Something strange happened to my post and there was no option to edit it.  Rather than repost the entire response, I will simply add the missing context that was supposed to be at the beginning of the post:

"My friend Mr. William Liu shared with me this interesting discussion and asked me to post my response to him.  My response to William is given below, it contains my humble opinion, but perhaps it might serve to facilitate further discussions or explorations in the area."

What normally happens when I am presented with a situation, I seek to understand the context.  Part of the context is the supposed quote from Einstein.  In this age of the Internet, information is readily accessible, however, not all information are "equal".  My challenging mind almost immediately decided to check the validity of the quote, and it appears it is actually a misquote, ie. there is no direct evidence the quote came from Einstein and in fact the quote is likely to be a (mis-)paraphrase from another person which has been "carried far and wide" in its misquoted form by the Internet and accepted as "fact".  According to quoted works, Einstein has actually stated on many occasions that intuition does not come on its own and is built upon experience and intellect, so each play valuable roles.  Why might people not check sources?  Laziness, perhaps.  More likely, it sounds good and give an idea gravitas if it came from a "great mind" such as Einstein's.  This is very common if you recall "Power by Association" (stage 2 in Janet Hagberg's Real Power).

Going back to your query of whether you had listed "right" questions, my personal view is that even if Einstein did make the quote, I would still want to understand the context under which it was made because often meanings are distorted because words are taken out of context. What might Einstein had been thinking of or referring to at the time and is it (now and in the future) applicable to all, some, or even only one unique situation(s)?  Did he retract, modify, or re-contextualize the idea at other times?  Even if none of those happened, could Einstein had been incorrect (those situations have also been documented)?

Since it appears Einstein did not make the original quote and other evidence suggests he valued experience and intellect in their rightful roles.  It does not appear intuition alone is valuable in discovery in Einstein's mind.  My question then is what does your experiences, intellect and intuitions tell you to be "true" ~for you~?

I trust the above is of some use.

For individuals wanting to do their own due diligence or reference checking, one might try Wikiquotes (the page on Einstein's quotes is below):

 http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Talk:Albert_Einstein

Or, better yet, seek even more reputable sources.

愛因斯坦在發展他的廣義相對論理論的時候，時間與空間已經糾結在一起，傳統的歐氏幾何學坐標系統，已經無法用來描述他的理論，所以要從歐氏幾何，走向非歐幾何。

當時蘇黎世工業大學的格羅斯，Marcel Grossman,是當代傑出的數學家。於是愛因斯坦求教於格羅斯。格羅斯以黎曼幾何（也稱微分幾何）的理論架構，成功的幫助了愛因斯坦，來描述他的《廣義相對論》。

簡單來説，格羅斯的數學造詣高於愛因斯坦，但是《相對論》理論模型的成形，還是靠愛因斯坦的《直覺》。數學大師格羅斯所提供的數學知識，只是扮演了「工具」性的功能。

愛因斯坦的成就，當然是高於格羅斯了。

牛頓看到蘋果從樹上掉下來，啓發他去思考一個問題，就是到底是什麽力量導致蘋果從樹上掉下來？牛頓把蘋果從樹上掉下來的現象，與“地球爲什麽會繞著太陽轉”的現象，做了聯結，牛頓認爲這二個現象，是基於同一個物理定律，就是所謂的《萬有引力定律》。

牛頓理論的重點，是這個現象有絕對的普遍性，所以才叫做《萬有》引力定律。
     
爲了要證明這二個現象是一回事，牛頓發明了《微積分》。其實，在同一個時期，美國的科學家萊比尼茨，也發明了《微積分》。但是牛頓的成就，遠遠的大於萊佈尼茨，因爲萊佈尼茨只是一個傑出的數學家，而牛頓是先有了《萬有引力定律》這樣的「直覺」，最後以微積分的數學工具，證明了他的直覺是正確的。
  
我想，這就是科學家的《直覺》，與《專業知識》的差別。有專業知識的，未必有直覺；有直覺的，未必有專業知識。最終成就比較大的，是能夠運用專業知識作爲工具，為自己的直覺找出答案的真理追求者吧。

不論是牛頓，還是愛因斯坦，都是如此。他們的《直覺》，發揮了極其關鍵性的作用。
    
      

很高興Fun Gau兄願意分享他對愛因斯坦語錄的看法。大學時代與Fun Gau的徹夜常談一直是我人生最美好的回憶之一。

Fun Gau兄希望回到愛因斯坦的原始語錄說起。顯然他不是很讚成愛氏的這句話：
《真正有價值的是直覺。在探索的道路上，智力無甚用處》
“The only real valuable thing is intuition. The intellect has little to do on the road to discovery.”

