Intuition is part of thinking, Terry.
BTS
I'd edit that remark this way: INTUITION IS THE RESULT of thinking.
What is your "INTUITION" about THE SECRET "law of attraction"?
by Terry 87 Replies latest social family
-
-
PSacramento
Terry,
Intuition is NOT trained as a motor reflex in the MA.
There are many esoteric sub-disciplines in the MA, "inutition" training is merely one of the more "mental" ones.
Tantic MA use symbolisim and "hypnotherapy" to incease MA skill.
Some Chinese systems use "drug induced visulaizations" and "black magic" if you will.
All have demonstrable results, as does "intuition" training.
And most are done AFTER the physical aspects have "peaked" in a given practioner.
Sort of the icing on the cake if you will.
What you described in regards to the piano player is what would be called "base skill" and intition traininh woudl start where that skill, be physical limitations, stops.
-
Terry
Animals have instinct, where did it come from?
That question is key to all the lip-service addressed to "intuition" as an "inner voice" you "just have" inside you.
Animals have genetically programmed instincts which bypass the necessity for the same kind of didactic learning humans must employ.
What vestigial or innate "instinct" man has seems paltry and scant. The fear of snakes and the fear of falling. Neither of these is actual
Knowledge as much as nervous reactions to situational elements.
I repeat, whatever aspect of INTUITION which comes from conscious programming of the mind is separate and distinct from the mystical attribution of universal internal guidance by mysterious "law".
-
Terry
Galt's Speech:
An instinct of self-preservation is precisely what man does not possess. An “instinct” is an unerring and automatic form of knowledge. A desire is not an instinct. A desire to live does not give you the knowledge required for living. And even man’s desire to live is not automatic . . . Your fear of death is not a love for life and will not give you the knowledge needed to keep it. Man must obtain his knowledge and choose his actions by a process of thinking, which nature will not force him to perform. Man has the power to act as his own destroyer—and that is the way he has acted through most of his history.
-
PSacramento
Is this about instinct or intuition?
Because intuition is NOT instinct, it SHOULD be the "link" between instinct and "rational" thought.
-
Terry
I don't want to bifurcate my own Topic on Intuition and The Secret....
But.....
This article on how GENIUS has been defined (or how it has been ill-defined) is a corollary to our discussion of INTUITION. Notice parallels.
IS GENIUS BORN or CAN IT BE LEARNED?
Is it possible to cultivate genius? Could we somehow structure our educational and social life to produce more Einsteins and Mozarts — or, more urgently these days, another Adam Smith or John Maynard Keynes?
How to produce genius is a very old question, one that has occupied philosophers since antiquity. In the modern era, Immanuel Kant and Darwin's cousin Francis Galton wrote extensively about how genius occurs. Last year, pop-sociologist Malcolm Gladwell addressed the subject in his book Outliers: The Story of Success.
The latest, and possibly most comprehensive, entry into this genre is Dean Keith Simonton's new book Genius 101: Creators, Leaders, and Prodigies (Springer Publishing Co., 227 pages). Simonton, a psychology professor at the University of California, Davis, is one of the world's leading authorities on the intellectually eminent, whom he has studied since his Harvard grad-school days in the 1970s. (See pictures of Albert Einstein.)
For most of its history, the debate over what leads to genius has been dominated by a bitter, binary argument: is it nature or is it nurture — is genius genetically inherited, or are geniuses the products of stimulating and supportive homes? Simonton takes the reasonable position that geniuses are the result of both good genes and good surroundings. His middle-of-the-road stance sets him apart from more ideological proponents like Galton (the founder of eugenics) as well as revisionists like Gladwell who argue that dedication and practice, as opposed to raw intelligence, are the most crucial determinants of success.
Too often, writers don't nail down exactly what they mean by genius. Simonton tries, with this thorough, slightly ponderous, definition: Geniuses are those who "have the intelligence, enthusiasm, and endurance to acquire the needed expertise in a broadly valued domain of achievement" and who then make contributions to that field that are considered by peers to be both "original and highly exemplary." (Read TIME's 2007 cover story, "Are We Failing Our Geniuses?")
Fine, now how do you determine whether artistic or scientific creations are original and exemplary? One method Simonton and others use is to add up the number of times an individual's publications are cited in professional literature — or, say, the number of times a composer's work is performed and recorded. Other investigators count encyclopedia references instead. Such methods may not be terribly sophisticated, but the answer they yield is at least a hard quantity.
