The Intelligence of Intuition
Open accessAbstract
People often confuse intuition with a sixth sense or the arbitrary judgments of inept decision makers. In this book, Gerd Gigerenzer analyzes the war on intuition in the social sciences beginning with gendered perceptions of intuition as female, followed by opposition between biased intuition and logical rationality, popularized in two-system theories. Technological paternalism amplifies these views, arguing that human intuition should be replaced by perfect algorithms. In opposition to these beliefs, this book proposes that intuition is a form of unconscious intelligence based on years of experience that evolved to deal with uncertain and dynamic situations where logic and big data algorithms are of little benefit. Gigerenzer introduces the scientific study of intuition and shows that intuition is not irrational caprice but is instead based on smart heuristics. Researchers, students, and general readers with an interest in decision making, heuristics and biases, cognitive psychology, and behavioral public policy will benefit.
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Human intuitions rely on rules of thumb that are not arbitrary and often exhibit high validity.
“Rather than estimating conditional probabilities over unobserved variables, as machine learning models do, humans typically rely on rules of thumb when forming beliefs and making decisions (Gigerenzer and Gaissmaier 2011;Selbst and Barocas 2018).These rules are not arbitrary; they often exhibit high validity, having emerged through repeated experience and pattern recognition (Gigerenzer 2023).”
From Explainable AI Isn't Enough! Rethinking Algorithmic Contestability (2026) · cites this paper as Gigerenzer 2023
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Explainable AI Isn't Enough! Rethinking Algorithmic Contestability
Freiesleben, T., Meding, K., & König, G. (2026) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2605.16041
- Authors
- Gigerenzer, G.
- Affiliations
- Max Planck Institute for Human Development (DE)
- Corresponding author
- Gigerenzer, Gerd
- ORCID
- Gigerenzer, Gerd
- Venue
- Cambridge University Press eBooks
- Publisher
- Cambridge University Press
- Published
- 2023-09-28
- OpenAlex
- W4387079607
- Cited by
- 43
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 14 · 2025: 17 · 2024: 11 · 2023: 1
- FWCI
- 9.19
- Type
- book
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
- doi.org
- Locations
- Cambridge University Press eBooks (publishedVersion)
- MPG.PuRe (Max Planck Society) (submittedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › General Decision Sciences › Decision-Making and Behavioral Economics
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Family Practice › Clinical Reasoning and Diagnostic Skills
- Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Management Science and Operations Research › Leadership, Behavior, and Decision-Making Studies
- Keywords
- intuition, heuristics, heuristics and biases, decision-making, two-system theory, algorithms, rationality, behavioral public policy, uncertainty, evolutionary psychology
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review