5 ms·

in dogs, the metric is how many feedback loops it takes to learn a new trick, iirc. e.g., Fluffy takes 50 treats to learn to "sit" on command; Einstein takes 2

in dogs, the metric is how many feedback loops it takes to learn a new trick, iirc. e.g., Fluffy takes 50 treats to learn to "sit" on command; Einstein takes 25.

nopassrecover 17y ago
That's clever. My labrador learned sit in about 6-8 tries I think.
- JoeAltmaier 17y ago
  I don't have to teach my German Shepard; just leave a note on the fridge.
tel 17y ago
How do people account for complexity of the tricks? Is there a standard trick or is that number fairly stable?
andreyf 17y ago
Summary: That's not "smart". That's "experienced", which is an integral of "determined" over time. Reasoning: Is it intrinsic that Einstein needs 25 tries, or is it because he also knows "fetch", "lay", "roll over", and "play dead"? It's a very important distinction, and most usage of "smart" implies the former - intrinsic ability. That's the difference between "smart" and "experienced". Among my peers, however, I don't see any intrinsic differences in learning whatsoever. If person A needs less iteration than person B to learn the classwork, she's either more determined or has more related experience (or both). The two go hand-in-hand, because experience is just the integral of determination over time. Intrinsic "smartness" is completely unnecessary in describing learning ability.
- nostrademons 17y ago
  I always figured that intelligence was the derivative of knowledge. I wouldn't be surprised if both determination and related experience correlate highly with intelligence, but I would be surprised if they explain it completely. Have you ever taught one of the lower grades (elementary school, K-5)? There're some students that just "get it", and others that struggle no matter how many different ways you approach the material. Some of that's undoubtedly family background - how much value the family places on education, whether they've been exposed to intellectual concepts early, etc. But I really doubt all of it is, particularly given differences even between siblings. And I doubt that determination factors into it much at that age, given the average willpower of a 6-year-old... I've also noticed very few intrinsic differences in learning among my peers. But remember that a peer, by definition, is an equal. I can't really place my peers as being smarter or dumber, but that's because they've all made it through elite colleges already and been through the Google hiring process. If I broaden my sample out to "everyone I've known during my lifetime", there're some really stark differences in learning, and some of the people who struggled the most were just as determined or moreso than I was, and they continued to struggle despite approaching the material through several different angles.
  - andreyf 17y ago
    You seem to have more experience than me, but I would hypothesize that learning fundamental physical metaphors just happens very early (and haphazardly) in life, and a lot of what seems to be "innate intelligence" is derived from those experiences. Just as linguistic intuition is hard to attain after a certain age, there is spacial, logical, and even epistemological intuition that happens well before the first grade. Seeing a good magic trick at a young age, for example, is probably what leads to true understanding of epistemology - you need that initial feeling of "reality is not what it seems". Intuitively understanding logic is also indirect - it can come from a toy peaking a child's curiosity at the just the right time in just the right way. No learning opportunity is missed completely, just as 30-somethings can learn to speak foreign languages, but there are certainly windows for the quick acquisition of certain ideas over others.
    - thaumaturgy 17y ago
      Yeah, genetics versus environment, the age-old debate. Environment certainly plays a role, but to what extent? It isn't just parental involvement -- there are plenty of bright accomplished people whose parents were busy doing something else during their upbringing. It isn't likely to be the toys that you get to play with, because there are bright kids even amongst the poorest of the poor -- though they do tend to be rarer exceptions. I'd wager my money on a higher influence from genetics than many people in our society would currently want to believe. Some people, at birth, are predisposed to certain natural talents. They simply have good spatial reasoning, for example -- it's not something that they had to learn to mimic at a young age, it's something they were actually born with. From there, the talent is subjected to environmental conditions, some positive, some adverse. Maybe their spatial reasoning and their parents' guidance gets them into sports instead of taking things apart. Maybe their natural talents manage to survive even very adverse environments. Or, maybe the abilities just wither away and die under conditions that don't nurture them.

in dogs, the metric is how many feedback loops it takes to learn a new trick, iirc. e.g., Fluffy takes 50 treats to learn to "sit" on command; Einstein takes 25.

nopassrecover 17y ago

That's clever. My labrador learned sit in about 6-8 tries I think.

