Are you more rational or intuitive?

[BenjaminBrown]

Are you more rational or intuitive? I'm more rational, but I'm trying to be more intuitive. I believe when you are more intuitive, you are more happy, because your choices are based on what feels good for you. How about you? And what do you prefer? and why do you prefer it?

[Karloky]

Well actually I would say that I am more rational. If you aim on what I think you do. Well I heard that some people say that they don't think about what they are doing or idk but they actually just do something without thinking over it too much etc. But it seems that those kind of people are more happy. But I actually think over every act of mine and also how it would affect others and so on.... so I think it's actually a big burden to always think about what will be if this or what would be if that etc. Some people actualy more do things by intuition and they don't think too much about what will happen or what they do. Well I think it's in some hand better to be more intuitive in this sense. I wish I would be more intuitive without so much burden of thinking over all my acts.

[BenjaminBrown]

So I think it's actually a big burden to always think about what will be if this or what would be if that etc. Some people actualy more do things by intuition and they don't think too much about what will happen or what they do. Well I think it's in some hand better to be more intuitive in this sense. I wish I would be more intuitive without so much burden of thinking over all my acts. I totally agree with you. I notice that is was a big burden for me to. I went on a course mindfulness. This was the solution of all my problems. I'm not exaggerating. I was thinking to much.

[Alric]

I think it is far better to be rational. I also think you would be more happy if you are rational. If you consider what makes you happy then take rational steps you achieve that happiness, you are more like to be in positions of happiness, rather than just guessing at what makes you happy. Being intuitive doesn't put you more in connection with your feelings, it just makes you more impulsive and shortsighted. Something might feel better in the extreme short term, but there is no reason to believe that a short term moment of happiness is at all beneficial to the long term. In fact you can do a lot of stupid things on impulse because it seemed fun and then seriously regret it later.

[Karloky]

I think it is far better to be rational. I also think you would be more happy if you are rational. If you consider what makes you happy then take rational steps you achieve that happiness, you are more like to be in positions of happiness, rather than just guessing at what makes you happy. Being intuitive doesn't put you more in connection with your feelings, it just makes you more impulsive and shortsighted. Something might feel better in the extreme short term, but there is no reason to believe that a short term moment of happiness is at all beneficial to the long term. In fact you can do a lot of stupid things on impulse because it seemed fun and then seriously regret it later. I don't agree... I am very rational I always think over my acts and what I do and actually I am not that happy ..... yet my friend who never thinks a lot over her acts or never thinks a lot about what makes her happy is about million times more happy than me :/

[JoannaB]

I would say that I am more intuitive, and yet I tend to overanalyze things. Being intuitive does not necessarily mean being impulsive. I just consider rational thinking to be one of several inputs that I use in analysis, however after over analyzing something I may decide to go with my intuition and not necessarily with my logic because I believe that logic and rational thinking are at times flawed. Of course, my intuition may also be wrong, but sometimes I trust it more than logic.

[Astaroth]

I'm not really sure, but I think I'm more rational. I think about everything over and over, my life would be better if I didn't think that much.

[BenjaminBrown]

If you consider what makes you happy then take rational steps you achieve that happiness, you are more like to be in positions of happiness, rather than just guessing at what makes you happy. I agree with you that you've to think about how to achieve things you like. But being intuitive doesn't mean you are guessing what makes you happy. It can for example help some people to make easier choices by feeling what makes them happy. And of course does intuitive put you more in connection with you feelings. It's all about your feelings. Don't confuse intuitive with impulsive. No one is 100% intuitive or 100% rational.

[snoop]

Are you more rational or intuitive? I'm more rational, but I'm trying to be more intuitive. I believe when you are more intuitive, you are more happy, because your choices are based on what feels good for you. This is true, but unfortunately sacrificing reason and logical thinking isn't something I can just do without the help of drugs. I don't want to sacrifice it nor am I capable. Yes, it means most of the time I live my life like some miserable prick but I'd rather think critically and logically then make all of my decisions based on feelings. Sometimes I use intuition, I don't completely ignore it--I realize it can be invaluable at certain times, but even then intuition can still be overcome with higher thinking is long as you think critically enough. That's the real deal breaker for me. With rational and logical reasoning you can do anything you could with intuition, and then some. It just makes more sense. I guess you could say I take a pretty pragmatic view of all this.

