Intelligence is a precisely defined thing that you can't just attach new dimensions to.
On top, a key feature of higher reasoning is mid- to long term prediction. It does not seem clear to me how intuition would help in planning behavior beyond the current situation.
I mean everyone is always arguing about what intelligence is or even means, especially on here, so I find this a very strange thing for you say.
That's not an easy task.
Which don't agree on a single definition. See for example:
My argument is: There are established dimensions of intelligence. There are arbitrarily many potential new dimensions. Coming up with anything and calling it intelligence is not hard and not automatically helpful.
The hard part is coming up with something new that makes sense in the context of all the existing findings.
1. Crystallized intelligence - stuff you have memorized. This breaks down further with memorized vs experienced, with the latter leading to "wisdom", which really breaks down to how Asimov broke down knowledge - not only knowing the thing, but knowing how you know the thing is true. Because I am dumb, I can't think of a single good example. But it would be something like "We know an object in motion stays in motion because {PERSON} did an {EXPERIMENT} and {PERSON} is credible and you can replicate the {EXPERIMENT} like so". That's "true" knowledge.
2. Fluid intelligence - working memory. The number of things you can keep in your mind at the same time. Declines with age, or maybe disuse, we don't really know.
IQ tests are out there. Working memory are out there too in terms of how they affect/correlate with life outcomes and/or IQ. I am obsessed with this topic, but I find nothing concrete past "sleep enough, exercise, learn things, some things, maybe music, maybe lang, we don't know."
Also there should be a type of intelligence - conceives abstract ideas that are not just composed of things they have learned.
There has been research, though, suggesting that when it comes to certain kinds of decision making, involving complex scenarios with lots of uncertainty, decisions made on intuition often are associated with greater satisfaction later.
So I think there's something to it.
The other tricky thing is that this is relatively difficult to study from a cognitive perspective. By its nature it's pretty vague but it also involves things that are difficult to capture in a lab. Creativity is sort of like this as well -- everyone has some sense that there's a thing such as creativity or generativity but studying it turns out to be difficult because it's hard to measure.
My personal difficulty with intuitive decision-making is that because by definition almost it involves subconscious factors, it's difficult to know what to make of it, or when it is good versus bad.
For example, you'll find a lot of articles here on HN and elsewhere about being rational in your decision making, and not letting emotions guide you. So is that "overriding intuition"? On the other hand, I think part of why intuitive decision making can be helpful sometimes is that sometimes there are factors that are difficult for you to fully appreciate the weight of, and your "rational" processes might not entirely grasp the significance of them. So you might later on look back and think "oh yeah that was way worse than I thought at the time; it's no wonder I wanted to avoid it so badly." But how do you know which scenario is which?