JoeAltmaier 17y ago
I don't have to teach my German Shepard; just leave a note on the fridge.

tel 17y ago

How do people account for complexity of the tricks? Is there a standard trick or is that number fairly stable?

andreyf 17y ago

Summary: That's not "smart". That's "experienced", which is an integral of "determined" over time. Reasoning: Is it intrinsic that Einstein needs 25 tries, or is it because he also knows "fetch", "lay", "roll over", and "play dead"? It's a very important distinction, and most usage of "smart" implies the former - intrinsic ability. That's the difference between "smart" and "experienced". Among my peers, however, I don't see any intrinsic differences in learning whatsoever. If person A needs less iteration than person B to learn the classwork, she's either more determined or has more related experience (or both). The two go hand-in-hand, because experience is just the integral of determination over time. Intrinsic "smartness" is completely unnecessary in describing learning ability.

nostrademons 17y ago
I always figured that intelligence was the derivative of knowledge. I wouldn't be surprised if both determination and related experience correlate highly with intelligence, but I would be surprised if they explain it completely. Have you ever taught one of the lower grades (elementary school, K-5)? There're some students that just "get it", and others that struggle no matter how many different ways you approach the material. Some of that's undoubtedly family background - how much value the family places on education, whether they've been exposed to intellectual concepts early, etc. But I really doubt all of it is, particularly given differences even between siblings. And I doubt that determination factors into it much at that age, given the average willpower of a 6-year-old... I've also noticed very few intrinsic differences in learning among my peers. But remember that a peer, by definition, is an equal. I can't really place my peers as being smarter or dumber, but that's because they've all made it through elite colleges already and been through the Google hiring process. If I broaden my sample out to "everyone I've known during my lifetime", there're some really stark differences in learning, and some of the people who struggled the most were just as determined or moreso than I was, and they continued to struggle despite approaching the material through several different angles.
- andreyf 17y ago
  You seem to have more experience than me, but I would hypothesize that learning fundamental physical metaphors just happens very early (and haphazardly) in life, and a lot of what seems to be "innate intelligence" is derived from those experiences. Just as linguistic intuition is hard to attain after a certain age, there is spacial, logical, and even epistemological intuition that happens well before the first grade. Seeing a good magic trick at a young age, for example, is probably what leads to true understanding of epistemology - you need that initial feeling of "reality is not what it seems". Intuitively understanding logic is also indirect - it can come from a toy peaking a child's curiosity at the just the right time in just the right way. No learning opportunity is missed completely, just as 30-somethings can learn to speak foreign languages, but there are certainly windows for the quick acquisition of certain ideas over others.
  - thaumaturgy 17y ago
    Yeah, genetics versus environment, the age-old debate. Environment certainly plays a role, but to what extent? It isn't just parental involvement -- there are plenty of bright accomplished people whose parents were busy doing something else during their upbringing. It isn't likely to be the toys that you get to play with, because there are bright kids even amongst the poorest of the poor -- though they do tend to be rarer exceptions. I'd wager my money on a higher influence from genetics than many people in our society would currently want to believe. Some people, at birth, are predisposed to certain natural talents. They simply have good spatial reasoning, for example -- it's not something that they had to learn to mimic at a young age, it's something they were actually born with. From there, the talent is subjected to environmental conditions, some positive, some adverse. Maybe their spatial reasoning and their parents' guidance gets them into sports instead of taking things apart. Maybe their natural talents manage to survive even very adverse environments. Or, maybe the abilities just wither away and die under conditions that don't nurture them.