I wrote a literature review about this [1] in 2015 I think. I mostly look at support from fMRI studies in Shogi players (Japanese chess). While it was a school assignment, I took it very seriously as I knew the review itself would have very serious implications on my personal life.
Summary:
Main question: how can one develop an effective intuition?
The development of an effective intuition relies on: a high validity environment, a high amount of practice and a high interoceptive awareness. The first two elements account for intuitive answers being right. The third element accounts for the gut feeling being felt by the person. As a result the brain changes, and integrates certain brain areas more into the default mode network. The idea that if one has high activation in a brain area a lot, then the structure will be changed.
High validity environment: rules are easily understandable and deterministic (think chess), or you have a lot of practice moments (think poker). Understanding psychological patients would be an example of a low validity environment.
"As a result the brain changes, and integrates certain brain areas more into the default mode network. The idea that if one has high activation in a brain area a lot, then the structure will be changed."
In your review you cite cross-sectional research, not a longitudinal, within-subject effect of change with study/practice/learning. Therefore your conclusions should not be about change, but on group differences. Those difference might have arisen from the training, or pre-existed in those individuals that were more prone to study/practice/learn/meditate.
Post-Note: Sorry. As a developmental neuroscientist, you hit on a pet-peeve. Cheers.
Is intuition always a literal gut feeling (or rather, an embodied feeling, in the robotics sense), such that having no interoceptive awareness would be a hindrance to developing it?
I always figured people were speaking mostly metaphorically about "gut feelings." Certainly, some kinds of intuitions
(e.g. ones involving disgust or fear) are held onto as "physiological state" (i.e. written through motor-cortex commands; read back through pattern-detection in embodied cognition.) But I would expect most intuitions to present as e.g. sudden emotional states, or other weird purely-mental qualia.
Love this mindset; far too many people think of the System 1 part of our brains as things to fear and reduce as much as possible. Training it is vastly superior.
An expert having learned a magnitude more has magnitudes more experience than a novice. This education and experience has taught him (or equally her) how much there is left to learn and how little we really know. In our field, we have learned humility... no, not really learned, so much as have had it beaten into us so harshly that there's no ignoring it. It becomes a part of us.
Conversely, this lack of experience and humility and the bubbling exuberance and over abundance of confidence that comes with inexperience tempts people to walk a path that someone with more experience dare never venture. It's these paths that help move us forward into the unknown.
Our confidence comes from different places. An expert's from the confidence that they know their place in the world. They've learned their reality, they've learned to build tools to deal with and capitalize on that reality. Their experience has taught them how to survive and, if they're lucky, prosper. While a novice's confidence is often borne out of idealism, hope, arrogance, ego and sheer audacity.
There is not only room for this in the world but, I believe, a need for it. That we need each other for humanity to move forward.
So basically pruning the neural network makes it faster. Isn’t this effectively what we are doing since birth? As babies we just have a bunch of semi-random connections, and then we prune away as we learn.
And in AI it’s basically the same. The fewer number of hidden nodes in your neural network the better, as long as there are enough nodes to accomplish the task.
Except the mind is creating new neural connections throughout life. The idea that neuroplasticity is a baby's only phenomenon is a common myth. In fact, we can see new connections being formed whenever new skills and memories are formed in the elderly, and everyone has the capacity to make new connections at any time. Sure, the RATE of those connections being made is lower over time, we are constantly decelerating in our ability to add new skills.
Babies are born with the capacity to learn language, motor skills, etc. The brain is very structured at birth for these capacities. So no, it isn't random, but probabilistic. Meaning the structure of the brain and connections are probabilistically formed via evolution. Or is this what you meant by semi in semi-random?
In ML, think of evolution as hyper-parameter tuning. Most ML models have a defined structure but are tuned via learning. Pruning is probably such a tuning strategy in the brain.
A really good book on this is "Pragmatic Thinking and Learning: Refactoring Your Wetware" by Andy Hunt (of the Pragmatic Programmer series of books). I particularly like the explanation of the Dreyfus model of skill progression: Novice, Advanced Beginner, Competent, Proficient, and Expert.
I've heard some very vague grumblings about the Dreyfus model but never worked up the motivation to actually dig into them.
But the first thing I noticed is that here's a guy writing a paper about skill progression and he hasn't encapsulated the act of writing a paper about skill progression as a progression of its own.
I suspect it's more like Novice, Advanced Beginner, Competent, Proficient, Expert, Artist, Philosopher.
1. Unconscious incompetence
The individual does not understand or know how to do something and does not necessarily recognize the deficit. They may deny the usefulness of the skill. The individual must recognize their own incompetence, and the value of the new skill, before moving on to the next stage. The length of time an individual spends in this stage depends on the strength of the stimulus to learn.[5]
2. Conscious incompetence
Though the individual does not understand or know how to do something, they recognize the deficit, as well as the value of a new skill in addressing the deficit. The making of mistakes can be integral to the learning process at this stage.
