tmindset
March 16, 2026·6 min read·FREE ESSAY

It Just Didn't Feel Right

Human intuition triumphed over the algorithm

Molecular gastronomy, cooking using pure chemical compounds rather than animal or plant tissues, transformed what food was.

For instance, instead of using a traditional carrot, you combined its core compounds - water, citric acid, carotene, and specific sugars - to build its flavor and texture from scratch.

This way, you could eat your carrot as a cold gel, hot foam, or even a transparent film.

Jeffrey Steingarten, a Vogue food critic, would describe the molecular gastronomy food experience as “a ghost of a taste” after he ate a bubble of sea foam.

"I was served a 'mousse' of smoke. It looked like nothing more than a few bubbles of sea foam on a plate. But when I put it in my mouth, it vanished instantly, leaving behind the intense, haunting flavor of a wood fire in autumn. It was a ghost of a taste. I sat there, mesmerized, staring at an empty spoon, wondering how something so physically insignificant could be so gustatorily massive. It wasn't just food; it was a magic trick performed on the tongue."

The Man Who Ate Everything

Among the diverse scientific techniques that molecular gastronomy offered, one was the Sous-vide which used centrifuges and thermal circulators.

Foods such as steak were vacuum-sealed in a bag and cooked in a precisely controlled, low-temperature water bath over a long time (0.1ºC), ensuring perfect doneness while also creating a tender texture and retaining moisture.

With the traditional grill, roasting was more of a game where the chef had to turn the meat at the right temperature before it overcooked.

The Sous-vide changed all this as Nathan Myhrvold described.

“Sous-vide changes the game. By setting the water to exactly 54°C (129°F), you allow the steak to reach a state of thermal equilibrium. The result is a steak that is edge-to-edge medium-rare, a feat that is physically impossible using a grill or a pan alone."

Modernist Cuisine

Due to the preciseness of the temperature, a chef could simply trust the sous-vide to consistently produce excellent food quality.

A Problem Arises

However, in one, Heston Blumenthal’s kitchen, there was a problem.

Heston ran a series in the BBC, In Search of Perfection where he tried to create what he considered the perfect version of several classic dishes that are favorites within Britain.

In one of the episodes, he wanted to make a perfect steak and used the Sous-vide machine to maintain temperature at 50ºC for 24 hours.

The machine began humming and the meat started to cook.

However, the temperature was too low and unintentionally harbored at the zone where bacterial growth was encouraged.

While the sensors couldn’t detect this and continued to roar with their stubbornness, Heston knew something was instinctively wrong.

"The machine was humming along perfectly, maintaining its pace with digital stubbornness. But Heston realized that the sheer size of the beef joint meant the core was not reaching the target temperature fast enough. The surface of the meat began to take on a slightly 'funky' aroma—the beginning of spoilage that the sensors in the water could not detect."

In Search of Perfection Episode

Eventually, Heston stepped in and overrode the machine, using a blowtorch to sear its exterior. This killed the surface bacteria before it was put back into the sous-vide to cook.

"He [Blumenthal] realized that science had its limits. The machine only knew the temperature of the water; it didn't know the state of the beef. He had to use the flame—the most primitive tool in the kitchen—to protect the most advanced experiment he’d ever attempted."

In Search of Perfection Episode

While the Molecular gastronomy scientific technique (Sous-vide) was programmed to work at high precision, maintaining temperature at 0.1ºC precision, it was blind to the influence of contextual factors that determined how well cooked the stake was.

The machine couldn’t readjust its settings based on the unpredictability of the biological ingredients.

In such moments, it was only the chef’s experience and intuition that identified something was off, overriding the machine and saving the dish.

Ford’s Edsel Flops

Away from the kitchen, in Ford’s factories, we find a different pattern.

It was 1957, and Ford had adopted scientific methods to study consumer data related to the purchase of their cars.

The quest was to design the perfect car for the American consumer.

The Edsel was born. It had a large grill, a flat design, and confusing buttons.

The consumer data pointed to the fact that the Edsel would sell highly in the market despite its “weird” looking shape. It would appear expensive and unforgettable, as the data justified.

However, local dealers and specialized designers knew something was off with the design where buttons were just confusing.

"Stylists and engineers warned that placing the transmission buttons in the steering hub was a 'mechanical nightmare.' They pointed out that drivers would instinctively reach for the horn and accidentally shift into Reverse at forty miles per hour. The designers' pleas for a conventional lever were ignored because the 'research' suggested that consumers wanted 'futuristic gadgets' above all else."

Business Adventures

The human designers knew human behavior despite what the data was pointing to.

Ford ignored them and prioritized the data, going ahead with the design. However, it flopped, costing them $350 million in losses.

Listening only to the algorithm and ignoring the human intuition cost losses to the business.

What do we see?

In both cases, we observe the classic case of man’s intuition vs the machine’s preciseness and data.

In the kitchen, Heston knew something was off when cooking the steak and jumped in to override the machine. He saved his steak.

In the factory, Ford ignored the human intuition of the designers who understood human behavior and went ahead with what the data told them. They flopped.

This week, we shift our attention to the relevance of human intuition in the age of AI.

In this part 1, we introduced the “what”, showing that human intuition is still essential to judge the output we receive from AI tools before we apply it.

One way I integrate my intuition within my workflows is to add an intentional status in my tasks “Taste Test” before I consider them complete.

A good example is when I have some reports to share to my team members.

I first note all tasks that I must complete to ensure the report is well done in ClickUp.

  1. Do my research

  2. Compile the report using AI assistance

  3. Send it to the team

Right before I send the report in Step 3, I add a mandatory status “Taste Test” where I have to judge the final report before sending it.

In ClickUp, create a new list of tasks you need to complete to deliver a final product.

Next, add the 3 tasks in the list.

Next, create 3 new statuses in the list.

  • Do Now - tasks that you are doing now

  • Taste Test - where I have to integrate my intuition

  • Complete - tasks that are complete and have passed my intuition test

Before I complete a task, I ensure to conduct a mandatory “taste test” where I integrate my intuition in ClickUp.

In the “taste test” phase, I ask questions, assessing whether what I have in the final report matches my human experience and intuition.

Whether you use AI tools to help you in writing, coding, or design work, try create a mandatory phase where you have the chance to use your intuition to verify the output you have.

This way, you will remain in control.

Keep reading

Get the next essay in your inbox.

Join 340,000+ readers. A new essay every Monday morning. Subscribers also get framework deep-dives.