Experiments to show bias, framing, being mistaken is all fine but how does that end up meaning your gut instinct is faulty?

Yes, sorry John, I remember you were taken with the book, that's when I looked it up first.  and yes, where is Lakeshore!

something that is reliable at times of danger is not to be sneezed at.  that is like saying it's always right isn't it?  but not a lodestar yes of course.

it's like the crickets on my basil - when the movement is instinctive, I want to protect my basil from the evil leaf-eating monster my ire is aroused and squish, that cricket is dead. but when I hesitate, pull back from the instinctive movement, even if only for a split second in which I think yes I'm gonna kill it, let alone thinking must get the aim right, it is successful in jumping away.

The ability to hesitate is good.  but that doesn't mean instinct is wrong.

Playing bridge online is something else altogether.  so sometimes you luck out and make a table of thoughtful players.  People who have played enough to learn instinct is not enough by itself, it can only work with what it knows and they also know systems are not enough, the random nature of card playing defeats them.  you need the computing power of that instinctive read, the systems need to be so pared down and practised that they aid more often than trip you up and then you need to hesitate.  and have your own little thought process, there's more you can think through than meets the eye and that improves your chances of finding the right lead as defender or if you're playing the hand, foreseeing a problem or changing your play when it turns out the cards aren't where you hoped they were.  You just think enough to make that hesitation count - and the timing is neither too quick, like it is with the purely by instinct players or too slow.  And it's a real pleasure to play with people like that.