Are You Intuitive? Does That Explain Why You Connect with God?

Thanks to Connie Chung for passing on this link from the Harvard Gazette that makes the case that intuitive people are more likely to find God than strictly rational people.

God is related to decision-making style, with those who rely more heavily on intuition reporting higher rates of belief, while those who are more reflective tilt toward atheism.

By linking religious belief to intuition, the study supports the idea that there is something in the cognitive makeup of humans that promotes belief in a higher power. For example, the natural tendency that people have to see a purpose behind random events, or the need to reduce uncertainty in their lives — as well as the anxiety it causes — may promote a belief in God.

The work, conducted by researchers in Harvard’s Psychology Department, found that cognitive style was an important indicator of religious belief. They found that this was true even when accounting for factors such as intelligence, education, income, and political orientation. They also found that more intuitive people reported an increase in religious faith over the course of their lives, a rise independent of religious upbringing.

“We know that family environment explains a lot of why some people believe more than others, but it doesn’t explain everything,” said Amitai Shenhav, a doctoral student in Harvard’s Psychology Department. “When researchers think about cognitive factors that might also play a role, they often bring up pure thinking ability. Our research suggests a more nuanced answer.”

The research, published in the Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, was conducted by Shenhav, postdoctoral fellow David Rand, and Joshua Greene, the John and Ruth Hazel Associate Professor of the Social Sciences.

“Science attempts to explain mysterious things in terms of things that are more basic and more general,” said Greene. “That’s what we’re doing here: How do the general operating characteristics of one’s mind affect one’s thinking about mysterious things like God?”

In one part of the study, subjects were given a short mathematical test designed to elicit erroneous but intuitive responses. The questions pose problems whose answers seem apparent at first, but whose solutions require closer examination. An example would be: Bill and Sally’s age totals 28 years. Bill is 20 years older than Sally. How old is Sally? The intuitive — but wrong — answer would be 8. The correct answer is 4. Those who answered all three questions with intuitive responses were one and a half times as likely to report being convinced of God’s existence than were those who answered none intuitively. The researchers also used measurements of IQ and personality to show that the effect was not about general intelligence, but instead was specific to cognitive style.

“This isn’t about how smart you are; it’s how much you follow your intuitions versus stopping and reflecting,” Rand said.

In the other part of the study, people were instructed to write a short essay about a time they relied on intuition rather than reflection, or vice versa. People who were instructed to recall a time when intuition helped them, or when careful reasoning hurt them, reported more belief in God than those who did the opposite.

The authors emphasize that their findings, by themselves, imply no value judgment about whether intuitive decision-making is better or worse than reflection. Indeed, Shenhav said, being able to make quick, intuitive decisions can be a great strength. People inevitably rely on both intuitive and reflective thinking, with different styles for different situations.

“It is one of the most impressive things our brain can do, crunch all that data down to an automatic answer,” Shenhav said.

The research builds on a small but rapidly growing body of knowledge about the psychology of faith, which is seen across human populations but is not well understood. The researchers’ aim is to get at the cognitive nuts and bolts of religious belief.

“How people think about tricky math problems is reflected in their thinking — and ultimately their convictions — about the metaphysical order of the universe,” Shenhav said.

This fits the thesis of an engaging book I've just finished called  The Social Animal: The Hidden Sources of Love, Character and Achievement, by New York Times columnist David Brooks.  It's an ambitious attempt to distill lots of data from neuroscientists and psychologists about how to find a meaningful life.  He hangs his data on the life story (birth to death) of a fictional couple--one who grows up to be a historian, the other who becomes a successful CEO.  If I can boil down his essential insight, it's that our unconscious is vastly more important than our rational mind, an insight that's been disregarded in the modern world to disastrous effect.  He doesn't diss the rational mind, seeing it as crucial.  But to him it's by no means sufficient.  Our unconscious is shaped by enough factors to take up a 450 page book.  But those who learn to respond to and trust their unconscious--and to put themselves in contexts which continue to develop it (like churches!)--find what they're looking for in ways that those who disregard it don't.

So clearly both perspectives are reductionist.  For those of us who believe in an actual God who's actually trying to make contact with all of us, there's no distinction of who God can or can't communicate with.  But both of these do make a profound case that we're advised to develop our whole selves--mind, emotions, intuition--if we hope to find what we're looking for.

