Read The Article 'Going With Your Gut' And Write A Two- ✓ Solved

Read the article 'GOING WITH YOUR GUT' and write a two-

Read the article 'GOING WITH YOUR GUT' and write a two-page reflection responding to: What do you think about the author's take on the parable? How does his view differ from your prior interpretation? How might it be the same? Also complete the Algebra/Trigonometry review problems below: I. Simplify and expand algebraic expressions. II. Solve quadratic equations and inequalities; use the quadratic formula where indicated. III. Find the equation of the circle with center (4, -3) passing through (6, 2). IV. Find the equation of the line through (0, 5) perpendicular to 4x - 3y = 8. V. Graph y = 2x^2 - 1 and label intercepts. VI. Evaluate and solve trigonometric expressions and equations as listed. VII. If f(x) = x^2 + 4x, find f(-3), f(2a), and f(f(x)).

Paper For Above Instructions

Introduction and Summary of the Article

The SojoNet article "GOING WITH YOUR GUT" advances a reading of a familiar parable that privileges intuitive, embodied moral judgment over slow analytical reasoning. The author argues that the parable endorses trusting one's gut instincts as a legitimate guide to moral action, suggesting that immediate felt response can reflect moral wisdom cultivated by experience and communal formation (SojoNet, 2008). The piece frames gut-level responses not as irrational impulses but as socially and spiritually shaped capacities that often align with ethical insight.

Reaction to the Author's Interpretation

I find the author’s emphasis on intuition and embodied moral sense persuasive insofar as it corrects a caricature that pits faith or morality solely against feeling. Contemporary cognitive science supports the claim that affective and bodily signals play a constitutive role in many judgments (Damasio, 1994; Bechara et al., 1997). Social-intuitionist accounts of moral judgment also show that much of our moral reasoning is post hoc rationalization of quick, affect-laden responses (Haidt, 2001; Greene, 2003). From this perspective, the article's rehabilitation of "gut" reactions aligns with research showing that experienced practical judgment often operates through fast, heuristic processes (Gigerenzer, 2007).

Points of Agreement

First, I agree that intuition is not inherently unreliable. Neuroscience and decision research demonstrate that somatic markers and heuristics can encode learned regularities and expertise, allowing rapid, generally adaptive decisions when time or information is limited (Damasio, 1994; Gigerenzer, 2007). Second, the article’s pastoral concern—valuing character formation that tunes instincts toward the good—is well taken. Moral intuitions shaped by practice, ritual, community norms, and reflective teaching are more likely to be dependable (Haidt, 2001; Lieberman, 2007).

Points of Divergence

However, I diverge from the author where the article suggests a near-unqualified trust in gut responses. Dual-process research highlights systematic biases and failures in fast thinking (Kahneman, 2011; Stanovich & West, 2000). Heuristics can mislead in atypical or complex situations—contexts where reflective, analytical thought is essential to detect confounds, counterexamples, or ethical trade-offs (Kahneman, 2011; Evans, 2008). Thus, while the parable may honor a kind of practical wisdom, it should not be read as a blanket endorsement of unexamined impulse. Instead, a balanced reading recognizes both the power and limits of intuition.

Integration: When Gut and Reflection Work Together

A synthesis I find compelling is that gut responses serve as a first signal that should be trusted when they are products of disciplined formation (experienced judgement) but tested by reflection in difficult cases. The Iowa Gambling Task and related studies show how bodily signals precede conscious strategy but are complemented by reflective insight for long-term advantage (Bechara et al., 1997). In moral life, communities train sensibilities (virtue formation) while also cultivating spaces for deliberation when intuitions conflict or when stakes are novel (Haidt, 2001; Damasio, 1994).

Application to the Parable and Personal Interpretation

Before reading the article, I tended to emphasize reasoned exegesis of parables—seeking propositional lessons and logical implications. The author's focus on embodied discernment broadened my view: parables can function not only as doctrinal propositions but as forms of moral habituation that aim to recalibrate the "moral gut." The similarity lies in shared aims: both readings seek ethical formation. The difference lies in the method—my prior view privileged explicit rules and arguments; the article privileges formation of sensibility (Haidt, 2001; Gigerenzer, 2007).

Algebra/Trigonometry Review Answers (Selected Items)

III. Equation of the circle with center (4, -3) passing through (6, 2): radius r = distance between (4,-3) and (6,2) = sqrt((6-4)^2 + (2+3)^2) = sqrt(4 + 25) = sqrt(29). Equation: (x - 4)^2 + (y + 3)^2 = 29.

IV. Line through (0,5) perpendicular to 4x - 3y = 8. First put given line in slope form: 4x - 3y = 8 ⇒ -3y = -4x + 8 ⇒ y = (4/3)x - 8/3. Slope = 4/3. Perpendicular slope = -3/4. Line through (0,5): y - 5 = (-3/4)(x - 0) ⇒ y = (-3/4)x + 5.

V. Graph y = 2x^2 - 1: Vertex at (0, -1). x-intercepts: solve 2x^2 - 1 = 0 ⇒ x^2 = 1/2 ⇒ x = ±1/√2 ≈ ±0.707. y-intercept: (0, -1). Label intercepts accordingly.

VII. If f(x) = x^2 + 4x: f(-3) = 9 - 12 = -3. f(2a) = (2a)^2 + 4(2a) = 4a^2 + 8a. f(f(x)) = let u = x^2 + 4x, then f(f(x)) = u^2 + 4u = (x^2 + 4x)^2 + 4(x^2 + 4x).

Conclusion

The SojoNet article persuasively reclaims the moral value of gut-level responses, showing how intuition can be an ethically reliable signal when cultivated within a community and a life of practice. Empirical research from neuroscience and decision science (Damasio, Bechara) and psychological theory (Haidt, Gigerenzer) supports the article’s basic claim that intuition matters. At the same time, dual-process and bias research (Kahneman; Stanovich & West) counsel humility and the complementary role of reflection. A balanced hermeneutic and moral psychology holds both: train the gut, but also teach the mind to check itself when circumstances demand deliberation.

References

  • Bechara, A., Damasio, H., & Damasio, A. R. (1997). Deciding advantageously before knowing the advantageous strategy. Science, 275(5304), 1293–1295.
  • Damasio, A. (1994). Descartes' Error: Emotion, Reason, and the Human Brain. Putnam.
  • Evans, J. S. B. T. (2008). Dual-processing accounts of reasoning, judgment, and social cognition. Annual Review of Psychology, 59, 255–278.
  • Gigerenzer, G. (2007). Gut Feelings: The Intelligence of the Unconscious. Viking.
  • Greene, J. D. (2003). From neural "is" to moral "ought": What are the moral implications of neuroscientific moral psychology? Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 4(10), 846–850.
  • Haidt, J. (2001). The emotional dog and its rational tail: A social intuitionist approach to moral judgment. Psychological Review, 108(4), 814–834.
  • Kahneman, D. (2011). Thinking, Fast and Slow. Farrar, Straus and Giroux.
  • Lieberman, M. D. (2007). Social cognitive neuroscience: A review of core processes. Annual Review of Psychology, 58, 259–289.
  • Stanovich, K. E., & West, R. F. (2000). Individual differences in reasoning: Implications for the rationality debate? Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 23(5), 645–665.
  • SojoNet. (2008). Going With Your Gut. Sojourners Magazine. Retrieved from http://www.sojo.net/magazine/going-with-your-gut

Related Assignments