Still, there's an echo-chamber quality to this technique: genius is what we all say it is. Is there a more objective method? There are IQ tests, of course, but not all IQ tests are the same, which leads to picking a minimum IQ and calling it genius-level. Also, estimates of the IQs of dead geniuses tend to be fun, but they are based on biographical information that can be highly uneven. (Read TIME's 1999 cover story about the "I.Q. Gene.")
So Simonton falls back on his "intelligence, enthusiasm, and endurance" formulation. But what about accidental discoveries? Simonton mentions the case of biologist Alexander Fleming, who, in 1928, "noticed quite by chance that a culture of Staphylococcus had been contaminated by a blue-green mold. Around the mold was a halo." Bingo: penicillin. But what if you had been in Fleming's lab that day and noticed the halo first? Would you be the genius?
Recently, the endurance and hard work part of the achievement equation has gotten a lot of attention, and the role of raw talent and intelligence has faded a bit. The main reason for this shift in emphasis is the work of Anders Ericsson, a friendly rival of Simonton's who teaches psychology at Florida State University. Gladwell featured Ericsson's work prominently in Outliers. (See the top 10 non-fiction books of 2008.)
Ericsson has become famous for the 10-year rule: the notion that it takes at least 10 years (or 10,000 hours) of dedicated practice for people to master most complex endeavors. Ericsson didn't invent the 10-year rule (it was suggested as early as 1899), but he has conducted many studies confirming it. Gladwell is a believer. "Practice isn't the thing you do once you're good," he writes. "It's the thing you do that makes you good."
Simonton rather dismissively calls this the "drudge theory." He thinks the real story is more complicated: deliberate practice, he says, is a necessary but not sufficient condition for creating genius. For one thing, you need to be smart enough for practice to teach you something. In a 2002 study, Simonton showed that the average IQ of 64 eminent scientists was around 150, fully 50 points higher than the average IQ for the general population. And most of the variation in IQs (about 80%, according to Simonton) is explained by genetics. (See pictures of Bobby Fischer, chess prodigy.)
Personality traits also matter. Simonton writes that geniuses tend to be "open to experience, introverted, hostile, driven, and ambitious." These traits too are inherited — but only partly. They're also shaped by environment.
So what does this mean for people who want to encourage genius? Gladwell concludes his book by saying the 10,000-hour rule shows that kids just need a chance to show how hard they can work; we need "a society that provides opportunities for all," he says. Well, sure. But he dismisses the idea that kids need higher IQs to achieve success, and that's just wishful thinking. As I argued here, we need to do more to recognize and not alienate high-IQ kids. Too often, principals hold them back with age-mates rather than letting them skip grades.
Still, genius can be very hard to discern, and not just among the young. Simonton tells the story of a woman who was able to get fewer than a dozen of her poems published during her brief life. Her hard work availed her little — but the raw power of her imagery and metaphor lives on. Her name? Emily Dickinson.
Read more: http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1879593,00.html#ixzz0mK06clfv
-
PSacramento
IS GENIUS BORN or CAN IT BE LEARNED?
Why must it be one or the other?
Why not both?
-
Terry
IS GENIUS BORN or CAN IT BE LEARNED?
Why must it be one or the other?
Why not both?
You mean a chess "Genius" who loses games until he studies more?
Just how would that work?
-
PSacramento
No, I mean a Chess genius that gets even BETTER because he studies more.
Can a genius be born? Yes, can one become one thorugh hard work and study? yes.
Can a born genius be better with more learning? Yes.
Why must it be either / or ?
-
THE GLADIATOR
Terry - 'My first comment on this thread was, ' Intuition has been tarnished by its association with mysticism, a belief that we can tune into some invisible force and attain unearned knowledge. I separate mystical intuition from intuition that comes from our own store of information, or experience.'
Reading through the posts here I don't think other people, on the whole, are confused by the term 'intuition.' They understand that it is sometimes attached to mysticism and sometimes refers to the action of the mind as a whole, free from mystisism.
You seem dislike the word 'intuition' because it can be misunderstood. You like things to be black or white. You are on a mission to eliminate mystical thinking and do this with great success. But although 'intuition' can be an ambiguous word, as can many words, it is is a perfectly good word. There is no reason to throw the baby out with the bath-water.