2 ms·
I didn't mention Penrose because he is an outlier. I mention him as an example where tool use disproportionally effects resultant performance, or conversely as
by usgroup 5y ago
I didn't mention Penrose because he is an outlier. I mention him as an example where tool use disproportionally effects resultant performance, or conversely as an example of where a specific link in a reasoning chain effects the outcome. I think that is more close to normal than not. I.e. you can often patch people, and they become better at something.
Regarding chess, research suggests you're wrong:
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1469029219300901 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S14690...
https://hvandermaas.socsci.uva.nl/Homepage_Han_van_der_Maas/Publications_files/papers/chesspaperfinal3.pdf https://hvandermaas.socsci.uva.nl/Homepage_Han_van_der_Maas/...
- Tenoke 5y agoThe correlations in the graph in the second paper were between 0.4 and 0.9 so I'm not sure if I was that wrong.