Free Association versus Intuition

Freud developed a psychoanalytic technique that he called "free association." It involves relating whatever comes into a person's mind during the analytic session, and especially when asked to respond to a list of words or a set of images. How is this different than the intuitions of an untrained "intuitive" reader - especially when this "newbie" is told that the way to read is to simply "trust the very first thing that comes into your mind"? BTW, I've heard this recommendation given countless times in Tarot and Lenormand groups.

I think it potentially can say more about the person who is doing the "intuiting" than it does about the client. This is especially likely if you don't have a feedback system or a tradition or system with which to counter-check your associations.

Freud's use of free association was intended to help discover notions that a patient had developed, initially, at an unconscious level. It involved projecting internal feelings or motives and ascribing them to other objects or people. These often included assumptions, prejudices, emotions and prohibited impulses that people hid from themselves, and therefore were, by definition, unaware that they were projecting. The Thematic Apperception Test (TAT) came directly out of Jung's use of free association with pictures with his patients (two of whom created the TAT).

Is something more required for real intuition to take place into someone else's situation (past, present or future) than "free association"?

"What produces better judgments: deliberating or relying on intuition?

Past research is inconclusive. We focus on the role of expertise to increase understanding of the effects of judgment mode. We propose a framework in which expertise depends on a person's experience with and knowledge about a domain.

Individuals who are relatively experienced but have modest knowledge about the subject matter (“intermediates”) are expected to suffer from deliberation and to benefit from a more intuitive approach, because they lack the formal knowledge to understand the reasons underlying their preferences.

Individuals who are high (“experts”) or low (“novices”) in both experience and knowledge are expected to do well or poorly, respectively, regardless of decision mode. We tested these predictions in the domain of art.

Experiments 1 and 2 showed that intermediates performed better when relying on intuition than after deliberation. Judgments of experts and novices were unaffected.

In line with previous research relating processing style to judgment mode, Experiment 3 showed that the effect of processing style (global versus local) on judgment quality is similarly moderated by expertise."

Deliberation Versus Intuition: Decomposing the Role of Expertise in Judgment and Decision Making

Koen A. Dijkstra, Joop van der Pligt, Gerben A. van Kleef

18 APR 2012, Journal of Behavioral Decision Making; DOI: 10.1002/bdm.1759

This recent research study suggests that whether intuition or studied knowledge and reflection (deliberation) works better for you depends on how much you know about a subject.

Applying this to your question, we might say, newbies will do better studying and using deliberation, altho' their decisions won't yet be very good, because they don't have enough experience to form a strong basis for intution; intermediates will do best with intuition; experts will prefer deliberation, but can use intuition as well.

The problem is that it seems relying on intuition alone will leave you stuck in that intermediate level, unable to advance?

So perhaps this debate says more about where a person is on the spectrum of newbie->intermediate->expert than about tradition vs. intuition per se.

We should expect to see newbies wanting to learn everything (the studying part of deliberation), while the "merely" intermediate will argue for intuition. The expert readers will have intuition, having passed through the intermediate stage, but will prefer the reflection portion of deliberation. Nonetheless experts will have good outcomes no matter whether they use intuition or deliberation.

Here's a link to a book chapter that describes the entire study: http://dare.uva.nl/document/354545

Hi Thanks for the study reference, frelkins, and the link, Debra. Very interesting reading!

In all honesty, you could argue that the study makes a case for the sufficiency of intuitive reading. Its results suggest that if you lack formal knowledge of the Lenormand, but read it anyway often enough to acquire a lot of experience doing so (becoming an "intermediate" according to the study), then you will eventually perform readings at an "adequate level." You'll do better if you don't worry about or try to describe how you came to your conclusions.

But you'll never perform as well as someone with both experience AND formal knowledge. Which is a vote for learning your Lenormand solidly first.

Experts will be able to "say whatever pops into their minds" and be highly accurate because all of their knowledge is unconsciously informing their intuition. Maybe the fact that they are able to use intuition effectively (given their expert status) leads them to recommend that method to newbies, not realizing that the knowledge is an essential part of intuition.

The legal examples given at the end of the study suggest that even novices should be able to read Lenormand relatively well by just following the rules precisely if they bother to learn them. Another argument for learning a system.

I like Mary's comment about free-association telling us more about the reader than the sitter, especially without a foundation of some sort. It very likely could!

Certain individuals may be able to avoid that and hone in on information relevant to the sitter (instead of themselves) even while doing what appears to be free-association: readers who lack formal training, but who are very talented at quickly reading people, who have high interpersonal relations skills, have a lot of life experience, or have a counseling background. They might perform something that looks like free-association but you could argue it's actually intuition (type C below) based on lots of people/relationship/interpersonal-situation/life experience. They are like the intermediates of the study.