[JoannaB]

Ah whereas in my opinion rational thinking and logical reasoning can only tak one so far, but relying on them too heavily or even exclusively would be too limiting. I am not willing to sacrifice reason and logic, but I am not willing to limit myself to them because I believe that there is so much that reason and logic cannot adequately explore. Don't get me wrong I value reason and logic and could not live without them, and in situations when they are useful I will use them. But I am uncomfortable putting all my trust in reason and logic.

[tropicalbreeze]

i lean more towards intuitive. though a balancing between both is needed. if anything i wish people would put more thought in what they do or say, lately i've noticed people reacting more emotionally, letting their emotions get the best of them.

[Arra]

I don't agree... I am very rational I always think over my acts and what I do and actually I am not that happy ..... yet my friend who never thinks a lot over her acts or never thinks a lot about what makes her happy is about million times more happy than me :/ Okay, so look at it this way: you're using your sense of reason (along with your desire to be happy) to conclude you shouldn't over-analyze things. You're reasoning out that since you want to be happy, and you've realized that over-thinking things makes you unhappy, you should stop over-thinking things so much. If you weren't 'over-thinking' at all then you wouldn't have even come to this realization. As others have said, reason and intuition aren't contradictory at all. Many people don't seem to realize that emotion and other forms of desire are at the core of everything we do. If we didn't have those things, we'd have no reason to act at all. We'd have no reason to think rationally to decide which actions to perform. Intuition works for some obvious things. We don't think logically about how we're going to put the next foot down while walking, yet our intuition takes control, and that works out because our bodies are good at getting around without conscious thought. Even for bigger things, you may feel that something is 'wrong' yet you aren't sure what it is exactly, and so you act on that. In some cases, that may work. You may have subconsciously recognized that something was wrong, and the best thing to do would be to act on it, even if you aren't consciously sure why. But for larger-scale things, the problem arises when people think they're experiencing 'intuition' or a 'gut feeling' or whatever, while really they aren't. Like if you have a feeling that you'll win the lottery, that is probably bullshit. A good way to distinguish real and fake intuition might be to use reason. To ask yourself whether there's any way you could know this, even subconsciously. Like if you have a feeling your marriage proposal will be turned down, that might actually be because you've known the person for a long time and know 'on some level' that they don't want to marry you. But if you have a feeling you'll die in a plane crash during your trip next month... how could you possibly know that? That kind of intuition is false, more just your mind playing tricks on you. I think that reason should definitely be used, we should think deeply when necessary to help us make decisions. Deciding to try to be simple-minded isn't the solution to the misery which can result from over-analyzing things. If we feel the need to think deeply about something in the first place, then chances are there's some problem which we're trying desperately to solve, but haven't been able to yet. Ceasing to think deeply and essentially ignoring the problem can't possibly solve the issue, unless you were just exaggerating the problem's importance, or getting so overwhelmed with the details you weren't able to see a simple solution, or something. But those are problems with the way you're thinking, flaws in your sense of reason, not problems that result from how much you think. People who don't think a lot are lucky in a way, I guess, since they wouldn't have as many problems. But people who think about less are likely also more stupid, less concerned with figuring out the truth. And I'd never want to be like that as I value truth over happiness, for some reason I've tried to figure out for years and am still not sure about.

[Spenner]