3. Conscious competence
The individual understands or knows how to do something. However, demonstrating the skill or knowledge requires concentration. It may be broken down into steps, and there is heavy conscious involvement in executing the new skill.[5]
4. Unconscious competence
The individual has had so much practice with a skill that it has become "second nature" and can be performed easily. As a result, the skill can be performed while executing another task. The individual may be able to teach it to others, depending upon how and when it was learned.
This can end up being an uncomfortable position when people ask you to explain exactly why you made a decision, and even though you probably could explain it with some effort, it's difficult because you made your choice based on experience-derived intuition. Being at the conscious competence stage may actually require less work in general, unless one gets to work with other unconscious competent people.
I'd gladly add another concept: how to quickly navigate into unknown territory. Experts might not know everything, but they can analyze a new situation quickly due to accumulation of concepts and overcoming new situations over the years.
ps: and ultimately, when I compare my younger self to me right now (in music) .. the only difference, is a subtle blend of patience and sensitivity. When you don't know you try small things without waiting too long or digging too deep. A newcomer may often go paralysed or stuck on the wrong intuition.
This model has always had the ring of truth to it, to me.
One amusing state you can add when you get old is something like this:
5) Semi-conscious semi-competence
The individual used to be an actual expert in something, but so many years have passed that they are only semi-competent. Yet they retain the manners and affectations of someone who is a true expert. This state tends to confuse and alarm others who are themselves competent and can’t figure out exactly what you are.
Well, then there is a fifth stage where an experienced person does something a person in stage 2-3 would probably not, because they have enough experience to be overconfident. Thinking of skydiving accidents.
When I was young, I said to God, 'God, tell me the mystery of the universe.' But God answered, 'That knowledge is for me alone.' So I said, 'God, tell me the mystery of the peanut.' Then God said, 'Well George, that's more nearly your size.' And he told me.
-George Washington Carver
Love it. Reads like a country version of the Serenity Prayer.
"God, grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change,
Courage to change the things I can,
And wisdom to know the difference."
For a laymen like myself, I fail to see how this is anything more than additional evidence for Pavlovian response. Are you an "expert" when you learn that a specific pattern of actions results in a reward? That's all that's going on here -- lick the correct water spout according to the pattern of flashing lights, get a reward.
How about an MRI of a newbie in flight school and an MRI of a seasoned pilot. What does that show in terms of neural development and associated pathways? What does the newbie's brain look like after extensive training? Can you measure neural pathways over many years and see how they grow or change?
I'm not an expert in ML or mice intelligence, but it sounds like some of the concepts have a mapping in ML. The author describes a faster decision making process happening in advance of the actual decision. This sounds like the development of a LSTM, where the contextual inputs leading up to a decision are encoded in the network. The author also describes an inhibitory network. This reminds me of a GAN, where the adversarial network is discriminating on whether or not the decision will be a good one based on its knowledge.
So let me get this, if too many neurons firing then it means it is a novice's brain and less neurons firing (targeted firing) means an expert, is that right?
When given a problem, an expert might be able to solve it by recalling the solution to another problem he solved earlier, while a novice has to actually solve the problem.
That's absolutely the case for a novice chess player vs expert.
A novice will see so many pieces. So many possibilities. They have no idea how to choose between them. And there are so many, they'll fail to see an excellent move, or that one of their pieces is about to be killed.
An expert sees far fewer moves, and so is able to look much further ahead.
[+] [-] melvinroest|6 years ago|reply
Summary:
Main question: how can one develop an effective intuition?
The development of an effective intuition relies on: a high validity environment, a high amount of practice and a high interoceptive awareness. The first two elements account for intuitive answers being right. The third element accounts for the gut feeling being felt by the person. As a result the brain changes, and integrates certain brain areas more into the default mode network. The idea that if one has high activation in a brain area a lot, then the structure will be changed.
High validity environment: rules are easily understandable and deterministic (think chess), or you have a lot of practice moments (think poker). Understanding psychological patients would be an example of a low validity environment.
[1] https://melvinroest.github.io/articles/intuition.pdf
[+] [-] SubiculumCode|6 years ago|reply
In your review you cite cross-sectional research, not a longitudinal, within-subject effect of change with study/practice/learning. Therefore your conclusions should not be about change, but on group differences. Those difference might have arisen from the training, or pre-existed in those individuals that were more prone to study/practice/learn/meditate.
Post-Note: Sorry. As a developmental neuroscientist, you hit on a pet-peeve. Cheers.
[+] [-] derefr|6 years ago|reply
I always figured people were speaking mostly metaphorically about "gut feelings." Certainly, some kinds of intuitions (e.g. ones involving disgust or fear) are held onto as "physiological state" (i.e. written through motor-cortex commands; read back through pattern-detection in embodied cognition.) But I would expect most intuitions to present as e.g. sudden emotional states, or other weird purely-mental qualia.