如果普林斯敦有20到30個人數學比愛因斯坦強。但是他們的成就遠小於愛氏。是不是在暗示要有愛氏的成就必須要有他的數學程度。數學代表了智力。是’直覺”讓愛氏的成就有別於這些人？所以智力是基本配備，不同的領域要有不同的智力程度，但是新的發現主要是”直覺”….我門可以這樣來解讀愛氏的話嗎？

有2，3拾人”智力”與愛氏相當但是”直覺”輸愛氏？因為他們都在解決”錯誤的問題”。你認為愛氏所說的”直覺”就是能幫助找到”對的問題”的能力 ？”對的問題”（對的目標或方向）已經是普世價值了。因為方向最重要，方向對了遲早會達到目的地。方向錯了再努力也到不了目的地。

現在我們討論愛氏的”真正有價值的是直覺。在探索的道路上，智力無甚用處”
這句話，我們討論的題目是不是也可有以下選擇：

1.	直覺與智力是什麼？
2.	選擇”對的問題”是靠直覺嗎？
3.	直覺是可以靠努力來加強的嗎？
4.	如何培養問”對的問題”的能力？
5.	要討論愛氏的這句話應該有什麼前提？
6.	愛氏的這句話值得討論嗎？
7.	我們應討論有建設性的問題還是跟著感覺與好奇心走？
 
以上那個問題才是”對的問題”？還是你有別的”對的問題”？你是靠直覺，智力還是其他的能力來判斷什麼問題是”對的問題”？

我問”對問題”了嗎？

Very interresting link.  Since there are several comments/responses on "intuition", I'll share my thoughts on that topic.
 
"The only real valuable thing is intuition.  The intellect has little to do on the road to discovery."  ---  Einstein.
 
This is a strong and exaggerate statement. We all know that in the science field, one can not do much without intellect. How can he say that the intellect has little (which means next to nothing) to do on the road to discovery and intellect is the only real valuable thing (not one of them but the only).  He stands at a much higher level than we do.  We can only interpret his saying based on his level not ours.
 
One of the mathmatic guru in Princeton at Einstein's time said that he can find 20 to 30 mathmaticians who are more capable than Einstein, but they are solving the wrong problems.  Even you are more capable, more intellective, you will be on the wrong road to discovery.  What is the right problem?  What is the right path?  In Einstein's word, it is intuition.
 
Modern physics becomes more difficult to understand.  Can you imagin what a 20 dimentions world will look like?  They say yesterday's sciense fiction may become tomorrow's reality.  Imagination and pick the right imagination (I guess that is intuition.) is the key to a successful research.
 
One day, an apple fell from the tree and hit Newton's head.  That made Newton's imagination machine (also called brain) running.  He might come up with tens or hundreds ideas why apples fell, but he liked the one best "there is an invisible force pulling it down".  At that time there was no knowledge or intellect to explane the invisible force, so what do you call it, sciense fiction, imagination, or intuitive.  Then, Newton worked on that intuitive and developed the theory of gravity.  Newton was the greatest mind, the most intellective mathmatician at his time.  
Could it be possible that some other people had similar ideas but did not have the mathmatical capability to develop into a gravity theory?  Could it be possible that some other people had the same mathatical capability but developed a theory and later proven to be wrong?  Now, it is your call which is the only real valuable thing on the road to discovery.
 
Hundreds years later, when Einstein read Newton's story, he might have tens or hundreds ideas in his mind other than the "invisible force", but he liked the one "the mass of earth define the space and time around it".  Einstein was the greatest mind, the most intellective mathmatician at his time.
 
Halley comet visits earth periodically.  Looks back in the past thousands years of history, how many historical events, novels, poems, imaginations, intuitives, studies, researchs, theories and so on and so forth were caused by Halley.  Diffeerent eyes see different things and that leads to different results.  The sky is blue.  The rose is red.  It is a wonderful world.  One rice feeds hundreds people.  Whatever you read out of it is just whatever you are.
 
It is funny that I'm thinking what would my thoughts be if I were 20, 40, or 80 years old.  Just like what you see in a mirror - it is a reflection of you.  I don't know what I'm talking about.  Have fun reading, thinking, and let your mind fly.
 

