7 ms·

If most people solve a problem by going from: A -> B -> C 'Smart' people will consistently go straight to: A -> C It different than just having access to info

by ProAm 10y ago

If most people solve a problem by going from: A -> B -> C 'Smart' people will consistently go straight to: A -> C It different than just having access to information, speed and how it's processed makes a significant difference.

Scea91 10y ago
I don't think that is the case. Trained people will go A -> C. Also careless people will go A -> C, because it is easier to make a mistake when skipping the partial steps.
- ergothus 10y ago
  I read a book where they talked about a Boeing (I think) pilot training exercise. They constructed checklists for new pilots of what to do in various situations, gathered from their best pilots (likely not exclusively their best, my memory is fallible). These lists worked very well - but they noticed their best pilots didn't exactly follow the list. The book I was reading made a point that early learning on a topic is rote (You do this then this because you are supposed to), while advanced practitioners _intuit_ . "I'll check this because it feels like that kind of problem, and if that isn't it I'll hit the other more likely things in turn or question my assumptions, but I don't think those steps out explicitly, I just do them". That certainly matches my programming experience, though my anecdote does not data make. IIRC, this book was focused on how to improve skills, and was making the point that you can't expect to jump straight to intuit without experience, you have do rote first. So in this example, "smart" people will go straight from A->C, people with only moderate experience will have to go A->B->C, people with enough experience will go from A->C, and careless people MIGHT end up A->C, but more likely never made it to B and so can't even get to C from where they are. Thus the appeal of "brain training" - people want to up their ability to intuit with less experience, and they feel that training can do it like most skills. This study (I've not yet read article) seems to be saying "no, it doesn't work that way". Assuming the headline and study are correct, it's shame but I don't feel people should be mocked for feeling it was worth a try. There are certainly a number of other studies that show forced mental effort helps avoid degradation at a minimum. (I recall a study about Bridge delaying Alzheimers as an example, though I can't say anything about how well that study has held up).
  - toomanybeersies 10y ago
    This is how aeroplanes fall out of the sky. Pilots think they know more than the engineers, and decide to skip the checklist, where the checklist includes a very rare edge case that the pilot has never encountered.
    - ebrenes 10y ago
      Reminds me of this case where airlines routinely skipped a step during maintenance because it took too much time. Skipping that step in the manufacturer's process ended up costing 273 people their lives. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Airlines_Flight_191#Engine_separation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Airlines_Flight_191#E...
  - restofus 10y ago
    Are you referring to space fortress [1]? [1] https://www.brainturk.com/space-fortress https://www.brainturk.com/space-fortress
xyzzy4 10y ago
Or smart people might decide the problem is unimportant and neglect solving it.
sklogic 10y ago
And this is exactly why "smart" people are counterproductive. Their "smart" solutions are not reproducible.
- bbcbasic 10y ago
  A smart person who is also pragmatic and takes the team into account though is superproductive. Their solutions may take a bit of learning but it pays off.
  - sklogic 10y ago
    > Their solutions may take a bit of learning but it pays off. Solution that takes a bit of learning is always worse than a solution that does not need any learning and is obvious to anyone, even to someone in my IQ range.
    - bbcbasic 10y ago
      Not always. Otherwise we'd all be using punchcards and valves still.
      - sklogic 10y ago
        I used punchcards. It definitely required more learning than a video terminal.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- Retra 10y ago
  That's in running for the dumbest thing I've ever heard.
  - sklogic 10y ago
    Try to look at a smart-ass solution and compare it to a good, solid, dumb solution. The former is A->"some-obscure-magic"->D, while the latter would be like "A->B->C->D" with each step explained in an ELI5 style. No matter what, I'd always prefer the second option.
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
dragonwriter 10y ago
> If most people solve a problem by going from: A -> B -> C > 'Smart' people will consistently go straight to: A -> C Cutting out intermediate steps in a chain of analysis is more typical of people with applicable, domain-specific expertise than general smarts. Being smart isn't the same as being an expert. General smarts is reflected more in a reduction in the average number of dead-end side paths pursued before making the connection from A -> B and again before making the one from B -> C.
- ProAm 10y ago
  Im not talking about being an expert, Im talking about intelligence. Intelligent people tend to 'see the forest through the trees' on a grander scale than average or unintelligent people (you can tell Im less than intelligent by my over use of bad analogies) . They don't need to go A -> B because they already know that A -> C is correct. It's a lousy example because everyone here is looking at it like its a procedural problem being solved and it's not. It's about individuals having greater cognitive ability.
  - dragonwriter 10y ago
    I know what you are talking about intelligence, I'm disagreeing with your description and saying it doesn't capture the advantage intelligence provides, but more accurately captured what expertise provides. Now, I'm not clear whether it's just a bad articulation of what you are trying to illustrate or if your underlying concept is wrong, but your description doesn't, IMO, accurately portray the difference that intelligence creates.
    - ProAm 10y ago
      Its the most generic explanation I can use in the shortest amount of text that generally gets the point across. It is a lousy example. It's obvious when people are smart/intelligent and also obvious when the are not, I believe its largely genetic and out of people's control so discussing it or creating websites to better your 'IQ' are mostly a waste of time.