[+] [-] wehrkeoruw|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] balabaster|6 years ago|reply
Conversely, this lack of experience and humility and the bubbling exuberance and over abundance of confidence that comes with inexperience tempts people to walk a path that someone with more experience dare never venture. It's these paths that help move us forward into the unknown.
Our confidence comes from different places. An expert's from the confidence that they know their place in the world. They've learned their reality, they've learned to build tools to deal with and capitalize on that reality. Their experience has taught them how to survive and, if they're lucky, prosper. While a novice's confidence is often borne out of idealism, hope, arrogance, ego and sheer audacity.
There is not only room for this in the world but, I believe, a need for it. That we need each other for humanity to move forward.
[+] [-] bigred100|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jedberg|6 years ago|reply
And in AI it’s basically the same. The fewer number of hidden nodes in your neural network the better, as long as there are enough nodes to accomplish the task.
[+] [-] WhompingWindows|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mempko|6 years ago|reply
In ML, think of evolution as hyper-parameter tuning. Most ML models have a defined structure but are tuned via learning. Pruning is probably such a tuning strategy in the brain.
[+] [-] nixpulvis|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] slowhand09|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] hinkley|6 years ago|reply
But the first thing I noticed is that here's a guy writing a paper about skill progression and he hasn't encapsulated the act of writing a paper about skill progression as a progression of its own.
I suspect it's more like Novice, Advanced Beginner, Competent, Proficient, Expert, Artist, Philosopher.
[+] [-] plasma|6 years ago|reply
1. Unconscious incompetence The individual does not understand or know how to do something and does not necessarily recognize the deficit. They may deny the usefulness of the skill. The individual must recognize their own incompetence, and the value of the new skill, before moving on to the next stage. The length of time an individual spends in this stage depends on the strength of the stimulus to learn.[5]
2. Conscious incompetence Though the individual does not understand or know how to do something, they recognize the deficit, as well as the value of a new skill in addressing the deficit. The making of mistakes can be integral to the learning process at this stage.
3. Conscious competence The individual understands or knows how to do something. However, demonstrating the skill or knowledge requires concentration. It may be broken down into steps, and there is heavy conscious involvement in executing the new skill.[5]
4. Unconscious competence The individual has had so much practice with a skill that it has become "second nature" and can be performed easily. As a result, the skill can be performed while executing another task. The individual may be able to teach it to others, depending upon how and when it was learned.
[+] [-] ravenstine|6 years ago|reply
This can end up being an uncomfortable position when people ask you to explain exactly why you made a decision, and even though you probably could explain it with some effort, it's difficult because you made your choice based on experience-derived intuition. Being at the conscious competence stage may actually require less work in general, unless one gets to work with other unconscious competent people.
[+] [-] agumonkey|6 years ago|reply
ps: and ultimately, when I compare my younger self to me right now (in music) .. the only difference, is a subtle blend of patience and sensitivity. When you don't know you try small things without waiting too long or digging too deep. A newcomer may often go paralysed or stuck on the wrong intuition.
[+] [-] CPLX|6 years ago|reply
One amusing state you can add when you get old is something like this:
5) Semi-conscious semi-competence
The individual used to be an actual expert in something, but so many years have passed that they are only semi-competent. Yet they retain the manners and affectations of someone who is a true expert. This state tends to confuse and alarm others who are themselves competent and can’t figure out exactly what you are.
[+] [-] Stratoscope|6 years ago|reply
Freshmen know not, and know not that they know not.
Sophomores know not, and know that they know not.
Juniors know, and know not that they know.
Seniors know, and know that they know.
[+] [-] threatofrain|6 years ago|reply
* https://terrytao.wordpress.com/career-advice/theres-more-to-...
[+] [-] perl4ever|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] beauzero|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] balfirevic|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Ozumandias|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] iRobbery|6 years ago|reply
― Niels Bohr
[+] [-] tootie|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] avip|6 years ago|reply
But more seriously from Suzuki:
the beginner's mind has many possibilities, the expert's mind has few.
From the wonderful book "Zen mind, beginner's mind"
[+] [-] SimbaOnSteroids|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jjtheblunt|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] alwaysanagenda|6 years ago|reply
How about an MRI of a newbie in flight school and an MRI of a seasoned pilot. What does that show in terms of neural development and associated pathways? What does the newbie's brain look like after extensive training? Can you measure neural pathways over many years and see how they grow or change?
[+] [-] daenz|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] CodeSheikh|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] gsaga|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] hyperpallium|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] SamBam|6 years ago|reply
A novice will see so many pieces. So many possibilities. They have no idea how to choose between them. And there are so many, they'll fail to see an excellent move, or that one of their pieces is about to be killed.
An expert sees far fewer moves, and so is able to look much further ahead.
[+] [-] throwawaylolx|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] vilhelm_s|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] tictoc|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|6 years ago|reply
[deleted]