I'm thinking this part of your post overrides the former, let me know if you want me to address something from the former though.
What differences do you have in mind and how do you see them relating to my claim? The central issue here is that behavior depends on the state or beliefs about the state. It's simple mathematical fact for world state values, a lack of rational beliefs can at best just happen to not be behavior damaging and at worst result in substantially sub optimal behavior. Therefore, if your belief generating system is broken, you're in a worse off position that someone who does form rational beliefs. The rational agent is always in the best position.
An intuitive thought is formed without conscious reasoning; a reasoned thought obviously is formed with conscious reasoning. To be frank I don't know how that relates to your claim, but I also don't know how we've reached your claim as a subject of discussion. My original point in bringing up intuition was that belief can simply exist as a condition: it does not have to be the result of flawed reasoning (in fact I think more often than not it works the other way around). That was in response to Irreverent regarding the origin of belief. To the extent that belief affects behavior (and thus outcomes), I don't think it matters whether that belief originated from intuition or flawed reasoning (though I do think there is a distinction to be made between the two, insofar that one is easier to correct than the other). But addressing that wasn't my intention when I began to talk about intuition.