Someone is being harassed on the street. You see it. You have a fraction of a second to react. The intelligent response and the believed-in response are not always the same. The believed-in response goes through your moral framework, your political position, your reading of which kind of intervention would be appropriate. The intelligent response perceives directly and moves. The first kind of response often arrives late. The second arrives in time.
K thought action from belief was inferior to action from intelligence. Not because beliefs are wrong. Because beliefs are slow. Belief requires the situation to be filtered through doctrine. Doctrine produces a recommendation. The recommendation gets executed. By that time the moment has often passed. Intelligence skips the filter. It sees what's happening and moves. The action is direct. The doctrine doesn't need to weigh in.
Belief-driven action also has a self-congratulation built in. I did the right thing because my framework told me so. The framework reinforces itself with every action. The fragment is fed. The action serves the framework, and the framework serves the fragment. Intelligence-driven action has no such payoff. No framework to reinforce. No identity to feed. The action happens. The actor doesn't take credit. The intelligence doesn't self-congratulate.
The body of belief-driven action is checking. Did I do the right thing? Did I follow the rule? Will my tribe approve? The body of intelligence-driven action is silent after the fact. There's no checking, because there's no framework to check against. The act was right because it was direct. There's nothing to evaluate.
Intelligence acts without needing a doctrine. Belief acts in the doctrine's name and calls itself moral. K preferred the first. He thought the second was the fragment, in costume, claiming credit for actions that weren't actually responses to what was happening.