I think it's just rooted in someone's general pessimism, some people just cling to those possibilities that certain things must not be true, or vice versa, to give themselves the shittier end of the stick. It could be self image, or anything, that leads them to think that such a view is the most valid and likely scenario. People who don't think so much and aren't as mindful perhaps have more "fun" because their actions feel more driven by something, whereas taking the time to digest an idea and thoughts about an action leaves time for you to find out all the bad. About rational vs intuitive... I try to balance both. I use my intuition only when I feel confident that i can trust myself, when there's an inner glow of positivity that I feel, because I know that my intuition is more rational when I am in a good mood, and calm. My rationality alarm goes off if I take things too far, I think I have things finely tuned enough that I can let myself sort of leech out with intuitive impulses to a certain point. That way, I feel I am not really restricting myself, and talking myself out of things that shouldn't necessarily be talked out of. Say I'm at the edge of a cold pool. My intuition wants to swim and have fun with everyone else in the pool, but my rationality knows that cold is going to feel painful for a moment, or two or five. In this case I know my intuition has brought me this far, and I choose to commit with what's driven me to the edge in the first place, and jump in. I guess I try to do that with myself a lot. A lot of times I feel like I just "know" and don't need to sit and think about it much. Probably recurring instances of the same kind of decisions, where I've rationalized them before, and concluded things like "Yes, pool water is cold, but then you can swim. The cold goes away.", which is something that just pops in automatically in those kinds of situations now. I think after awhile I've sort of built up an arsenal of those things which have been rationalized at one time, and take a lot less time for me to decide through thereafter. I also, when I don't want to do something, think about how I'd feel a day or two down the road knowing I'd missed out, and sometimes that drives me to go "fuck it" and just go for something.

[BenjaminBrown]

Okay, so look at it this way: you're using your sense of reason (along with your desire to be happy) to conclude you shouldn't over-analyze things. You're reasoning out that since you want to be happy, and you've realized that over-thinking things makes you unhappy, you should stop over-thinking things so much. If you weren't 'over-thinking' at all then you wouldn't have even come to this realization. It's easy to say, stop over-thinking so much. It's a habit what some did their whole life. I think that reason should definitely be used, we should think deeply when necessary to help us make decisions. Deciding to try to be simple-minded isn't the solution to the misery which can result from over-analyzing things. If we feel the need to think deeply about something in the first place, then chances are there's some problem which we're trying desperately to solve, but haven't been able to yet. Ceasing to think deeply and essentially ignoring the problem can't possibly solve the issue, unless you were just exaggerating the problem's importance, or getting so overwhelmed with the details you weren't able to see a simple solution, or something. But those are problems with the way you're thinking, flaws in your sense of reason, not problems that result from how much you think. I agree with you that we need our reasoning. It's so useful and indispensable. But some people do have a negative and uncertain reasoning. For example, you want to do a wedding proposal. You get a lot of negative thoughts like: She will turn me off, Why should she marry me? etc. You won't do the proposal, because you believe the thoughts. And you end up with bad feelings and the thoughts will go on: I'm such a loser, I don't have the guts to ask her. You didn't try it at all. Of course you have to use your reasoning, because the girl can have already a relationship or you know her just for 6 minutes. People who don't think a lot are lucky in a way, I guess, since they wouldn't have as many problems. But people who think about less are likely also more stupid, less concerned with figuring out the truth. And I'd never want to be like that as I value truth over happiness, for some reason I've tried to figure out for years and am still not sure about. To much thinking consumes a lot of valuable energy. I don't believe people who think less are more stupid. Keeping it simple and spending your energy on things you like is essential. Some people don't even taste their food during dinner, because their still thinking about work. A lot of people ignore their feelings unconscious too. Their only in their head busy with the past, future or what other people maybe think about them, which I think is a bad habit. Using your reasoning is indispensable. But you have to filter the negative thoughts and "life in the moment" for optimal use of it. I want to balance those two and let it work together.

[Linkzelda]

