4 ms·

Extremely misleading title, in my opinion. Let me quote the actual research at https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-023-38626-y https://www.nature.com/articl

Extremely misleading title, in my opinion. Let me quote the actual research at https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-023-38626-y https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-023-38626-y : "subjects with higher PMAT24_A_CR (fluid intelligence) made fewer mistakes, but were slower" Yes, intelligent people took longer to solve hard problems. But they made fewer mistakes. Getting things right on the 1st try might be much faster than needing a 2nd attempt, even if the 1st try takes 20% longer.

NotYourLawyer 3y ago
Social science is ridiculous. What a non-result.
mordae 3y ago
Actually, solving problem quick and dirty, putting the solution to a test and iterating will probably result in better outcomes than simply thinking super hard and making less attempts for a whole bunch of tasks. It sure helps to be able to iterate quickly in software development for one. It has reminded me of an exchange from Shirobako (best anime ever, 100/100, watch it even if you prefer other forms); older animator is telling their younger colleague to learn to draw faster, because while they can work on the quality for the rest of their life, but they won't be able to draw fast when they are older. Drawing faster means more iterations, means more experience gained overall.
- thorncorona 3y ago
  If what you're doing is getting a math problem correct than I would imagine doing it once correctly is the fastest approach...
proc0 3y ago
Slow is smooth, smooth is fast. Forgot where that's from but I think it's a Navy or Marine saying.
- jandrewrogers 3y ago
  It is a common aphorism in military training, related to the latency of effective fast-twitch reaction. The jerkiness of trying to point your weapon at a target as quickly as possible and then yanking on the trigger means you usually miss it. The most important motion is bring your weapon to bear on target in a mechanically efficient way and pulling the trigger as it comes on target in a single motion. That single integrated motion can only be learned by doing it slowly but it is very accurate and smooth. If you practice the motion enough it becomes very fast. It is fine muscle memory. This is virtually always faster in terms of putting a bullet on target than relying on raw muscle speed. Also why military firearm skills are perishable, it has to be constantly practiced to keep the latency down.
hirvi74 3y ago
In regards to the study you linked: > Intelligence is here defined as the performance in psychometric tests in cognitive domains like verbal comprehension, perceptual reasoning or working memory. A consistent finding is that individuals who perform well in one domain tend to perform well in the others, which led to the derivation of a general factor of intelligence called g-factor Whelp, I guess I broke the mold on this one. I have more than 1.5 standard deviations between some of my scores lol. I do not put much faith in IQ tests to begin with. I do not think the tests are completely useless, but I do think their utility is vastly overstated and the meaning of one's results are highly misused.
tetha 3y ago
I'm thinking about too many things like chess. But in chess played with slower time controls, a critical skill is t recognize important positions and take time on them. And for many people, another important skill is to take more time in general. Like, a lot of lower Elo game at 10-minute time controls end with the losing person having 8 minutes left. That's not good.
alach11 3y ago
Alternate title: "Less intelligent people give up on hard tests and begin guessing answers."
galaxyLogic 3y ago
Right they take longer but they actually solve the problem correctly. And if you don't solve it correctly you are not really solving it at all. The title could have been "Intelligent people take time to make sure their answer is more likely to be correct than not"
- commandlinefan 3y ago
  > if you don't solve it correctly you are not really solving it at all. Try telling that to the time-tracking gestapo. As Dilbert says: "our boss can't judge the quality of our work, but he knows when it's late".
- dredmorbius 3y ago
  Jon Bentley notes in Programming Pearls that performance is secondary to correctness. I thought he'd included an anecdote about a consultant tasked with solving an optimisation problem at an industrial concern who unveils his solution. A complaint is raised: yes, the method finds the correct solution, but it is slower than the old method (which didn't achieve the correct solution). The consultant, perhaps something of a novice when it came to client relationships communications, responded that if he didn't have to find the correct answer to the problem, he could make his system much faster. I don't find that in either PP or More Programming Pearls, however. Unfaithful memory.

NotYourLawyer 3y ago

Social science is ridiculous. What a non-result.

mordae 3y ago

Actually, solving problem quick and dirty, putting the solution to a test and iterating will probably result in better outcomes than simply thinking super hard and making less attempts for a whole bunch of tasks. It sure helps to be able to iterate quickly in software development for one. It has reminded me of an exchange from Shirobako (best anime ever, 100/100, watch it even if you prefer other forms); older animator is telling their younger colleague to learn to draw faster, because while they can work on the quality for the rest of their life, but they won't be able to draw fast when they are older. Drawing faster means more iterations, means more experience gained overall.

thorncorona 3y ago
If what you're doing is getting a math problem correct than I would imagine doing it once correctly is the fastest approach...

proc0 3y ago

Slow is smooth, smooth is fast. Forgot where that's from but I think it's a Navy or Marine saying.

jandrewrogers 3y ago
It is a common aphorism in military training, related to the latency of effective fast-twitch reaction. The jerkiness of trying to point your weapon at a target as quickly as possible and then yanking on the trigger means you usually miss it. The most important motion is bring your weapon to bear on target in a mechanically efficient way and pulling the trigger as it comes on target in a single motion. That single integrated motion can only be learned by doing it slowly but it is very accurate and smooth. If you practice the motion enough it becomes very fast. It is fine muscle memory. This is virtually always faster in terms of putting a bullet on target than relying on raw muscle speed. Also why military firearm skills are perishable, it has to be constantly practiced to keep the latency down.

hirvi74 3y ago

In regards to the study you linked: > Intelligence is here defined as the performance in psychometric tests in cognitive domains like verbal comprehension, perceptual reasoning or working memory. A consistent finding is that individuals who perform well in one domain tend to perform well in the others, which led to the derivation of a general factor of intelligence called g-factor Whelp, I guess I broke the mold on this one. I have more than 1.5 standard deviations between some of my scores lol. I do not put much faith in IQ tests to begin with. I do not think the tests are completely useless, but I do think their utility is vastly overstated and the meaning of one's results are highly misused.

tetha 3y ago

I'm thinking about too many things like chess. But in chess played with slower time controls, a critical skill is t recognize important positions and take time on them. And for many people, another important skill is to take more time in general. Like, a lot of lower Elo game at 10-minute time controls end with the losing person having 8 minutes left. That's not good.

alach11 3y ago

Alternate title: "Less intelligent people give up on hard tests and begin guessing answers."

galaxyLogic 3y ago

Right they take longer but they actually solve the problem correctly. And if you don't solve it correctly you are not really solving it at all. The title could have been "Intelligent people take time to make sure their answer is more likely to be correct than not"

commandlinefan 3y ago
> if you don't solve it correctly you are not really solving it at all. Try telling that to the time-tracking gestapo. As Dilbert says: "our boss can't judge the quality of our work, but he knows when it's late".
dredmorbius 3y ago
Jon Bentley notes in Programming Pearls that performance is secondary to correctness. I thought he'd included an anecdote about a consultant tasked with solving an optimisation problem at an industrial concern who unveils his solution. A complaint is raised: yes, the method finds the correct solution, but it is slower than the old method (which didn't achieve the correct solution). The consultant, perhaps something of a novice when it came to client relationships communications, responded that if he didn't have to find the correct answer to the problem, he could make his system much faster. I don't find that in either PP or More Programming Pearls, however. Unfaithful memory.