“The walls of rude minds are scrawled all over with facts, with thoughts. They shall one day bring a lantern and read the inscriptions.”
Right thinking, we are told, must be rigorous, logical. Our arguments must avoid at all costs any sentimentality, any emotion. To use an imprecise term, to skip a step, to generalize––all are frowned upon. But correct solutions are not always derived using an analytical method. There’s intuition, “that which is intuitive,” and there’s counterintuition, “that which is counterintuitive.”
Intuition. Something that’s intuitive feels right on its surface. An analogous term would be “to trust one’s instincts.” The trouble with intuition is that it works reflexively, as a reaction. Someone proposes a solution that’s never been attempted? Intuition immediately concludes: of course not––it’s impractical, we’ve never done it this way, it will never work.
Counterintuition. Something that’s counterintuitive feels odd, unsettling, slightly off-kilter. An analogous term would be “at odds with experience.” Working longer hours necessarily equates with a larger income? A counterintuitive thought would be to recognize the value of perspective, of working smart, of striking a balance between life and work.
Not every correct solution can be derived from a purely logical process. “If we consider what persons have stimulated and profited us, we shall perceive the superiority of t
he spontaneous or intuitive principle over the arithmetical or logical,” wrote Emerson. It’s probably true that many social problems exist simply because no one thought to ask––what if we tried an entirely different approach?
At times, less is more; the strongest argument, the least supported; the best approach, the most untraveled. Persuasion in court can often be achieved by understatement, by rhetorical question, by the art of gentle suggestion as opposed to toplofty exhortation. Thus, the time-honored courtroom advice to “show not tell.”
During jury trials a typical mistake is to present cumulative evidence: calling different witnesses who will say essentially the same thing. Intuition would suggest that’s the best approach. If nothing else, it insures that nothing will be missed. But a counterintuitive approach would be to ask: which witnesses are truly vital? How can each add something unique?
Judges and lawyers come to view intellect as a sharp knife with a serrated edge. Intuition and counterintuition are ignored and derided, considered to be soft and imprecise. “The world refuses to be analyzed by addition and subtraction.” Perhaps the best approach before arriving at a solution is to think about a problem both intuitively and counterintuitively––What makes the most sense? What makes the least sense? Once the best and least ideas are entertained, new insights can be gleaned, casting light from all angles. After all, not every commonsense idea represents the best approach––the commonplace can at times simply give rise to the common.
All quotations from Emerson, Intellect, Essays: First Series (1841)
