Maybe it's just me, but I find Kahneman frustrating to read and this article really demonstrates the problem: he defines a concept and then gives examples which don't meet the definition.

He defines intuition as thinking you know without knowing how you know. OK, great. Now the example: guessing someone's GPA based on the fact that they started reading early. Like most people, I guessed it would be on the high side. Kahneman calls this "intuition that is generated automatically with high confidence." And that's… just wrong.

I have very little confidence in my guess, and it certainly isn't generated automatically. It's based on a belief—which turns out to be wrong—that early reading has some relationship with college GPA.

So maybe in this example, he is using the dictionary definition of "intuition", which is basically non-conscious reasoning. He thinks this shows the problem with intuition, but again, that's just wrong.

I didn't get the answer wrong because I failed to reason consciously. It's because my belief about the relationship between early reading and GPA was wrong. If I take his advice and don't trust my intuition, and carefully and logically reason my way to the answer, guess what? I'm still wrong because my information is wrong.

His explanation of when to trust your intuition is similarly flawed. He basically says you can trust your intuition when you have good information. Well yeah. That's a generic statement that goes for almost any method of drawing conclusions about the world, and doesn't help us understand when intuition is useful or not useful.