Susie 和Dean 都用直覺認為寫文章連分段都不會的就是我。其實我是有分段的只是文章從Word 檔上貼到論壇時，空行變不見了。可見”直覺”是很容易錯的。因為”直覺”裡很多是數千萬年演化來的能力是針對數千萬年前的環境求生存用的。我們今天的環境很大部分受到最近5千年快速變化的人類文明影響。用直覺來判斷與人類文明相關的事就容易出錯。

既然Dean 提到神經學來解釋直覺。”好奇心”使我去翻開洪蘭於2002年翻譯的大腦的秘密檔案裡面對”直覺”與”好奇心”說法：

部分的大腦會不斷渴望尋找外界刺激。這種對訊息的飢渴是大腦的最基本的特質─好奇心

人類在6歲以前大腦都在成長。在發展中的大腦內部，神經元彼此比賽尋找伙伴，希望與之連結形成團隊。每一個神經細胞必須在大腦中找到預定的位置，假如沒有找到，就會死於無情的修剪歷程。這個塑身過程很重要，但也可能會付出代價。有些被修掉的連結很可能是我們後來認為是”天才”的一些”直覺”技能

我們不妨以Susie “我的直覺是 William” 的案例，來解釋什麽是“直覺”。

Susie 認識 William 很久了。在認識的初期，Susie 逐漸辨識 William 的文字風格。在辨識的過程中，用的是 Brain. Brian 逐漸把這些認知 “儲存”了下來，資訊甚至進入了“神經末梢”。

現在 Susie 一旦看到 “ 一篇回文密密麻麻都是字，沒分段..”，她的辨識就不再需要經過 Brain, Susie 的神經末梢當場就告訴 Susie:  “一定是 William”。

所以，經過經常性的訓練。或者是天賦基因的因素，對於一些事物的反應，不需要再經過“大腦辨識”的正常程序，“神經末梢”就可以給出了答覆。這種反應，因爲“沒經過大腦”，也沒有經過“反復思考求證”， 是非常的快速，這就是所謂的“直覺”吧。

直覺往往是正確，就像Susie 的直覺案例，“一定是William”，果然就是正確的。

所以，“神經末梢”也儲存了很多資訊。對於很多事的判斷，“不經過大腦”，有時候比經過大腦，還要精准有效。

當然，以上所說的，只是“直覺” 的一種。Wiilliam 所說的“創業直覺”，就不是“神經末梢”式的直覺式直覺，而是另外一種“判斷式”的直覺。這種的直覺，就可能跟個人的“信仰”或是“性向”有關了。

.

看到一篇回文密密麻麻都是字，沒分段...年過半百的眼睛抗議了:連喘個氣得機會都沒有....

我的直覺告訴我:一定是威廉!!


我算不算是Dean講的那個網球高手?(在文字編輯方面..)

我也有幾個直覺的例子：1. 愛因斯坦說上帝不玩骰子而不願意接受量子力學的不準度原理。這個應該是愛氏的直覺。今天的科學界普遍認為愛氏的這個直覺錯了。2. 我們常常聽到警探辦案用直覺很快就判定誰是兇手而破案的故事。3. 定泮公創業之初的產業型態與鴻海很接近。他在學校是才子型的學生創業又早。我問他為什麼沒有像鴻海一樣的成長。他說看到個有潛力的產品，他投資買7台機器。當時一樣沒有很多錢的郭台銘買70台。

這幾個例子的直覺內涵應該與打網球的直覺不完全一樣。我以為世界頂尖的網球高手與中鼎兄打球用的都是直覺。只是直覺的功力不同罷了。

世界上很多偉大的事情都是靠直覺做到的。我原想從瞭解直覺的內涵來找出學習直覺的方法。經過您的提醒我想維基百科的定義其實就在說世界上對直覺是什麼還沒有很清楚的說法。大家都只能說直覺不是什麼(加上一個判斷的速度比邏輯思考快)。如果我們把對象放在一般對人事物的判斷來看，直覺是─不全靠邏輯推理來的判斷。

邏輯推理是人類用大腦的一部分在有了文字後才快速發展出來的文明。直覺是綜合指數，是有生物以來數千萬年演化過來所有的能力(全部的大腦加全身的能力)在當下作出的即刻判斷。

我們要過個Susie說的無悔的”人生下半場”是不是要多用直覺？現在大家強調的創新不就是要我們跳脫故有的思維？跟著感覺走，逆向思考等等都是告訴我們有價值，偉大的事物不在正統的思考訓練裡。

要讓生活中多些直覺，我以為行動是很重要的條件。因為直覺當初設計的就是為了行動。行動是加強直覺功力的最佳途徑。

以上說法可算是我的直覺。雜亂不完整是功力不夠。請指正。

妙答，妙喻~