This article discusses the different strengths and weaknesses of analytical and intuitive thinking, which combined may be called holistic thinking. Because thinking is in its nature invisible and abstract, the article uses an analogy by way of representation: the anatomy of the cornea.

At the very center of the cornea are clustered cone cells, which have the function of focusing on objects far or near. Surrounding the cone cells are the more numerous rod cells, which provide peripheral vision. If the cone cells deteriorate, when one attempts to focus upon an object, it disappears; a black spot in the center. But if you lose peripheral vision, even if you retain the ability to focus, it is like observing the world one speck at a time through the means of the focused beam of a flashlight. It is much easier to get around with only peripheral vision than with only focused vision.

This analogy can be convincing when seeking to persuade lawyers that analysis is not the whole universe of thinking. Lawyers are taught to specialize in analytical thinking. They may do this to such an extent that they dismiss intuition as "touchy-feely." That term betrays unawareness of the fact that just as the cone cells are surrounded by more numerous rod cells, so the penetrative power of analytical thinking is only made possible by the provision of context afforded by the intuitive. If you have no intuition of where to look, you cannot focus the concentrated beam of analysis at the right target.

Analytical thinking is historically quite recent, whereas intuitive thinking has been mankind