Okay, so look at it this way: you're using your sense of reason (along with your desire to be happy) to conclude you shouldn't over-analyze things. You're reasoning out that since you want to be happy, and you've realized that over-thinking things makes you unhappy, you should stop over-thinking things so much. If you weren't 'over-thinking' at all then you wouldn't have even come to this realization. ...As others have said, reason and intuition aren't contradictory at all. Many people don't seem to realize that emotion and other forms of desire are at the core of everything we do. If we didn't have those things, we'd have no reason to act at all. We'd have no reason to think rationally to decide which actions to perform. Intuition works for some obvious things. That's because you're using a behaviorist argument that emotions and other forms of desire are the core of how we produce meaning in our existence, and using that as the only means of existential reasoning, especially with terms like self-actualization and such is just having narrow-scoped thinking behind what would fuel sentient beings such as us to use sapience to make judgment and analysis of the stimuli that occurs (external and internal). Behaviors, emotions, and desire definitely are a part of the core, but not all of it. Especially since desire automatically implies the word “want,” it becomes a question between wants vs. needs. We don't think logically about how we're going to put the next foot down while walking, yet our intuition takes control, and that works out because our bodies are good at getting around without conscious thought. Intuition is simply us being able to understand something immediately without having to go through a cognitive processing consciously. That is completely different from “unconscious processes” as a whole that occur with involuntary movements and/or things we don't have to take control of consciously. We don't necessarily have to have competence or awareness in understanding certain unconscious processes (biological, psychologically, etc.), which would be conscious competence of unconscious competence, so the terminology you're using here is inconsistent. At best, you're referring to unconscious competence, intuition is just a part of that, but not the other way around. Unless you had a hidden premise to this, they're unconscious processes, not intuition. Intuition obviously would be brought about based on experiential totality and pre-existent concepts, beliefs, etc. that the unconscious mind stores, but intuition is just a part of that, not the whole mode of how the brain operates both consciously and unconsciously. Even for bigger things, you may feel that something is 'wrong' yet you aren't sure what it is exactly, and so you act on that. In some cases, that may work. You may have subconsciously recognized that something was wrong, and the best thing to do would be to act on it, even if you aren't consciously sure why. But for larger-scale things, the problem arises when people think they're experiencing 'intuition' or a 'gut feeling' or whatever, while really they aren't. Like if you have a feeling that you'll win the lottery, that is probably bullshit. That's a question on internal and external locus of control, and for larger-scale events, that may be the individual engaging in apophenia and trying to gather meaning from things conjured up from their mind that may not necessarily have any meaning or usefulness with “gut feeling” or “intuition.” A good way to distinguish real and fake intuition might be to use reason. To ask yourself whether there's any way you could know this, even subconsciously. Like if you have a feeling your marriage proposal will be turned down, that might actually be because you've known the person for a long time and know 'on some level' that they don't want to marry you. But if you have a feeling you'll die in a plane crash during your trip next month... how could you possibly know that? That kind of intuition is false, more just your mind playing tricks on you. Pay attention to what intuition is defined as, it's something that comes immediately without the person going through a conscious cognitive processing of it (i.e. using reason). Again, unless you have certain criterion of what is true intuition and “fake” intuition, it's just unintelligible equivocation on your end. And one of many reason the person may have a feeling they would die in a plane crash is because of the predispositions that have been formed and molded from all sorts of things (i.e. terrorist attacks with aerial vehicles or just a phobia for heights or aerial vehicles). Your deduction that it's the mind is playing tricks on you is what people using common sense argument conclude into with how the Ego and other aspects of the mind works. The whole “Trickster mind” presumptions usually comes about when a person over-analyzes and realizes that they don't have enough competence to solve the dilemma of understanding themselves as a whole. This is why most will subscribe to intellectual quietude, it doesn't necessarily mean avoiding the confusion is a bad thing, it's just something that may be brought up again when the individual feels they can progressively improve from what they ended before. I think that reason should definitely be used, we should think deeply when necessary to help us make decisions. Deciding to try to be simple-minded isn't the solution to the misery which can result from over-analyzing things. If we feel the need to think deeply about something in the first place, then chances are there's some problem which we're trying desperately to solve, but haven't been able to yet. Ceasing to think deeply and essentially ignoring the problem can't possibly solve the issue, unless you were just exaggerating the problem's importance, or getting so overwhelmed with the details you weren't able to see a simple solution, or something. But those are problems with the way you're thinking, flaws in your sense of reason, not problems that result from how much you think. Although you have some valid points, there is a certain point where an individual will subscribe to quietude to avoid the confusion that comes with over-analyzing things like I've stated above. People who don't think a lot are lucky in a way, I guess, since they wouldn't have as many problems. But people who think about less are likely also more stupid, less concerned with figuring out the truth. And I'd never want to be like that as I value truth over happiness, for some reason I've tried to figure out for years and am still not sure about. People who are mostly complacent and avoid thinking a lot doesn't mean they won't have as many problems as people who are more intellectual, rational, and may over-think things. There's a difference between being intelligent enough to see your own shortcomings, faults, weaknesses, and problems vs. being less intelligible and not being able to become aware of them. An idiot can still have as many problems as an intelligent person, it's just that they're not aware of them, and with how the mind goes through creating coping mechanisms and uses all sorts of processes for the sake of survival, balance, and consistency, an incompetent person would be going through more problems of massaging their egos and avoiding the awareness of actual problems they have, which would just be blissful ignorance, and that's an example of a huge problem. _____ As for OP's question, being rational and intuitive honestly go in tandem with each other, and obviously most people's responses end up with achieving balance. Going towards one extreme instead of mixing around with both as much as you can would create the same problems one may deduce would happen if they were more “intuitive” or more “rational.” Being intuitive doesn't necessarily mean being complacent all the time and being prone to doing “stupid” or "irrational” things, it's just one of the many modes of thinking we use to contribute towards solving or coming up with ways to justify a problem. Being more intuitive means you're temporarily becoming more receptive towards unconscious (or sub-conscious thoughts for the New-Age hipsters) thoughts, and depending on your proficiency, that can help with solving many problems that would be hard to deduce from only through conscious means and rationalization. However, even with that, like I mentioned before, people become too intuitive that they become complacent to eventually shift towards being rational or conscious thinking to make decisions when they must be made. That's what would make people have regrets because they were too busy looking for answers through intuitive means and avoiding using experimentation and progressive improvement with hindsight and retrospect (two of many forms of rationalization). And when a person focuses more on using unconscious thoughts/suggestions/ideas/etc. as a precedent towards better rationalization, sometimes answers may not show up, and that's when the irritant quality of the Ego comes in. That's when the individual shifts towards quietude to avoid the confusion and tedious endeavor of being too intuitive and making rational decisions from that. But with being rational means making certain decisions and forms of thinking that would be suitable based on the situation that comes before them. However, if one gravitates towards the extreme of only using rationalizing (as in not being more intuitive through being receptive to unconscious thoughts as ways to solve problems), that can make one come up with deductions that they would regret and think are stupid. They're both needed, and although intuition may not be considered as a valid source compared to how one would make deductions on rationality, being more rational can be just as invalid or of less credibility if taken to the extreme to block open-mode of thinking. It's more of knowing how long and how quickly one can gather information from being more intuitive to make better deductions and rationalizing ways to solve or justify certain phenomenon and situations.

