Since my last post for some time past, but that is about to change. I hope soon, again more Time for some items.
An interesting topic of neuroscience is that of the interplay between rational, "conscious" thinking and intuition.
How intuition works, I have already dealt with in an earlier article.
Link: human intuition
Which character is our logic can be said to be difficult. Whether they result from mechanisms of intuition, which might converge to absolute values, results and we are capable of mathematical modes of thought which are without doubt 100% accurate or whether there is really equivalent, a computer cerebral structure that is different than the Intuition is not my topic today.
To be on the no compromise, I deal with our rationality so simple as a (mathematical) logic, which we perceive as they usually without clear up exactly how it is created.
The language of rationality is mathematics. We can, based on certain conditions, analytic completely make further statements that follow from these conditions.
mathematics is objective. If we define certain axioms, it can be fixed correlations proved. They are never contradictory. The objections are legitimate
but then: Why do we
come often enough to incorrect results, even if we have concluded our knowledge, only logical?
When logic and mathematical mathematics is objective, it does not follow that we were thinking too objective when we left only apply logic in our minds?
exactly what we would do well, but not without reason that the previous sentence is in the subjunctive. Trying to think analytically completely abandoned due to the limited computing power of our brain.
While it is possible to at least 1000-fold speed work as current supercomputers, but even that is not enough.
Nothing is more difficult than the calculation of the reality. Even supercomputers have a hard time, the weather over several days in some measure accurately predict. They are now in a position several hundred trillion calculations to cope with per second.
Why is that, it is easy to understand a chess game. While we used a train far think you can look over what happens on the board still quite good. But even at two trains in the future planning produced a great many variations, as the figures could be positioned in the future. Meaning, once all the variants initially for the first train and then for each of those trains every opportunity to put another character.
The growth potential in game situations is thus exponentially. Suppose that there is in a chess game at every train an average of 20 variants to set irgenwohin any piece (under the rules), then for 2 trains would result already 20x20, so 400th
When a chess game going on a total of 50 trains, which would be about 20 ^ 50 (20 high-50) Possible Spielverlaeufe. Even a computer with the Rechenkapazitaet our brain, however, would be expected for longer than the universe is old!
And because the reality is more complex than a chess game, they can be much less vorrausberechnen.
weather simulations are therefore only rough model calculations that lead to correspondingly imprecise results. Many details are omitted so as not to unnecessarily consume much computing time. Depending on which to calculate the accuracy with which the values, only the parameters which may also be a reasonably large impact on this Have value.
is true that the human brain many powerful than today's computers, but by the exponential growth in complexity with linear increase of parameters is the reality our organ of thought quickly on the same problem as the weather simulator or a chess computer.
So we are also dependent on simplified calculations or simplified logical conclusions.
sets At this point, our intuition. Intuitive decisions are simplified as far as our information available to us, we are comfortable enough to "calculate" with these skills.
As noted in my article about explains the human intuition, this behaves according to a subconscious neural Representation of empirical data on the effects of reactions in the course of life and genes that have formed in the course of evolution.
Link: human intuition
Since intuitions are based solely on statistics does, its execution returns only on expectation values and are, strictly speaking, nothing more than Pavlovian behavior. The more complex a new situation, the less likely it is to have experienced also provides similar. This reduces the hit rate for purely intuitive behavior. If the dog rumstreunt on the streets and hear the church bell, he drools almost safe from nothing.
is an effective use of intuition, the fragmentation of situations. Various features of the current environment may have been already experienced in other contexts. The more influential each of these fragments found in the experience, the better. This increases the likelihood that the intuition is correct for a single fragment.
But what now brings this intuitive fragmentation?
come Now we return to logic. A fragment is for a temporary axiom that can now be used in a rational conclusion to guess the right response. Temporary is the axiom, because every experience influences the intuition.
A reaction I call right when they led a good as possible to the intended target.
Each fragment has a Weight corresponding to its relevance in the situation. Based on the fragments can cause the math, that objective result is expected by them, or "logical thinking". This does not result from a using the fragments formed causal chain, but can again arise from statistics. The reason would be Darfur, the individual fragments can be inadequate or only partially causally related and thus compete more fully conscious of their weight together so that there is a kind of democratic decision.
during straight contradictory intuitions of the fragments does this system contribute to. I expect that in almost every decision, both causal, also be used as a statistical method for analyzing the fragments.
lens is of course still not the whole thinking process, but only the rational part. The fragments for themselves are still products of intuition. The uncertainty factors are therefore again in the final result. In many cases, but this is still more advantageous than if his intuition completely abandoned the helm.
But that is not necessarily true. I once read about a study that should invest in experienced brokers and lay people in self-assembled funds. On average, the laymen were at the end of the study made a slightly better deal than the broker. This example illustrates how the supposedly wanted to use rational analysis, the brokers to their advantage, can pose more risks than the intuitive choice of the laity.
Compulsive rationalization of thought is therefore not very promising because it easily leads to logical errors.
Given the intuitive fragmentation is also easy to understand why it may be better, "after feeling" decisions. In situations where it is difficult to identify causal correlations between fragments of this situation, the probability instead miszuinterpretieren correlations be greater than the probability that a deceptive pure intuition.
