The difference between intuition and deduction...

What's the difference between intuition and deduction?

Not much, I'm afraid. In the ,,My Little Pony: Friendship Is Magic" episode 'Feeling Pinkie Keen,' we learn that Pinkie Pie has some form of extra sensory perception that allows her to predict the future. This act of precognition could be labeled intuition on Pinkie Pie's behalf. But, is it really?

Let's explore a few definitions before we get started. In an effort to make this article as understandable as possible; it quite literally behooves one to know the difference between intuition, deduction, inductive reasoning, abductive reasoning, interpersonal communication, economics, social and psychological dynamics, and some degree of perception in general. Which, I'm sure you know on some level, means I must discuss the macro-caustic and microcosm of the scientific method. In short, you may not need to know much about mythology, but it helps if you understand a little bit about fantasy.

For instance, in a fantasy you have control over yourself, your environment, not to mention your peers and other social relations. In a fantasy, everyone is motivated by the greater good; which, is in stark contrast to reality. In reality one finds people are motivated by self interest. After all, that aforementioned concept of reality is the first principle in ethics, economics, philosophy, and psychology. Because, in reality people can only manipulate their environment, influence others, or direct if not manage themselves. Further complicating reality is the fact that change is inevitable, and any illusions of permanence if not impermeability are temporary. In such a world reality testing, if not executive functioning, is of utmost importance.

Reality testing is usually based on the scientific method, and contrary to popular belief, most people have been using it since they were two years old if not younger. The ability to articulate the steps involved in the scientific method only becomes important when dealing with sadistic ass-souls, and I mean that in the nicest way possible. The problem with this short sighted, not to mention narrow minded, bigotry is that human memory isn't based on words and logic the way a computer or machine works. Rather, human memory is based on faith in an abstract concept of reality. Because, without an abstract concept of reality you cannot predict the future, nor could you learn from natural and logical consequences. In much the same way gods are creatures of wish fulfillment, demigods and heroes exist as creatures of myth. Similarly, tools are resources of logic and children are creatures of logic based on a sense of fair play driven by emotion. Just as animals become creatures of conditioning, men are creatures of faith in a justice system based on liberty not machines in a mechanistic world. Not to mention many machines, are in fact, often overtly complicated reconstructions of naturally occurring phenomena in nature.

But, in an effort to make it easier for those who doubt this human capacity to use the scientific method without any training; you should be aware that empiricism is not necessarily the same thing as the scientific method. Which, is as follows: Inductive reasoning is based on a good assessment, that leads to a good diagnosis, which leads to an adequate treatment plan, and prognosis. If you prefer it in layman's terms; inductive reasoning is part to whole thinking based on what is observed. Deductive reasoning is reasoning based, not on what is observed but, on what one knows. And, deduction is only objective if its based on 'common knowledge' not necessarily common sense or esoteric knowledge. Deduction is a form of whole to part reasoning that breaks things down into its individual components. Intuition, on the other hand, is a form of abductive reasoning based on feelings, impressions, an other guess work. Intuition is not entirely objective and can obviously lead one astray with syllogisms, solipsism, self fulfilling prophecy, or post hoc, ergo propter hoc thinking. For instance, the statement that math is the basis of logic is only a deduction if it is a culturally accepted fact or truism. Otherwise, mathematics is only the basis of physics; wherein logic then becomes one philosophy about the nature of a reality, life, the universe, and everything else; featuring pareidolia, parallax, and proprioception as aspects of reality that have been observed and empirically tested both in conflict and concert with the pretense of fantasy.

Naturally, if you're somehow lacking the insight to pick up a dictionary to gain further insight into the meaning of the words above, an assessment alone involves examination, extrapolation, interpretation, and assumptions about the underlying structure of a person place thing or event. A diagnosis is the use of inductive or deductive reasoning to infer or hypothesize a cause and the effect of a long term outcome. A treatment plan requires one have the capacity to use intuition to predict the consequences of a smart, specifically measurable, and attainable, goal that's usually relevant or time oriented. While a prognosis is just an educated guess that what you predict will happen could actually come to pass assuming all variables acquiesce to your will. That being said, A two year old playing with their sippy-cup (or baby bottle) is more than capable of using the scientific method to determine that water is wet, and that they can make a wet spot on the floor if they 'play' with the cup long enough (assuming there is a volume of something malleable and of low viscosity in the enclosed space) to produce a result. Wherein play is the obvious experiment of imitating experience to produce magic, intimacy, withdraw, pass time, or play games. Just as everyone accepts the best kind of magic involves the ritual of being fooled or deceived.

