Logical Thinking And Productivity

Let us start with the conclusion:

There need be a balance between logical thinking and intuitive thinking, in order to achieve a regular and useful rate of productivity.

Now that it is out of our hair, let us talk a bit about the reasons behind this statement.

Random lady presents: Unintuitive Logic!

Logical thinking is a very powerful tool. It lets us deduce conclusion about situations that cannot be intuitively understood. Also, it lets us understand problems faster than we would otherwise, in constructed environments. Meaning, environments that are constructed by identifiable parts; not an urban lot.

Intuitive thinking lets us figure our way through situations, where we simply do not have enough information available to us, to calculate anything useful. Our intuition is an interesting mixture of memories and thoughts that combine, as to give us hints about life. These are sort of   red alerts  in our mind that announce anything that resembles our previews experiences, or any information that is coded into our DNA.

It is evident that sometimes we are reliant upon logic, for the benefit of predicting the results of interactions. It is less evident that we are reliant upon intuition, to act wisely. The latter is, due to intuition being so obvious that we simply do not notice it.

This is how I intuit modern culture.

Modern culture encourages us to think logically, rather than intuitively. This is a fallacy, which makes no sense in practice. Intuitive behavior is so prominent in us, that we are bound to choose intuition over logic in almost anything we do. Nobody actually thinks everything they do through, logically. We are not born that way, neither are we raised that way. Never the less, we do have the responsibility to choose between logic and intuition, whenever the occasion arises.

An easy to understand example, would be to assume intuitive thinking upon the construction of any modern instrument. Ten out of ten engineers would agree that, without proper study and application, this will fail miserably. It would not be practical, if not even dangerous to the practitioner.

A harder to understand example, in the case of assuming logical behavior on a person, would leave us wanting. Predicting what people do, when you interact with them, is not likely. While we do have interesting generalized statistics about certain conditions, in which people interact, we do not have anything so reliable that we would risk our lives upon its' predictability. Airplanes rely on engineering, for flight, and not on the mood or opinion of the captain.

People intuit emotions. Even angry babies do.