[SpaceCowboyDave]

I try to think rationally, but live my life intuitively.

[Zhaylin]

I'm an over-thinker. I tend to lead with intuition. Because of my up-bringing, I'm an excellent judge of character. I pick up on micro-expressions without realizing it. But then the over-thinking comes into play. I minimize and/or make excuses for the things (in others) that I don't like or trust. All in all, I think I have a good balance. I'm impartial. Intuition leads me in one direction but then I rationalize (and over-rationalize lol) the circumstances and arrive at a sound conclusion. But I think it may also be one of the reasons I'm not truly close with anyone. I very rarely pick sides. I've never had anyone call me out on it, but I feel disloyal. At the same time, I'm overly empathetic and can feel the emotions other people project. It overwhelms me. Logic and intuition come into play with more than human interactions, but it's what I connect the two with the most.

[Linkzelda]

I'm an over-thinker. I tend to lead with intuition. Because of my up-bringing, I'm an excellent judge of character. I pick up on micro-expressions without realizing it. But then the over-thinking comes into play. I minimize and/or make excuses for the things (in others) that I don't like or trust. All in all, I think I have a good balance. I'm impartial. Intuition leads me in one direction but then I rationalize (and over-rationalize lol) the circumstances and arrive at a sound conclusion. But I think it may also be one of the reasons I'm not truly close with anyone. I very rarely pick sides. I've never had anyone call me out on it, but I feel disloyal. At the same time, I'm overly empathetic and can feel the emotions other people project. It overwhelms me. Logic and intuition come into play with more than human interactions, but it's what I connect the two with the most. Yeah, honestly, you definitely have higher levels of empathy than most members on this forum. It always seems someone in extended discussion or any thread for that matter go for confirmation bias and only conform to people who have beliefs in relation to theirs. They grovel and have gripes over anyone that has a dissenting opinion that challenges theirs, and they only resort to things like questioning the person's tonality, the equivocation of their words, and any tactic that distracts them from answering the question or response that challenges their own. You on the other hand, even though I don't see you as much on this section of the forum, you do achieve some kind of balance, and rarely pick sides. You're your own woman, and you don't feel the need to pick others that will do nothing but circle around in agreement with you. And because you feel you're probably disloyal, I don't think it's like that, it's not like you're apathetic towards other people's emotions, you just acknowledge them without lending too much attachment towards them; and with so many people to consider, at some point you can only choose a few people and have peace of mind in your own solitude. You try to see them for who they really are, to see why they may express themselves in a certain way instead of having a steadfast inherent bias of them (which is something I'm still trying to learn how to deal with). When any person gets to that level where they can unconditionally appreciate or love another member here or any other person despite of their differences (as in love for being civil towards another person of course) , when they can be confident of who they are and what they believe, I feel that's a more rational person that's proficient with the level of empathy they can develop with it. Sorry, didn't mean to give that confession, but with the format of this thread, I think it still fits on-topic. Empathy and/or intuition as forms of expression is underrated sadly, and becomes an endangerment in a nihilistic internet that may mock anyone with the slightest expression of it.

