Sharp Brains: Brain Fitness and Cognitive Health News

Neuroplasticity, Brain Fitness and Cognitive Health News


Why Agile Minds Deploy Both Rational and Intuitive Problem-Solving

A rare aha moment in 2011 set me chas­ing new prob­lem-solv­ing research. The study Ratio­nal Ver­sus Intu­itive Prob­lem-Solv­ing: How Think­ing ‘Off the Beat­en Path’ Can Stim­u­late Cre­ativ­i­ty pub­lished in Psy­chol­o­gy of Aes­thet­ics, Cre­ativ­i­ty, and the Arts stung me out of a spot of intel­lec­tu­al arro­gance. From my per­spec­tive, John Dewey’s 19th cen­tu­ry step-wise for­mu­la­tion of the ratio­nal prob­lem-solv­ing process, and its lat­er adap­ta­tions, sup­plied the one and only, the best think­ing process on hand. Ratio­nal think­ing was king. Intu­itive think­ing was court jester. I was wrong.

The jour­nal research val­i­dat­ed the sig­nif­i­cance of an intu­itive style of prob­lem-solv­ing think­ing and pro­posed that indi­vid­u­als have a pref­er­ence for either the intu­itive or ratio­nal style. I def­i­nite­ly knew my pref­er­ence. How­ev­er, the “Off the Beat­en path” lab study found that using both styles in tan­dem pro­duces more cre­ative solu­tions than using either alone. I felt my brain bog­gle.

About the same time, Daniel Kahneman’s book, Think­ing, Fast and Slow, came out, focused on two ways of prob­lem-solv­ing think­ing labeled Sys­tem 1 and 2, rough­ly equiv­a­lent to intu­itive and ratio­nal. Each think­ing style has strengths and weak­ness­es; fac­tors that deter­mine the type of prob­lem best solved by each. For exam­ple, the fast, uncon­scious, intu­itive style might work to deter­mine what one word fits with the three words, park, vol­ley, and boy to make three new words. A slow, con­scious ratio­nal style might seem to work bet­ter to read an elec­tro­car­dio­gram.

Because of the dif­fer­ences and indi­vid­ual pref­er­ences for each style, com­pe­ti­tion reigns at times. When I spoke to a group of mid-life men and women about intu­itive ver­sus ratio­nal prob­lem-solv­ing, I dis­cov­ered that bias ran ram­pant. Those who pre­ferred the ratio­nal dis­missed the intu­itive style. “Far out there — some­where,” often accom­pa­nied with a slight eye roll. The intu­itive ones bare­ly held back ho-hum sighs ref­er­enc­ing the ratio­nal types. “Bor­ing, lim­it­ing, no fun.” Men in the group com­prised the major­i­ty of the ratio­nal prob­lem-solvers; women the major­i­ty of the intu­itive prob­lem-solvers, a find­ing reflect­ed in aca­d­e­m­ic research also.

Alvaro Fer­nan­dez, founder of, says that he has believed for years that the intu­ition ver­sus ratio­nal­i­ty debate is mis­guid­ed. “It is not about one or the oth­er: they each are valu­able tools that we must learn to use in the appro­pri­ate con­text.” Not­ing the intrin­sic rec­i­p­ro­cal  influ­ence between abstract think­ing and emo­tions, Fer­nan­dez says, “What Kah­ne­man’s work is real­ly about is the cog­ni­tive and per­cep­tu­al bias­es that pre­vent us from being ‘rational/ log­i­cal’ even when we think we are. In oth­er words, many peo­ple, much of the time, have the illu­sion of ratio­nal­i­ty when in truth they are being noth­ing of the sort, sim­ply fol­low­ing their bias­es, in an intu­itive way, and believ­ing they are being rational/ log­i­cal prob­lem-solvers of the sit­u­a­tion at hand.”

The final nail in my “ratio­nal prob­lem solv­ing is king” cof­fin arrived with The Agile Mind, by Wilma Kout­staal, Ph.D. Her con­clu­sions about prob­lem-solv­ing think­ing leap away from the start­ing line of intu­itive ver­sus ratio­nal. She demon­strates that high­ly effec­tive prob­lem solvers move rapid­ly and flex­i­bly from intu­itive to ratio­nal and back again and from spe­cif­ic to abstract think­ing — and back again — regard­less of what type of prob­lem is addressed. Kout­staal quotes a study show­ing that untrained under­grad­u­ate stu­dents who were instruct­ed to use both intu­ition and log­ic in read­ing elec­tro­car­dio­grams achieved lev­els of accu­ra­cy sim­i­lar to those of 2nd year med­ical res­i­dents. “Men­tal agili­ty is best pro­mot­ed by equal­ly valu­ing intu­ition and analy­sis — along with atten­tion to detail and the big pic­ture.” She sound­ly con­vinced this read­er that the col­lab­o­ra­tion of intu­itive and ratio­nal think­ing keys prob­lem-solv­ing suc­cess.

A nim­ble, ambidex­trous mind, deal­ing effec­tive­ly with think­ing, emo­tion, and action, might be a more envi­ous asset than a flex­i­ble body and per­haps hard­er to achieve. Because the ratio­nal style of prob­lem-solv­ing is con­scious, it can be learned in stan­dard ways. The intu­itive style how­ev­er is uncon­scious, reliant on stored mem­o­ries and loose neur­al con­nec­tions over time, thus requir­ing a more ran­dom and patient process for acqui­si­tion. Espe­cial­ly by ratio­nal thinkers like me. Oops. I’ve got lots of work to do at the brain gym.

To Learn More:

– Judith C. Tin­gley Ph.D. is a for­mer psy­chi­atric nurse, psy­chol­o­gist, author of 4 pub­lished books, and free-lance writer, cur­rently work­ing on a book on how to break the neg­a­tive self-talk habit. You can fol­low her via Twit­ter@drtingley

Leave a Reply...

Loading Facebook Comments ...

Leave a Reply

Categories: Cognitive Neuroscience, Education & Lifelong Learning

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , ,

Search in our archives

About SharpBrains

As seen in The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, BBC News, CNN, Reuters,  SharpBrains is an independent market research firm tracking how brain science can improve our health and our lives.

Follow us and Engage via…

RSS Feed

Watch All Recordings Now (40+ Speakers, 12+ Hours)