Skip to main content

How's Your Intuition? - A Survey

 A Survey on Your Problem-solving Intuition

Here are 20 Intuition-Oriented Self-Assessment Questions. Answer them with yes or no. (Please no maybe-type answers.) Below the survey is a rubric for scoring. The questions were not taken from any validated psychological test (such as the Cognitive Reflection Test, Insight Problem Solving scales, or dual-process theory inventories). They are meant as an informal self-assessment, and are not a research-backed measurement tool. They draw (very) loosely from general concepts in:

·       Insight problem solving (e.g., “Aha!” moments)

·       Dual-process theory (analytic vs. intuitive thinking)

·       Metacognition (judgments about one’s own thinking)

·       Creative cognition (fluency, flexibility, associative thinking)

You might note that your intuition is strongly related to what Kahneman calls fast thinking. (Kahneman, Daniel, 2011. Thinking, fast and slow. Farrar, Straus and Giroux.)

The Survey.

  1. You often get a strong hunch about how to approach a problem before analyzing it fully.
  2. You can usually sense when an idea won’t work even before you can explain why.
  3. You quickly notice patterns that others overlook.
  4. When faced with uncertainty, you’re comfortable making a decision with incomplete information.
  5. You frequently arrive at solutions suddenly, as an “aha!” feeling.
  6. You trust your initial impressions, and they usually turn out to be right.
  7. You make connections between seemingly unrelated ideas without effort.
  8. You can often tell which parts of a problem matter most right away.
  9. You prefer to visualize or imagine solutions rather than work through them step-by-step.
  10. You can sense when someone else’s reasoning has a hidden flaw, even before you pinpoint it.
  11. You often anticipate outcomes correctly before the data confirms it.
  12. You rely on gut feelings in problem-solving and they generally serve you well.
  13. You find it easy to generate multiple possible solutions quickly.
  14. You often think of unconventional approaches that others don’t consider.
  15. You can tell when you’re close to a solution, even if you can’t articulate why.
  1. You can quickly sense which information in a problem is irrelevant or distracting.
  2. You often recognize the general shape of a solution before working out the specifics.
  3. You instinctively look for simple explanations rather than complicated ones.
  4. You frequently spot shortcuts that reduce the effort needed to solve a problem.
  5. You can usually tell when you should abandon a current approach and try something different.

-----------------------------------

Here is a scoring rubric I constructed, but it is based only on my intuition.

17–20 points — Exceptional Intuitive Problem Solver - You have a very strong intuition for patterns, shortcuts, and promising solution paths. Your “sense” for problems is usually reliable, and you quickly identify what matters.

13–16 points — Strong Intuitive Problem Solver - You rely on intuition effectively.
You spot patterns quickly and often arrive at solutions without needing full analysis.

9–12 points — Balanced Intuition - You use intuition sometimes, but not consistently.
You benefit from a mix of gut feeling and structured reasoning.

5–8 points — Developing Intuition - You tend to rely more on step-by-step or analytical approaches than intuition. Your intuitive sense might need more practice or confidence-building.

0–4 points — Analytical Over Intuitive - You prefer clear rules, structure, and explicit logic.
Your intuition may feel unreliable to you, but this isn’t a weakness; it just means you excel through deliberate reasoning.

 

 

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Behavioral Science and Problem-Solving

I.                                       I.                 Introduction.                Concerning our general behavior, it’s high about time we all had some understanding of how we operate on ourselves, and it is just as important how we are operated on by others. This is the wheelhouse of behavioral sciences. It is a vast subject. It touches our lives constantly. It’s influence is pervasive and can be so subtle we never notice it. Behavioral sciences profoundly affect our ability and success at problem-solving, from the elementary level to highly complex wicked problems. This is discussed in Section IV. We begin with the basics of behavioral sciences, Section II, and then through the lens of multiple categories and examples, Section III. II.     ...

Principles of Insufficiency and Sufficiency

   The principles we use but don't know it.  1.      Introduction . Every field, scientific or otherwise, rests on foundational principles—think buoyancy, behavior, or democracy. Here, we explore a unique subset: principles modified by "insufficiency" and "sufficiency." While you may never have heard of them, you use them often. These terms frame principles that blend theory, practicality, and aspiration, by offering distinct perspectives. Insufficiency often implies inaction unless justified, while sufficiency suggests something exists or must be done. We’ll examine key examples and introduce a new principle with potential significance. As a principle of principles of these is that something or some action is not done enough while others may be done too much. The first six (§2-6) of our principles are in the literature, and you can easily search them online. The others are relatively new, but fit the concepts in the real world. At times, these pri...

The Lemming Instinct

  In certain vital domains, a pervasive mediocrity among practitioners can stifle genuine advancement. When the intellectual output of a field is predominantly average, it inevitably produces research of corresponding quality. Nevertheless, some of these ideas, by sheer chance or perhaps through effective dissemination, will inevitably gain traction. A significant number of scholars and researchers will gravitate towards these trends, contributing to and propagating further work along these established lines. Such a trajectory allows an initially flawed concept to ascend to the status of mainstream orthodoxy. However, over an extended period, these prevailing ideas invariably fail to withstand rigorous scrutiny; they are ultimately and conclusively disproven. The disheartening pattern then reveals itself: rather than genuine progress, an equally unvalidated or incorrect idea often supplants the discredited one, swiftly establishing its own dominance. This cycle perpetuates, ensurin...