Does this seem true to you?  Lacking in some key way?  Off-base?

Comments

[Peter Eavis]

It seems perfectly on-base to me. More and more -- it may be middle age -- I am thinking about time in finite terms. So when it comes to church services, we only have, say, 80 minutes. We therefore have to pay very close attention to how much time we're spending on activities that appeal to our conscious/rational sides and our subconscious/intuitive sides. My hunch is that our worship needs to be more rational and our preaching more intuitive.

[Eva]

I want to think about this post, but am stuck on the fact that Sally is 4 and not 8. Really? 4?
Can I be intuitive AND innumerate?

[Ryan NYC]

I actually think that my rational side helped me find God, originally, more than anything.

And, oddly enough, I think that it's been God who has helped me to become increasingly more intuitive (more balanced from where I first started, it seems) over the past 15 years, rather than my intuitive nature guiding me to more of God (though that's certainly happened too).

Good luck understanding what I just wrote, but no time to correct :)

[Dave Thom]

Y'know the Myers-Briggs test, where you're either an N for intuitive or an S for sensory? I'm a 20 out of 20 for N. Nevertheless, the only thing that registers for me is that to be completely rational about anything is to beg insanity. Completely rational people completely rationalize blowing up buildings with people in them. Persons who are human or god cannot be understood in completely rational or intuitive ways, and that pretty much is how we get along best in life: understanding persons, and it never happens quickly or easily. Heck, maybe it never happens.

“This isn’t about how smart you are; it’s how much you follow your intuitions versus stopping and reflecting"?? This and the earlier phrase "pure thinking ability" put spins on things that don't add up right to me. If I'm intuitive (or maybe I'm not and Myers & Briggs aren't barking up the right tree) then being intuitive is about being reflective (and not knee-jerk-ish) because you trust your instinct better than you trust what appears to be otherwise obvious (M&B say "sensory" people tend to "go by the book"), and you reflect on your sum weight of wisdom and experience and then act. Believe me, that's not very rational because I often end up being the black sheep in the flock very often as I choose against the obvious, defy authority, etc., fun things like that.

Dave, your point, that "both of these do make a profound case that we're advised to develop our whole selves--mind, emotions, intuition--if we hope to find what we're looking for" is right on the money.

[Brent]

Personally, I don't see much value in this study. At the most it is saying that people generally have an intuition that God exists. Duh. Nothing 20,000 years of human history couldn't have told us.

Intuition is an important quality to develop, based partly on experience and partly on biology, but it doesn't get you very far and very often leads us astray. Many of the great scientific discoveries we've made have been counter-intuitive. Only after they were made and studied closely did they then become part of intuition. The situation is much worse when it comes to God. People believe all sorts of things about God and their faith because they 'just feel' it must be true.

I think science is a pretty good guide here, actually. The best scientists follow a kind of pattern of thought that start with what we might call intuition ('Something doesn't seem right about this theory;' 'this phenomenon seems strange to me,' etc.). Then they take the next step to ask, 'Why do I have that intuition? What made me think this is strange/wonderful/interesting?' They try to nail that down. Then after the problem is defined they ask questions about it, things they'd like to know that would help clarify the bigger picture. Then for each question they devise experiments (be they thought experiments or in the lab) to do their best to answer the questions. Finally, they submit the results to others who might be interested to get feedback.

The is a great model for learning, the only self-correcting method we have, and it applies pretty well to God-questions as well. Unfortunately many people just stop with their intuitions and never get on the next step of examining them.

[Liane]

Right, though actually what the authors argue is that believers are not the best scientists -- as you say, the best scientists may have the same intuitions as everyone else (or maybe even better intuitions), but critically they ask about why they have them.

The study on hand suggests that people who believe in God are the ones who stop at the intuition -- that's what the Cognitive Reflection Task used in the study is supposed to measure -- all subjects (believers, non-believers) presumably have the intuition that Sally is 8, but the non-believers are the ones who step back and then do the math calculating that Sally is in fact 4 (putting the intuition, this time inaccurate, to the test), whereas the believers are the ones who stop at the intuitive answer.

At least this is what Shenhav, Rand, and Greene found -- not that people have an intuition that God exists, but rather people who trust their intuitions (so much so that they don't bother to do the math) are also the ones who believe in God.

