In philosophy, Henri Bergson made intuition the heart of his method of knowledge. For him, intuition is the faculty that lets us grasp duration and the flow of life from within, through a kind of sympathy with the real, where analytical intelligence cuts up and freezes things.

His intellectual heir Gilbert Simondon, in his work on processes of individuation, extends this valuing of a knowledge lived from within. Understanding a phenomenon — technical, living or psychic — implies for him a certain intuition of its becoming, a global grasp of its balance always in movement, which he expresses through the idea of the metastability of beings in becoming.

Philosophical intuition is therefore no esoteric fancy: it is a mode of direct knowledge, complementary to rational analysis, for approaching the complexity of the real.

Thinkers of systems and of second-order cybernetics have likewise rehabilitated intuition within a rigorous thinking of complexity.

Heinz von Foerster, a pioneer of second-order cybernetics, stressed that the observer is an integral part of the observation: “objectivity is the illusion that observations could be made without an observer”. Including the subject means recognising the role of our own inner perception in any process of knowing. Our understanding of a complex system inevitably draws on our intuitive resources, our past experience — and our biases, which we need to be aware of so as not to be fooled by them.

Edgar Morin, finally, argues for an intelligence not reduced to cold logical abstraction. Thinking the complexity of the world requires mobilising our whole cognitive being, reason and intuition included. He calls for “a way of thinking that is not disembodied and abstract, but rich in feeling, in intuition and in connection to context”.

Many voices converge: intuition is not the opposite of reason. It is a full component of human intelligence, especially valuable when we navigate uncertain or complex situations.

Despite these converging perspectives, intuition still suffers from an ambiguous reputation in professional settings. It is readily confined to the register of irrational instinct, opposed to method and serious analysis.

Yet we all experience reliable intuitions: a doctor’s lightning diagnosis before any tests, a manager’s sense that a decision will be badly received, a researcher who feels which hypothesis is worth digging into.

Far from opposing rigour, such intuitions are often the starting point of a rigorous approach. To deny that first draft of intuitive understanding would be to give up a powerful cognitive lever — especially faced with complexity, where data abound and exhaustive analysis is impossible on the spot.

In science as in art, advances are born of a dialogue between the flash of insight and methodical labour. It is time to move past the false dilemma of intuition versus rationality. Intuition is an immediate rigour, better recognised and refined than repressed.

In an interview setting, the professional faces a multitude of signals, verbal and non-verbal, conscious and implicit. They have analytical grids, theories, methodological tools. But it would be illusory to believe they rely only on those conscious elements.

The practitioner’s stance also draws on a more tacit knowledge: a feel for what is happening in the here and now of the relationship. The family therapist who senses an intangible tension between two family members before any open conflict breaks out. The coach who perceives a hidden emotion behind the client’s words. The doctor who guesses that a patient is not telling them everything.

These micro-intuitions often show up as bodily sensations — a knot in the stomach while listening to a story, a sign that something does not fit — as spontaneous images that come to mind, or as an impulse to ask the unsettling question.

Well used, this intuitive listening allows a deep bond to form and hypotheses or paths of change to be co-constructed with the client. Intuition in relationship is an inner compass: it imposes nothing by itself, but orients our attention towards what really matters to the other person.