The author seems to be stretching quite far to reach her conclusion, which seems to be to be that intuition is just another aspect of emotional response. The difficulty I have had in trying to explain this intuition is that there is a feeling of confusion attached, which superficially seems like it just goes to prove her point.

I don't think it does, though, and hopefully I can argue my way through this without stepping on any traps.

The argument of the author seems to rest largely upon the function of the amygdala. Because it lights up when exposed to stimuli where the recipient has a memory of that stimuli associated with some undesirable outcome, her assertion seems to be that amygdala must be the basis behind our reaction to all things our memory has build intuitive associations of outcomes around. I think this is a conclusion we can't yet draw. Because these research subjects are able to isolate important photos in a series based upon some intuition of a prior exposure, this doesn't mean I will always build an intuitive order of things based upon my own prior recollections about my emotional state of mind. As Mz points out as well, it makes a tremendous assumption about memory.

This almost reads like she wants this to be true. If this is the case, she is not the only one. I've had a number of discussions about this with other people who seem emotionally reactive toward things, who have expressed a desire for similar findings, because then they can declare that the emotional snap judgments they had which resulted in very bad outcomes were as good as they could've possibly done. Based on anecdotes from people in my life, this seems wrong; hence, my intuitive sense that this author's conclusions are faulty doesn't seem entirely out of line. Both intuition and experience are feeling confused.