by ProAm 10y ago

Scea91 10y ago

I don't think that is the case. Trained people will go A -> C. Also careless people will go A -> C, because it is easier to make a mistake when skipping the partial steps.

ergothus 10y ago
I read a book where they talked about a Boeing (I think) pilot training exercise. They constructed checklists for new pilots of what to do in various situations, gathered from their best pilots (likely not exclusively their best, my memory is fallible). These lists worked very well - but they noticed their best pilots didn't exactly follow the list. The book I was reading made a point that early learning on a topic is rote (You do this then this because you are supposed to), while advanced practitioners _intuit_ . "I'll check this because it feels like that kind of problem, and if that isn't it I'll hit the other more likely things in turn or question my assumptions, but I don't think those steps out explicitly, I just do them". That certainly matches my programming experience, though my anecdote does not data make. IIRC, this book was focused on how to improve skills, and was making the point that you can't expect to jump straight to intuit without experience, you have do rote first. So in this example, "smart" people will go straight from A->C, people with only moderate experience will have to go A->B->C, people with enough experience will go from A->C, and careless people MIGHT end up A->C, but more likely never made it to B and so can't even get to C from where they are. Thus the appeal of "brain training" - people want to up their ability to intuit with less experience, and they feel that training can do it like most skills. This study (I've not yet read article) seems to be saying "no, it doesn't work that way". Assuming the headline and study are correct, it's shame but I don't feel people should be mocked for feeling it was worth a try. There are certainly a number of other studies that show forced mental effort helps avoid degradation at a minimum. (I recall a study about Bridge delaying Alzheimers as an example, though I can't say anything about how well that study has held up).
- toomanybeersies 10y ago
  This is how aeroplanes fall out of the sky. Pilots think they know more than the engineers, and decide to skip the checklist, where the checklist includes a very rare edge case that the pilot has never encountered.
  - ebrenes 10y ago
    Reminds me of this case where airlines routinely skipped a step during maintenance because it took too much time. Skipping that step in the manufacturer's process ended up costing 273 people their lives. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Airlines_Flight_191#Engine_separation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Airlines_Flight_191#E...
- restofus 10y ago
  Are you referring to space fortress [1]? [1] https://www.brainturk.com/space-fortress https://www.brainturk.com/space-fortress

xyzzy4 10y ago

Or smart people might decide the problem is unimportant and neglect solving it.

sklogic 10y ago

And this is exactly why "smart" people are counterproductive. Their "smart" solutions are not reproducible.

bbcbasic 10y ago
A smart person who is also pragmatic and takes the team into account though is superproductive. Their solutions may take a bit of learning but it pays off.
- sklogic 10y ago
  > Their solutions may take a bit of learning but it pays off. Solution that takes a bit of learning is always worse than a solution that does not need any learning and is obvious to anyone, even to someone in my IQ range.
  - bbcbasic 10y ago
    Not always. Otherwise we'd all be using punchcards and valves still.
    - sklogic 10y ago
      I used punchcards. It definitely required more learning than a video terminal.
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
Retra 10y ago
That's in running for the dumbest thing I've ever heard.
- sklogic 10y ago
  Try to look at a smart-ass solution and compare it to a good, solid, dumb solution. The former is A->"some-obscure-magic"->D, while the latter would be like "A->B->C->D" with each step explained in an ELI5 style. No matter what, I'd always prefer the second option.

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

dragonwriter 10y ago

> If most people solve a problem by going from: A -> B -> C > 'Smart' people will consistently go straight to: A -> C Cutting out intermediate steps in a chain of analysis is more typical of people with applicable, domain-specific expertise than general smarts. Being smart isn't the same as being an expert. General smarts is reflected more in a reduction in the average number of dead-end side paths pursued before making the connection from A -> B and again before making the one from B -> C.

ProAm 10y ago
Im not talking about being an expert, Im talking about intelligence. Intelligent people tend to 'see the forest through the trees' on a grander scale than average or unintelligent people (you can tell Im less than intelligent by my over use of bad analogies) . They don't need to go A -> B because they already know that A -> C is correct. It's a lousy example because everyone here is looking at it like its a procedural problem being solved and it's not. It's about individuals having greater cognitive ability.
- dragonwriter 10y ago
  I know what you are talking about intelligence, I'm disagreeing with your description and saying it doesn't capture the advantage intelligence provides, but more accurately captured what expertise provides. Now, I'm not clear whether it's just a bad articulation of what you are trying to illustrate or if your underlying concept is wrong, but your description doesn't, IMO, accurately portray the difference that intelligence creates.
  - ProAm 10y ago
    Its the most generic explanation I can use in the shortest amount of text that generally gets the point across. It is a lousy example. It's obvious when people are smart/intelligent and also obvious when the are not, I believe its largely genetic and out of people's control so discussing it or creating websites to better your 'IQ' are mostly a waste of time.