How do institutions support intuition without turning it into dogma?
context.
Intuition is often framed as something individuals either have or lack. In institutional settings, it is sometimes elevated as expertise and other times dismissed as bias.
In practice, however, many consequential decisions rely on intuitive judgment precisely because not everything can be formalized, documented, or anticipated in advance.
This question explores how intuition functions inside collective systems, how it is shaped, reinforced, and constrained by the environments in which decisions are actually made.
the tension.
When intuition goes unexamined, it can harden into dogma. Practices become “just how things are done,” resistant to reflection or adaptation.
At the same time, attempts to eliminate intuition entirely often fail, replacing it with rigid processes that can’t account for nuance.
The tension lies in supporting intuitive judgment while maintaining openness, accountability, and the ability to revise assumptions.
what this points toward.
This question points toward intuition as something that can be cultivated intentionally—through shared language, reflection, and exposure to diverse perspectives.
It suggests that institutions can support intuition by making reasoning visible and by encouraging dialogue about how decisions are made.
Rather than suppressing intuition or enshrining it, this approach treats it as a living practice that benefits from scrutiny.
