There are problems with the narrow interpretation taken in the Maier String experiment. For example, the person may respond "it just came to me" but what they mean to say is that it came to them after they saw the motion of the string. The cause in this case can not be attributed to the experimentor, but the awareness of the stimuli available. Any new information can cause a radical shift in thinking that may very well appear to "come from nowhere" but when asked to isolate the time of start for this thinking, most people, through introspection can and will link their reasoning to the probable root cause.

While the second experiment indicates a lack of psychological subtlety when dealing with one's inner-workings it doesn't disprove the reasons that the subjects put forward, it merely gives a likely reason that was overlooked because the pattern wasn't understood by the subjects. Also arguably, the level of sophistication of the subject has a lot to do with the success of their introspection, and people who aren't adept at ordinary analysis will have a hard time examining their psyches with objective reasoning.