However, the scientific method isn't all that reality testing involves. After all, a child cannot make play-dough disappear by smashing it into the carpet anymore than they have gained the spatial reasoning to understand volume remains largely the same regardless of shape. This is where logical fallacies come into play, and why shortcuts in things like 'whole to part' or 'part to whole' thinking are detrimental to executive functioning. More importantly, the difference between intuition and deduction is easy to recognize. You cannot use deduction if you are subject to a double standard. If you are subject to a double standard then you are using intuition. It wouldn't matter if more than 80% of every word out of you mouth was accurate and in whole hart agreement with the greatest genius who ever lived. If you lack the privilege of money, status, power, influence, authority, or celebrity every word out of your mouth lacks the objectivity of an eight point buck or a seven cow woman. Because, truth isn't just facts verified through trial and error. Truth isn't what you can prove happened either. Very often, it's facts, evidence, reports, opinions, feelings, and what the people in charge, the ones given privilege, or determined to resolve a dispute, say it means. Fortunately, everyone has referent, reward, referral, coercive and informational power. Barring clones no two people will have, understand, or interpret the same information or share the same opinions. And, even that statement is debatable.

What does this say about Pinkie Pie's ability to predict the future. She's clearly a celebrity, so why is her precognition seen under a double standard? To answer that question we'd have to discuss extra sensory perception or ESP. But first, I think it goes without saying that the only reason Sherlock Holmes wasn't seen as a looney bird (beyond the fact he was clearly an addict), was the fact he had __all__ forms of upper middle class privilege bestowed upon him, not just celebrity. Because _as most people are aware_ the weight of volume doesn't change, regardless of whether you alter the shape of enclosed space, or decide you want to use the imperial instead of the metric system to measure an element, object, concept, or noun. The difference between deduction and intuition really depends on the perception of how much bass or base one has in open water (as the case may be with certain chemicals). As evidenced in films like 'This is Spinal Tap' wherein the more numbers on the dial of an amplifier the greater the perceived sound, or cartoons like 'Case Closed' that occasionally use something other than pretend physics to catch a criminal. So, if you think a lighthouse is useless because it lacks a solid foundation, you really should be aware a buoy is just as effective at preventing pilot error among other boating accidents.

Extra Sensory Perception, for the purposes of this discussion, can be sublimated into telepathy, clairvoyance, and precognition. All of which reportedly fall under the heading of 'intuition' or in extreme cases 'Cassandra's Truth' or 'Desdemona's Defense' in the face of disbelief, assuming aforementioned perceptual abilities are quite common and natural to all sentient _if not sapient_ beings (a belief based in part on the research of Rupert Sheldrake). While I hesitate to argue an increase in luck based on confidence being a genuine component of ESP, it often does play a factor when "even a looser comes up aces sometimes" or should an even more unlikely (if not unusual) circumstances make Ockham's Razor more like Sturgeon's Law in the hands of an idiot thinking themselves a pearl before swine. Swine destined to fall on their sword over a self fulfilling prophesy (using the greatest number of delusional assumptions) like a stuffed pig in a blanket after it has been disproven and contradicted by facts before acts. If you don't understand the the turn of phrase, colloquialisms, or simile used in the previous sentence you have my apologies. And, for the purposes of clarity, I can assure you I will attempt to define the terms and conditions expressed in the preceding paragraph with the following.

For instance, using empathy as an example to discuss ESP, we can break it down into rapport, sympathy, cognitive complexity, and kinesics; wherein kinesics represents reading expressions both micro and facial, in addition to understanding the fundamentals of body language such as emblems, illustrators, manipulators and the like. (I'm aware there are at least three more aspects of empathy, I'm not including the aspects of a soul _which is another discussion entirely_ and while not exactly on the same level as a discussion of chakra, chi, mana, the force, spirit, or whatever [a discussion of soul] is close enough to mystic esoteric knowledge and about as far from physics as magic, or philosophy from psychology. Not to mention, no one really gives a hoot _except someone with compassion fatigue_ who doesn't want to be labeled as having afluenza [or heaven forbid be seen as a complete psychopath] because they're introverted, and realize just labeling someone you know, like, interact, cooperate, communicate, play, or socialize with, a friend does not make them a friend any more than they exist as a gift unto yourself).

Telepathy is kind of like rapport only instead of an emotional connection or bond being created there is a cognitive one. We're not talking affect but, rather, projection in a sense similar to Plato's allegory of the cave. With the the percipient of the transmission being partially aware of what the projector is transmitting based on what they see among the shadows on the wall. A more modern example being something like 'Zootopia' or 'Greg The Bunny' where social issues are addressed under the veil of cute critters and fabricated Americans living, working, and socializing on Sesame Street through Avenue Q in a street wise parody of an international city. If you can read between the lines you get a foreboding sense of noire colored by sweetness and light.

Clairvoyance is based on a connection to object, or sympathy. You connect with an object (or with another person) through a shared background, have a sense or understanding of where they're at, where they're coming from, or what they are doing. Psychometry falls into this category and an extreme version of this ability and would be like that scene in the film 'Meteor Man' where touching a book gives one all the knowledge contained within for a short while before learning from its content (or being able to use an ability unconsciously without understanding the principle of how it works). Alternatively, a representation of an object, like a drawing of a square being used to represent a television set __or alternatively to create an incepting element used as a landmark in memory production__ could trigger an affective response such as confidence, which in turn increases the likelihood that your best guess is the right one, and as 'luck' would have it, increase the probability that you'll find your keys where the light is better (or just as likely help you find someone willing to aid you in your quest, a service paid for with lulz instead of love or money).