Discussing intuition is also complicated by the fact that many people in divination circles use that word to describe either a) extra-sensory perceptions (things we couldn't possibly know about the querent; information that comes from an external source,) or b) free-association. Fewer people use the term as c) defined in that study (second paragraph of Intro, labeled pg. 79.)

kalliope said:

But you'll never perform as well as someone with both experience AND formal knowledge. Which is a vote for learning your Lenormand solidly first.

Experts will be able to "say whatever pops into their minds" and be highly accurate because all of their knowledge is unconsciously informing their intuition.

Click to expand...

Excellent comments all, and the definition on page 79 is really good. It's how I see intuition, at least.

There have been quite a few studies of intuition and even more studies about how our minds betray us with false information. Here's a readable article that quotes some other intuition studies and also gives a good overview of intuition: http://www.psychologytoday.com/articles/200704/gut-almighty

I like this comment about intuition: "The brain takes in a situation, does a very quick search of its files, and then finds its best analogue among the stored sprawl of memories and knowledge. Based on that analogy, you ascribe meaning to the situation in front of you."

Emotions, too, affect how much credence and emphasis we give to these memories.

One thing that is abundantly clear in the study mentioned by Frelkins and in the charts in the chapter found here: http://dare.uva.nl/document/354545 is that both knowledge and experience raise one's intuition greatly.

It's like trained dancers and jazz musicians - you learn the forms and develop skill through rigorous training that focuses on the conventions of the field, and then intuition uses all that (sometimes brilliantly) when improvising.

Oh ... I could not agree more !

Ever seen those preliminary eliminations from something like 'So, You Think You Can Dance?' Or 'so you think you can ..... x y z ... ' ?

Sometimes it takes an objective view to help gain a clearer picture of what one's own beliefs might lead one to assume about how well one is operating... not just from the adjudicator's view either ... often the audience is groaning.

this is a really interesting thread

I realise that I actually do a bit of both when I am just trying to get a feeling of the card when I first look at it in position. I do free association and use intuition. First see whatever comes to me and then look at the picture, what do I feel? see? etc

but there is the problem I am not sure if the free association comes from me! it's random things associated with the card and seems to be the most accurate if I get anything like that with the sitter. Could my mind know? is it from guides? interesting

danieljuk said:

...Could my mind know? is it from guides? ....

Click to expand...

I think we have to realise that we are all suffering from an upbringing in a paradigm infested to the core with Cartesian Dualism.

Where do we get these 'impulses' ? Dreams are interesting ... last night I had a dream.

A few hundred years back I would have said "Last night I was given a dream."

According to current paradigm there is only two 'realities'; 'hard stuff' (knocks on the computer ) and 'ideal' stuff (the mental world ... which 'spirituality' is part of) - its all seen as projections from our mentation processes .... some even go so far egotistically to suggest that if we do not observe, the thing may not exist.

In all human history, this way of thought is a very small percentage. And thinking the other way doesnt stop one building vast civilisation or building pyramids, etc.

There used to be a consideration that there is no division - there was one reality and it included 'hard' and 'ideal' . A current modern view ( a blend of old and new) sees three, sort of like the old unity inserted between the current two world model that may be generated from the interaction of the two.

http://dreamflesh.com/interviews/patrick-harpur/

kalliope said:

Discussing intuition is also complicated by the fact that many people in divination circles use that word to describe either a) extra-sensory perceptions (things we couldn't possibly know about the querent; information that comes from an external source,) or b) free-association. Fewer people use the term as c) defined in that study (second paragraph of Intro, labeled pg. 79.)

Click to expand...

yes, it makes it very difficult. here is the definition you mentioned

“Intuition is a process of thinking. The input to this process is mostly provided by knowledge stored in long-term memory that has been primarily acquired via associative learning. The input is processed automatically and
without conscious awareness. The output of the process is a feeling that can serve as a basis for judgments and decisions.” (cornelia betsch, 2008)

in my opinion, the first sentence underscores something that danieljuk also touched on, namely, that this is not a "heart vs. head" process. all sorts of things come into play, and if you leave your thoughts completely by the side and just focus on the first thing that comes up for you, you can end up with some pretty inane stuff. there is nothing wrong with the free association process per se, it's just that there needs to be pause and reflection before going ahead with it. when something really far out occurs to me in a reading (or in a counselling session with a client), i pause, "taste" it, see whether it is persistent. often thoughts like "he should become a goat farmer in iceland!" are just fleeting dream-like images/intrusions. when they persist, i ask myself quietly whether it would help to present this "intuition" and when the answer is yes, i may cushion them in words like, "this may sound really far off to you" or "what would it be like if we considered ..." (especially if i still think goat farming in iceland would be a great idea ).

the point is that everything we say should ideally go through a number of filters. unfortunately, there are people who think that these filters are harmful barriers, when they are just instruments of refinement. (and like any instrument, they need to be cleaned, repaired and/or replaced regularly )