4 ms·

I gave examples elsewhere in this thread that illustrate why more time won't help. There is a large difference between solving the same type of problem, only la

by pps43 8y ago

I gave examples elsewhere in this thread that illustrate why more time won't help. There is a large difference between solving the same type of problem, only larger, fast, and using abstractions at a higher level. Do you really think that speed of doing long division predicts ability to solve differential equations?

pgeorgi 8y ago
> Do you really think that speed of doing long division predicts ability to solve differential equations? I never said that. I also fail to see how "solving differential equations" has anything to do with intelligence (with the caveat that pathologically low mathematical aptitude might limit the ability to learn it at all - one aspect here is that "unable to do division" might be a predictor for that). But I believe that a properly designed "long division test" could be (part of) a predictor for some dimension of intelligence, and that a time component is usually helpful in test situations since it prevents tools and techniques from equalizing the outcome too much (as, given enough time and sufficient command of appropriate techniques, any problem can be solved).
- pps43 8y ago
  I agree that long division measures some dimension of intelligence. But there are so many dimensions that knowing a coordinate in one dimension does not tell you much about coordinates in other dimensions. Taleb's point is that there is correlation, but it's mostly driven by the left side of the distribution. "Unable to do long division" usually means that this person cannot solve differential equations. "Able to do long division" tells you very little about that person's ability to solve differential equations. The speed of solving simple problems does not necessarily predict ability to solve really complex problems well. For example, a chimp named Ayumu easily beats humans in short-term memory tests: https://www.theguardian.com/science/2013/sep/29/chimp-intelligence-aymu-matsuzawa-kyoto https://www.theguardian.com/science/2013/sep/29/chimp-intell...

by pps43 8y ago

pgeorgi 8y ago

> Do you really think that speed of doing long division predicts ability to solve differential equations? I never said that. I also fail to see how "solving differential equations" has anything to do with intelligence (with the caveat that pathologically low mathematical aptitude might limit the ability to learn it at all - one aspect here is that "unable to do division" might be a predictor for that). But I believe that a properly designed "long division test" could be (part of) a predictor for some dimension of intelligence, and that a time component is usually helpful in test situations since it prevents tools and techniques from equalizing the outcome too much (as, given enough time and sufficient command of appropriate techniques, any problem can be solved).

pps43 8y ago
I agree that long division measures some dimension of intelligence. But there are so many dimensions that knowing a coordinate in one dimension does not tell you much about coordinates in other dimensions. Taleb's point is that there is correlation, but it's mostly driven by the left side of the distribution. "Unable to do long division" usually means that this person cannot solve differential equations. "Able to do long division" tells you very little about that person's ability to solve differential equations. The speed of solving simple problems does not necessarily predict ability to solve really complex problems well. For example, a chimp named Ayumu easily beats humans in short-term memory tests: https://www.theguardian.com/science/2013/sep/29/chimp-intelligence-aymu-matsuzawa-kyoto https://www.theguardian.com/science/2013/sep/29/chimp-intell...