I'm curious what you think about that. Though I can attest to the science, I'm not sure what I think about the implications. Perhaps there are different ways of 'testing' intuitions -- and perhaps in real-life religion, the test isn't even close to something like math -- but, rather, experience. And maybe that's where the disanalogy arises between the study (testing mathematical intuitions via math), and real life ("testing" God intuitions via experience).

[Brent]

Thanks, Liane. I did understand the study. My point is that it seems to tell us very little except maybe that reflection on intuitions is likelier to lead one to belief in God than just stopping at intuition.

The much more interesting follow-up would be a study of people from each group who do hold to beliefs in God and some evaluation of their beliefs, to see how they differ and how strong convictions are. My anecdotal experience tells me that those who have examined their intuitions and applied rationality to it and still hold beliefs in God might have stronger and much more specifier beliefs than those who rely on intuition alone. But that's just my intuition :)

[Liane]

that's a really interesting idea, and I just emailed the authors to find out if they have any data that speak to this (e.g., on variable CRT scores within just the believers, and belief strength). stay tuned.

(though, to your first point, again, what they show is that an intuitive style is *less* likely to lead one to believe in God, versus intuition-override, via reflection.)

[Brent]

You mean *more*, right? Those who answer the questions intuitively are more likely to believe in God. Those who answered with less intuitive answers are less likely to believe in God. Am I missing something?

[Dave Thom]

Actually, Liane, "Those who answered all three questions with intuitive responses were one and a half times as likely to report being convinced of God’s existence than were those who answered none intuitively. The researchers also used measurements of IQ and personality to show that the effect was not about general intelligence, but instead was specific to cognitive style." Brent's very good points are similar to Dave S's. And what "scientific procedure" offers is excellent, and can and should be done by one's self (by submitting your findings to constantly changing angles) w/reference to "who is God and what is He like" as well as in community too (as Brent emphasizes). To know God is to know Him, regardless of what the community finds. But then again, I'm a 20/20 N, I should be saying that I guess...

[Liane]

yup! critical typo -- my bad.

and I think that gets to Dave Thom's point above too: intuitive people -> believe in God. reflective people -> don't believe in God.

Like you, though, I still think it'd be neat to see whether there's a third breed, e.g., intuitive-then-reflective folks who profess even stronger belief than the pure-intuitive folks (or, of course the non-believing reflective folks).

[Dave Thom]

Not to beat a dead horse, but in my remarks, I complained that it goes unrecognized in the article that the TRULY intuitive are more likely actually reflective type people. "By the book" people - Myers & Briggs calls them "sensory" people - are non-intuitors and probably much more non-reflective. They simply react "by the book." FWIW, math examples seem like a terrible example of anything to test reflectiveness, by the way. And a "trick math question" is something that should be smell-able a mile away. Testing for stupid people would be easily done with a question obviously intent on trickery, however weak. Sigh, so, my point isn't that intuitive people believe. I think it's invalid to say either way. And that Brent & Dave S were making that point: intuition & selection can both be developed and should be. Whole persons are likely to be better persons. Then they might very likely believe.

[Dave Thom]

Not "selection" but "reflection" - typo!
And "better" meaning "well-rounded" not morally superior.

[Liane]

yup I totally agree with you, Dave Thom -- and that's what I took Brent to suggest too, and what I tried to recapitulate: while the study studies these two camps (intuitive vs non intuitive -- and shows, using this coarse cut, and the CRT, that intuitive people believe), the new notion is that perhaps there's more detail to the picture -- maybe there's a third camp of 'truly intuitive', those who actually reflect on their intuitions. whether or not the 'intuitive-then-reflective' folks are more or less religious (or confident in their belief in God) is an interesting empirical question, and one that the current study doesn't address (though perhaps there may be hints in their data, waiting to analyzed).

[Liane]

Hi Brent - so it sounds like at least in the sample that these folks tested, if anything, the believers who professed stronger faith / belief in God, did worse on the CRT (i.e. were less reflective). But there are lots of caveats, and the study obviously wasn't designed to test the questions you raise. What's interesting is that they're trying to identify a measure where the intuitive answer is actually the legitimately correct answer (unlike the CRT). It'd be neat to see whether the same pattern obtains.