Andrew Shtulman on Intuition, Imagination, and the Science of Belief

Andrew Shtulman’s fascination with how people form—and cling to—intuitive beliefs began early. “I was interested in why people believe weird things,” he says, recalling a moment from high school biology that stuck with him. “There were certain students who requested to leave the classroom whenever evolution was brought up because they came from very religious families. I just found that fascinating—that they were uninterested in even hearing what evolution was about.”

What began as curiosity evolved into a lifelong exploration of how the human mind constructs its own common-sense theories of the world. “I remember finding the concept of evolution very counterintuitive,” Shtulman says. “Those sorts of issues just percolated in the back of my head as I became a psychology major.” Though he initially considered philosophy or religious studies, he realized that his real interest lay not in winning arguments but in understanding why people believe differently. That realization led him toward cognitive development and the study of intuitive theories—mental models we form in childhood that shape how we perceive and explain reality.

At Princeton, a required empirical project cemented his path. “Most of my peers were not having much fun doing theirs,” he laughs, “but I really enjoyed it. That’s when I realized research might be the path for me.” Graduate work at Harvard with Susan Carey, a leading scholar of conceptual development, helped him refine his focus on how intuitive beliefs interact with scientific learning. “Working with her really honed my interest in conceptual change—how people shift from intuitive to scientific ideas,” he says.

Shtulman defines intuitive theories as “sets of beliefs that help you interpret the world around you, explain events in the past, and predict events in the future.” They’re called intuitive because “they’re not taught to you in any formal context. We devise them on our own.” Built from perception, culture, and experience, these mental models resemble scientific theories in structure but lack their precision. “What we put together on our own is a good start,” he notes, “but definitely not as powerful an understanding as provided by science.”

That tension between intuition and science lies at the heart of Shtulman’s work. His research shows that even after learning formal scientific concepts, people rarely abandon their intuitive ones. “Even if you learn a scientifically accurate theory, you never give up on your older intuitive ideas,” he says. “They linger and are triggered by everyday contexts.” This persistence explains why even educated adults may hesitate on statements like humans descended from sea animalsor the Earth orbits the Sun. “We like to think of ourselves as well educated,” Shtulman notes, “but many of our attitudes and beliefs are based on intuition rather than empirical fact.”

He illustrates this with enduring misconceptions in mechanics and biology. “People tend to think objects move because of internal forces imparted by a push, rather than understanding inertia,” he says. “And when thinking about evolution, people often don’t entertain the idea that species evolve at all.” These beliefs are deeply intuitive, not easily displaced by classroom instruction.

In his 2017 book Scienceblind, Shtulman explores how such intuitive theories persist. “I wrote Scienceblind because there were very rich literatures on intuitive theories that the average person didn’t know anything about,” he explains. “Students don’t show up to science class as blank slates—they already have detailed understandings of how things work that are helpful in daily life but inconsistent with the science they’re about to be taught.”

One of his favorite examples is the idea that being cold causes illness. “Across cultures, people have decided that getting cold makes you sick,” he says. “But controlled experiments show that only exposure to viruses causes colds.” These misconceptions survive, he argues, because they fit our intuitive sense of cause and effect—even when contradicted by evidence.

Shtulman’s second book, Learning to Imagine, challenges another widespread belief—that imagination declines with age. “We’re not born with amazing imaginations that dwindle away,” he argues. “Imagination grows as you know more about the world, because knowledge is the fodder for imagination.” Children’s make-believe, he explains, is often an imitation of the adult world rather than genuine fantasy. “Adults are actually the ones with rich imaginations,” he says. “Our creativity just gets channeled into our professions, where it doesn’t feel imaginative—but it is.”

As a teacher at Occidental College, Shtulman brings these insights into the classroom. “I like to pump students’ intuitions,” he says. “I’ll pose a problem and elicit their ideas, then we work from there—sometimes to show how those intuitions are wrong, other times to build on them.” He offers an example from physics: “To teach the normal force—the idea that a surface pushes up on an object—I start with springs and flexible boards. Students can feel the push. Eventually, they realize even a solid table pushes up too.”

His work also explores cognitive reflection—the ability to override an intuitive response with an analytical one. “We’ve created a version of the Cognitive Reflection Test for children,” he explains, “using brain teasers like, ‘What do cows drink?’ which elicits ‘milk,’ but the correct answer is ‘water.’” The results are striking: “Kids who are more cognitively reflective are better at understanding counterintuitive scientific ideas—and learning them.”

More recently, Shtulman has turned his attention to media literacy and misinformation. “We’ve been studying how cognitive reflection relates to detecting misinformation online,” he says. “Reflective children are better at identifying false stories than those who are not as reflective. Now we’re testing ways to help all children become better at recognizing misinformation.”

For Shtulman, science communication isn’t just about accuracy—it’s about accessibility. “When I’m writing an academic paper, I never write a sentence I wouldn’t be comfortable saying to someone outside my field,” he says. “Part of being a good scientist is being able to communicate what you’re doing and what you found.”

Asked how he defines success, he pauses. “For me as an academic, success is doing something that other people are interested in and that actually changes the current theories of the day,” he says. “More generally, success means finding something that makes you feel valued and productive.”

The 6Degrees team extends its heartfelt thanks to Andrew Shtulman for sharing his insight, clarity, and passion for understanding how we think, imagine, and learn. His work reminds us that the path to knowledge begins not by rejecting intuition—but by understanding it deeply enough to see beyond it.