Precognition is a knowledge of events before they happen, and this is what Pinkie Pie is reportedly using in the episode 'Feeling Pinkie Keen' informed by fourth wall breaking seizures. Under the assumption that Pinkie Pie had no prior or inherent knowledge of events that were going to take place before she was physically animated by forces _that are supposedly_ beyond her conscious control (in that reality); we may also assume the other resident's of Ponyville have inattentional blindness or a numbing of sensational awareness that prevents others in the herd from perceiving or assuming the same outcome unless Pinkie rings Pavlov's bell.

Twilight invalidates Pinkie's apparent abilities as an absurdity not becasue she doesn't understand them (because whatever causes the event to take place also causes pinkie's seizures in much the same way a yawn is contagious), but rather because she doesn't believe in the existence of innate abilities prior to learning. And, by learning in this sense we mean an understanding of the principles that make rhode scholars think a leader needs calculus to justify the morality of their actions and trigonometry to predict the future, when in reality a leader can be competent without such tools just by keeping the basic principals of law through the use of enough common sense to keep the peace, love all, trust a few, and do wrong to none... not draconic machiavellian horse pucky justifying the threat of violence through submission and obedience but genuine social control that requires parity and trust.

For instance, using bits as an example, there are two ways one can safely assume bits are an eighth of a whole unit; through the use of deduction and intuition. Most Americans are aware two bits equal a quarter, due in large part to the greatest marketing campaign since pepsodent. You may not wonder where the yellow went when you brush your teeth with pepsodent, or concern yourself with whether or not the cost for a shave and a haircut was two bits around the 19th century. It's just 'common knowledge' if not common sense, that two bits equal a quarter or 1/4, therefore a whole is 4/4 and a bit is 1/8. Marketing, being a form of social control similar to propaganda involves punch with flare, and punch in front of the passen'jers. Therefore marketing a product or service that never expires, regardless of the number of holes a conductor has punched into the ticket slip, is easier than cloning a dinosaur. On the other hand, using intuition I could just as easily assume the bit equaling one eight of a whole on the binary counting system. Using intuition one bit is a bit, two bits is impregnable (based on Zero Hour), four bits is a nibble, eight bits is a byte, 16 bits is a word, 32 bits is a D-word, 64 bits a Q-word, etc...and after 1024 bytes we move into something similar to a counting system we're familiar with kilobytes being like hundreds, megabytes being like millions, followed by gigabytes, terabytes, petabytes and so on; where a byte to eat is eight units of bit.

However, if deduction is based on common knowledge and intuition is based on learning then we've clearly got the characters perceptions backwards only to discover Twilight Sparkle is the one who makes no sense despite being the main character, the one whose perceptions we the audience are supposed to identify with as the focus of the story leads one to empathize if not sympathize with her. Then again, there will always be individuals who are well studied to the point of lacking common sense as I am told it is one of the rarest elements in the universe. But, shockingly, there are just as many hedonists who don't question inherent knowledge or a priori. The difference between deduction and intuition might just as easily be argued as the difference between being internally motivated and externally motivated.

Alternatively, the difference between deduction and intuition can be described as the difference between gods and monsters. While it may or may not be true that gods are immortal, it is clear that all gods are monsters if not all monsters are gods. In one of his books, Stephen King uses the argument that there are two states of sapience 'dog' and 'god.' This isn't an uncommon philosophy as Chuck Jones has used a similar philosophy to describe certain men, specifically his uncle, making sure to note that the statement was not made in contempt, but rather to highlight that some men retain the ability to think like boys well into their adult years. In Chuck Jones estimation young boys think like dogs and vice versa.

Using a gentleman's logic to sleuth out the truth about the difference between deduction and intuition could very well lead to a discussion about the difference between conscience and consciousness, or even something 'literally' being 'figuratively' true because of a lack of precise language. As Such, one can argue there has always been a human element attached to the word monster. A monster is any terrifying or dangerous creature that inspires horror or fear becasue it is deformed or possesses some reminder of cruelty. Most mammals are critters. A critter is both a predator and prey animal, and all critters eventually become monsters by virtue of the concept of fairness. As the argument goes, if life is so fair then why do roses have thorns?

Before we get into a definition of fairness perhaps we should ask the big bad wolf why he has such sharp pointy teeth. Everything is a matter of perspective, so naturally humans that don't figure out the concept of fairness between the ages of five and eight are considered monsters (and not for a lack of a capacity to share and experience love). Whether or not a person can experience the full range of emotions is immaterial (age not withstanding), not becasue they're stupid or their development is retarded in some way, but becasue they are more like animals lacking the capacity for imagination in a crisis. And, are thus dangerously logic driven creatures with all the fallacies against checking for alternative perspectives before establishing safety. Love (in my estimation) is similar to play, pretend, and make-believe. Wherein romance is the form fore-play among adults humor, creativity, improvisation, and inspiration are similarly charged for all ages.

( Last edited 5/31/2016 __Still In Progress... )