[Zhaylin]

Thank you for your very kind words, Link. "it's not like you're apathetic towards other people's emotions, you just acknowledge them without lending too much attachment towards them; and with so many people to consider, at some point you can only choose a few people and have peace of mind in your own solitude. You try to see them for who they really are, to see why they may express themselves in a certain way instead of having a steadfast inherent bias of them" That makes a LOT of sense I can rarely take in a persons actions without considering motive. But because I'm hesitant or unable to 'lend too much attachment toward' people, I fear they see that as apathy which makes me feel disloyal. I've always led a sort of sheltered life. How do intuition versus ration come into play in other areas? Like with jobs? My step-son amazes me. He's a "mover and shaker". In college, he and some friends started an internet company which was bought up by a bigger company, which in turn was bought by an even bigger one (Verizon, I think). He's just a few years younger than me and he's independently wealthy. He'll leave bigger companies for start-ups and always succeeds. He knows just when to leave, even when leaving makes absolutely no sense rationally. He lives in California now, and I've never really had an opportunity to get to know him. In business, though, he seems to live by intuition.

[StonedApe]

Both. Being rational makes you more intuitive, being intuitive makes you more rational. But sometimes you gotta be irrational too. Sometimes you need to use reason to prevent yourself from making errors in intuitive leaps. It's tempting to take intuitions about a situation and jump to conclusions about other situations or more often all situations, absolute truths and the like. But on the other hand when you're being too rational the only solution is more rationality, haha. Just different kinds of it. Maybe a simpler kind, but still more thinking. If you have made up a big ole problem in your head ignoring it and following your intuition doesn't really solve it. Overthinking something is not a rational thing to do, I think that's the source of this dichotomy.

[RebarGold]

Ignorance is bliss. I think people who tend to be more rational, frankly, know more. They try to figure everything out, put all the pieces together and gather as much information as possible to make the best possible decision. While this isn't bad in any sense of the word, it does put stress on a person and that might degrade their "happiness." I think excessive brute rational behavior is very dull indeed and turns one's life into a dull mathematical equation without any care for emotions or feelings. Which is wrong. A person wants to do something because they have connected it in their mind and they have decided that would make them happy. Which is...Rational? I'm extremely rational, to the point where most people would just turn into a super-computer spitting meaningless facts. However, I find intuition is very important and I incorporate it into my rational being. Does that make sense? Intuition is kind of rational in its own sense, people just can't often connect the dots. THIS BE SO HARD TO EXPLAIN! It's sort of like lucid dreaming: Intuition is the subconscious and rationality is the conscious being. Sometimes intuition is necessary to connect dots that pure rationalism cannot see. But that makes it rational.

[AnotherDreamer]

I love where you're going with this, RebarGold, as confusing as it may be I think this one quote from this Bob Samples guy is relevant here: "Albert Einstein once spoke of intuition as a sacred gift and likened rationality to a faithful servant. Our basic purpose was to shift the tendency to worship the servant and ignore the sacred." -Bob Samples, exert from “Mind Cycles and Learning” edit: I found the article and I thought, why not link it http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.230...21103202324383