It's interesting and illustrative to notice how we interpret that article differently.

It is not a scientific or academic article and is targeted at a particular audience - attorneys who are mediators. That doesn't mean it should not be critiqued and it's flaws noted, but does suggest that context matters.

I did not interpret the article to be negative with respect to the merits of critical thinking, nor to suggest that intuitive thinking should be preferred over critical thinking. I interpreted him to be pointing out to attorneys who mediate that mediation may be more likely to be successful if the mediator is able to incorporate both intuitive and analytical thinking in their attempts to assist opposing parties come to agreement.

Now, my interpretation is shaped by my own personal and professional experiences, training and paradigm, which is oriented toward the psychosocial and interpersonal relationships and transactions. I'm not a researcher, scientist or academic. I am a practicing social worker. What comes to mind for me when I think of mediation are divorce and child custody issues. For some of you, when you think of mediation, you may think more in terms of mandatory arbitration between labor/business or customer/corporation. When the focus of the mediation is as much about the intangibles of relationships and the internal emotional states of people, some intuitive thinking on the part of the mediator is more likely to result in a mediated outcome vs. an embittered court battle that ultimately can be very destructive for all parties. The intangibles are less important, and perhaps not at all important in some instances.

I don't value intuitive thinking over critical thinking. The emphasis on critical thinking resulted in DmG closely evaluating the details of the article and finding the factual flaws, which then lead him to not just doubt the conclusion of the article, but to arrive at a different understanding of the conclusion than did I. What I came away with was more of a global, big picture impression, and found I agreed with the perspective that it was a useful article with a valid conclusion, dispite some problems with the details. I was aware of some of the flaws but not as many of the flaws as DmG noted. Even after reading DmG's criticisms, which I think are valid, I still agree with the premise of the article, and still don't understand the article to be dissing analytical thinking. I don't think comparing and contrasting, or noting the strengths and weaknesses of differing approaches constitutes being negative, and especially don't think suggesting that successful mediation is more likely to result from incorporating elements of both intuitive and critical thinking is negative or is advocating for intuitive thinking over critical thinking in this context. That is from my paradigm and frames of reference. I don't think it is a question of one of us is right or correct in our interpretations and the other is wrong.