Capetonians march in solidarity with Palestinians in Sea Point. Picture: Ayanda Ndamane/Independent Newspapers
Whether we’re discussing the traumatic Israel-Gaza or Russia-Ukraine conflicts, troubling incidents in local politics, or demands at work, more often than not, people argue for their truth with unwavering conviction.
We take sides, debating the merits of decisions and actions taken by opposing parties. We seek data to support our interpretations of events and the solutions to the practical and fundamental questions that history poses to societies.
To truly understand the multitude of influences that shape an individual’s truth and engage in meaningful debates, we need to go beyond the limitations of conversations in corridors, lounges, or on social media.
In professional, private, and citizen contexts, people present their views as reasoned analyses, and the data they use to support their arguments is considered valid and sufficient.
The goal is to form our own perspectives and decisions that can stand up to rational scrutiny as representing the facts. However, claiming reason alone is not the full picture.
Our intuitive sense of what truly matters in our decision-making process completes the picture of how decisions are made and arguments are presented. This is often described as “gut” analysis.
In everyday life, intuition is often seen as something mystical, a way of anticipating what comes next and magically knowing the future – a mysterious sixth sense that only a select few possess. In a world that demands rationality, decisions based on intuition can be met with doubt or amazement.
However, intuitive decision-making is increasingly recognised as a legitimate method for individuals and organisations to formulate questions, make sense of complex problems, set priorities, and design solutions.
Intuition is a form of thinking that operates not entirely at the conscious level, especially when time is limited, and intricate complexities need to be considered.
When time is short, rational analysis gives way to intuitive thinking. Intuitive thinking differs from logical reasoning in that it doesn’t primarily seek to explain cause-and-effect relationships or focus on isolated factors. Instead, it takes a broader, holistic view and considers a multitude of factors.
While rational reasoning builds a case before presenting a conclusion, intuitive thinking often builds the case after arriving at an answer. Yet, intuition shares common traits with rationality – it is not a magical process but a result of accumulated knowledge over time.
Both rationality and intuition rely on patterns: one seeks patterns in formal data and analysis, while the other draws on patterns learnt through experience.
Both rationality and intuition are susceptible to the common threat of the “echo chamber” phenomenon – the tendency for people to gravitate toward familiar and like-minded views that reinforce their existing beliefs. To avoid this, both intuition and reason require a commitment to engaging with differing arguments.
Whether through reason or intuition, through argument or gut feeling, in a complex and ambiguous world, we need original thinking, solutions, and individuals who challenge established truths in ongoing conversation.
* Rudi Buys, NetEd Group Chief Academic Officer and Executive Dean, DaVinci Business Institute.
** The views expressed here are not necessarily those of Independent Media.
Do you have something on your mind; or want to comment on the big stories of the day? We would love to hear from you. Please send your letters to arglet@inl.co.za.
All letters to be considered for publication, must contain full names, addresses and contact details (not for publication)
Related Topics: