Analytical vs. Intuitive Problem Solving
Recently I’ve tried to examine the way my friends and I solve problems. One major pattern I’ve noticed is that we approach a problem from two directions:
- We solve it analytically. This comes in different forms. Usually it involves breaking down a problem into simple parts and solving those individually (perhaps with intersecting constraints taken into account). It can also be simple math: minimize a cost function, solve an equation, add up some numbers, etc. Or it can be just to test something and go in the directions that the results point to.
- We solve it intuitively. This is a lot less systematic and usually more holistic. We solve a problem on what appears to feel right or what crazy idea our brain thinks is optimal. We use intuition consciously and subconsciously a lot every day.
No one is purely analytically or purely intuitive. Everyone, whether they realize it or not, uses a lot of both. But people tend to consciously focus on one when solving problems. Science-centric people seem to be very focused on the analytical but it’s interesting to see that engineering involves a lot of both. There are many reasons for this. One is that sometimes engineers need to solve high level problems that can’t practically be broken down to simple parts that can be solved individually. This may be because the problem has hundreds of independent constraints or that some of the constraints are purely about aesthetics or feelings. Sometimes it’s because you can’t spend your time analyzing every single engineering problem you come up with. So you need to pick a solution fast based on experience/intuition. Even the path you choose to solving the problem is an important intuitive process.
For example, a problem that requires a lot of both is designing an enclosure for the electronics I’m working with at KNOX. There are numerous constraints you need to meet including aesthetics, manufacturability, ergonomics, cost, weight, etc. You could solve this by trying to order the constraints. As in, pick what’s important and design the important things first, then use that as a constraint for less important things. But this mathematically may not give you the global optimum design. I believe it’s better engineering to use more intuition. I can’t say I know the inner working of ones brain when we do this but I believe intuition helps us come up with better global optimum (i.e. best or most elegant) design. Whether it’s by coming up with the design itself, or by thinking up a process to figure out the design.
The most important thing here though is that to be good engineers, we have to consider what type of thinking is best for the problem at hand. And often times we need to blend the two type of thoughts elegantly. Sometimes we fall into the pitfall of over-analyzing and simply wasting time to end up with a sub-optimal solution. Alternatively, sometimes we dream up a crazy idea but forget to objectively verify some of the aspects of it to see if it actually makes sense. There is no fool-proof way to blend both appropriately, but simply stepping back and asking yourself about your thought process can help. Just use a little meta-cognition and analyze how you feel about it.
