The "moral dumbfounding" phenomenon reveals we often have an instant, gut-level decision and *then* invent reasons to justify it. We believe we're reasoning our way to a conclusion, but we're often just rationalizing an intuition we already hold.

Certain individuals have a proven, high success rate in their domain. Rather than relying solely on your own intuition or A/B testing, treat these people as APIs. Query them for feedback on your ideas to get a high-signal assessment of your blind spots and chances of success.

In a study comparing military captains and generals, novices used data to confirm their initial strategy. The more experienced generals used the same data to question their strategy, treating intuition as a starting point for inquiry, not a conclusion.

True human intuition, as observed in Army Special Operations, is the ability to spot "exceptional information"—the data point that breaks the pattern—and leverage it as an opportunity. This is a skill computers, which excel at pattern matching, lack.

Instead of relying on instinctual "System 1" rules, advanced AI should use deliberative "System 2" reasoning. By analyzing consequences and applying ethical frameworks—a process called "chain of thought monitoring"—AIs could potentially become more consistently ethical than humans who are prone to gut reactions.

Many people discredit intuition because they follow an initial feeling (e.g., into a bad relationship) but then ignore the continuous "dings" telling them to get out. Intuition isn't a single signpost; it's a guide that requires constant listening.

Specialization thrives in "kind" environments like chess or golf, where rules are fixed and feedback is immediate. However, in "wicked" environments with unclear rules and delayed feedback—common in modern business—specialists struggle to adapt. Generalists, with broader experience, are better equipped for novel challenges.

Critics claim explicit models for big decisions are flawed. However, relying on intuition is just using an opaque, implicit model you can't scrutinize. An explicit model, even if imperfect, makes assumptions transparent and challengeable, which is superior to a 'gut feeling' that cannot be dissected or debated.

Research shows intuition is trustworthy only when you have deep expertise in a predictable environment (e.g., a seasoned shopper spotting a fake handbag). For major life events like business ventures or marriage, where we are novices, gut feelings are unreliable guides and require more critical analysis rather than blind trust.