but we can’t explain it. Similarly, the words that flashed by, which the subjects did not have time to read, can play the role of “seeds” when they later have to answer questions. Even if the word “bread” flashed by too quickly for it to be recognized, then it may be easier for us to recognize another word that flashed by if it is associated with it (for example, “butter”) than if it is not associated with it (for example, “bottle”). So, we can repeat that many routine cognitive processes occur automatically, intuitively, and unconsciously. Our consciousness functions like a large corporation. The CEO of this corporation, our controlled consciousness— deals only with the most important matters or innovations, entrusting the performance of routine duties to his subordinates. This allocation of resources allows us to respond quickly, efficiently, and intuitively to many situations.

Although researchers claim that subconscious information processing can lead to flashes of intuition, they still doubt its flawlessness. “Everyone agrees that the subconscious mind may not be as perfect as is commonly believed,” Elizabeth Loftus and Mark Klinger express their support for modern scientists studying cognitive processes. For example, although subconscious stimulation can lead to a weak, fleeting reaction sufficient to cause, if not awareness, then at least a feeling, there is no evidence that promotional video clips designed to affect the subconscious level can “reprogram your subconscious mind.” (There is now much new evidence that this cannot be done (Greenwald, 1992).) Social psychologists have explored our error-prone judgments based on hindsight (an intuitive feeling that arises after an event has occurred, which can be expressed in the words “I knew it!”). Experts working in other fields of psychological science have studied our capacity for illusions—erroneous perceptual interpretations, fantasies, and constructed beliefs. It is known that patients who have undergone surgery, as a result of which the hemispheres of the brain were divided, can instantly come up with explanations for their own incomprehensible actions and believe in these explanations (Gazzaniga, 1992). If the experimenter gives the patient’s non-verbal right hemisphere the command “Go!”, the patient will get up and take a few steps, and his verbal left hemisphere will immediately offer a plausible explanation (“I felt like I had a drink”). Illusory thinking is also mentioned in numerous recent publications about how we perceive, store, and recall social information. Just as perceptual researchers study visual illusions for the information about normal perceptual mechanisms that they can obtain, social psychologists study illusory thinking in order to extract the information about normal thinking that such research can provide. These researchers want to give us a map of everyday social thinking with clearly defined dangers. When we study some of these models of effective thinking, keep in mind the following: demonstrating how people create false beliefs does not prove that all beliefs are false. Nevertheless, it is useful to know where the fake comes from so that it can be recognized. So let’s look at how effective information processing can “go astray,” and start with self-discovery. Source: Myers D. “Social Psychology” Photo: hdnux.com