Intuition?

[3rdEye]

In Windows, go to Start>>>Programs>>>Accessories&g t;>>System Tools>>>Character Map. There you can find all the inflected letters, etc.

[NaobisDad]

I think you are right when you say implicit learning of many different facets of the game influences play. However, I do think a distinction should be made between unconscious and intuitive. In this case I get the feel that both are used as synonims.
I think even unconscious perception and learning rely on logical systems (on a functional level, but probably also on a neurophysiological level). And by this I mean that even though they do not rely on explicit rational thought, they do rely on rational processes.
Intuition I like to define as something that is not dependent of a rational process (such as playing T5o because you feel you're going to flop a monster).
I think these should be distinguished. Also, note that feeling you're going to flop a monster is something different from playing trash because you feel you're going t o be able to outplay your opponent.

I think in this definition you will agree that very little plays are made on intuition. Rather they are made on implicit knowledge (borowing from your research) or something I dubbed parallel play in a thread that was too boring for anyone to read.



I think this distinction is important because confusion about this sort of thing might cause players to make plays they shouldn't, thinking that their intuition is justified because it would rely on rational processes, where in actuality it doens't. Not that I think that most players are incapable of telling the difference, but I do imply that the difference is subtle and that it's easy to get confused.

[CrisBrown]

Hi NaobisDad,

[ QUOTE ]
I think even unconscious perception and learning rely on logical systems (on a functional level, but probably also on a neurophysiological level). And by this I mean that even though they do not rely on explicit rational thought, they do rely on rational processes.
Intuition I like to define as something that is not dependent of a rational process (such as playing T5o because you feel you're going to flop a monster).

[/ QUOTE ]

This reminds me of an old joke about Abraham Lincoln, who was asked how many legs a dog has, if the tail is called a leg. Lincoln replied: "Four, because you can call it whatever you want, but a tail is not a leg."

You're simply defining intuition to mean something bad, then saying "intuition is bad." I could as easily define logic as something bad -- say, heartless disregard for one's own and others' feelings -- and conclude that logic is a terrible thing. Of course, that's not the accepted definition of logic, but your definition of intuition isn't the accepted definition of intuition either.

Most of the research now supports the notion that intuition is the product of subconscious pattern-recognition and reasoning. What you're describing is not intuition as the term is commonly used, but whimsy.

Cris

[NaobisDad]

I do not suggest that I base my definition of intuition on common research and indeed I know too little about contemporary research in this field to do so, but it isn't completely out of the blue. Remove the labels if you will, and then reconsider my point.

Suppose we call one an rational intuitive play, in which you base your decision on unconscious factors. Like pattern recognition or subtle hints from the environment (such as signals from betting patterns, the way the night developed, the fact that you know the players' subtle tells, etc. which make you decide that you can make a play for the pot, or raise your AJ UTG).

And the other irrational intuitive play, in which decisions are based on arbitrary factors that have no predictive power (such as a feeling that you just know you're going to flop a set).

It might seem like nitpicking. But if you don't distinguish between the two, it is easy to get confused; because both rely on unconscious processes and generally will feel the same. And one is clearly not beneficial to your play, whereas the other is.

[Al Schoonmaker]

Cris,
You, Arthur Reber, David Sklansky, and some others have helped me to see that I was wrong about intuition. Some of the information came from posts on this and related threads, but you, Arthur, and David have also sent me private messages.
About three years ago I wrote a series of articles on Intuition vs Logic. In those articles and in other places I have contended that intuition could not be learned. You either had it or you didn't. Because of the information you and the others provided, I now accept that intuition can be learned. I'd prefer a neater, more visible process, but I can see now that this sort of learning can and does occur.
I don't like admitting my mistakes so publicly, but the primary purpose of these forums is learning, which often requires correcting mistakes.
Respectfully,
Al