Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Intelligent people take longer to solve hard problems: study

bigthink.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

141–150 of 184 posts

Re: Intelligent people take longer to solve hard problems: study

#141

Post by Noumenon72 »

danq_ wrote: post #129

There are two measures of intelligence: Correctness and Speed. Correctness is the primary measure, and if two parties are correct then speed differentiates their level of intelligence. This is the only measure that has been quantified and scientifically correlated with many other attributes of human existence like success and happiness. This measure is is called IQ. If both people get an answer correct, then literall…

It's not clear to me from Google that IQ tests are timed. Some sections of some tests are. I don't think any test is like "For question 4, you get 10 points for answering within 2 seconds, 5 points within 4 seconds, and 0 after." A time limit on the test could just be to keep you from accidentally measuring conscientiousness in people who are willing to spend 10 hours to get everything right.

That said I'm pretty sure reaction time and "clock speed" are part of intelligence, just correlated well enough that you don't need a reflex test added onto the paper test.

Re: Intelligent people take longer to solve hard problems: study

#142

Post by hgsgm »

hawski wrote: post #85
tikhonj wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My pet theory is that this is closely related to the "two cultures" in mathematics with "problem solvers" vs "theory builders": is it easier for you to put more strain on your working memory to solve a problem, or would you rather put in more up-front conceptual effort to reduce that strain? I'm not a mathematician, but I've seen a similar bifurcation in programming styles and preferences: something like "debuggers"…

I think I am almost grasping what you are saying, but am not sure. Those short memory people (who I think I may be among) that GP said about relate to which group of mathematicians and programmers? I am one of those that prefer to reduce complexity and prefer lower level programming. I think that such a type of person likes C for example.

Ah, I am one of those the tprefer to reduce complexity and prefer higher level programming. Such a person likes Python, for example :-)

Re: Intelligent people take longer to solve hard problems: study

#143

Post by Verdex »

bobsoap wrote: post #120
Verdex wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Neat experiment. Although, I was able to guess a higher than average number of dots correctly, I wonder if I would feel differently had I been under the average. The explanation given at the end is interestingly to me. However, consider the following alternate: People more likely to answer honestly that they view others opinions as wrong or immoral (ie they would appear to have dogmatic thinking) are also people who…

I don't think you can infer that a person answers a 10-minute anonymous online quiz more honestly because they refuse to take a hint out of principle. It would be a stretch to consider the hints cheating; they are an integral part of the game, they are clearly explained and carry a penalty if used.

I'm not trying to infer it. It's another possibility that would explain results besides the stated one that dogmatic thinking and not looking for more information go hand in hand.

Interestingly enough the dogmatic view is that dogmatic thinking is linked with refusing to seek more information. And here I am trying to be charitable to the "dogmatic” by suggesting that we should look for more information...

The hints felt either like a trick or like cheating to me. That's not a stretch that was just my personal feelings. I didn't even consider that the hints were a game theoretic best way to go if you aren't sure until the end where the explanation hand fed you that exact logic.

Re: Intelligent people take longer to solve hard problems: study

#144

Post by wincy »

jawns wrote: post #15

A while back, I created an online experiment, based on a 2020 study, that identifies dogmatic thinking. https://shaungallagher.pressbin.com/blog/dogmatism.html Without giving too much away, this tracks with the 2023 study's results, in that people with higher intelligence scores are less likely to trust their System 1 gut reaction and more likely to involve their System 2 deliberate, logical processes.

So, I'm a little frustrated with this because it doesn't tell me how many times I opted for the easier version, just the average, because it seemed like a low cost to pay, I did it almost every time, (which it states is the rational thing to do) but then I also scored as very dogmatic, and got almost exactly average on the test.

The conclusions it drew about this were that I was not open to new information, which is totally off. I DID ask for new information almost every single time, far and above what the average participant requests. The important thing isn't the performance on the test but how often the person requested new information, but then this metric is completely discarded in the final assessment! I'm not sure what exactly this is meant to measure. It feels like it's just smugly calling me dumb for thinking I know better than the average person (which, if I didn't, why would I believe what I believe?)

I only believe things I already have a high degree of confidence in, and it would take good evidence to sway me from those opinions. If this is close minded, being "open minded" seems like a good way for your brain to just fall out of your head.

Re: Intelligent people take longer to solve hard problems: study

#145

Post by hef19898 »

wizeman wrote: post #34

> needed more time to solve challenging tasks but made fewer errors [1] As someone else said, I can solve problems very quickly if the solutions don't have to be correct... But more seriously, it seems like different people might have different thresholds for when they consider a problem solved? If you decide to go back and review the problem and solution (even just mentally) to make sure you didn't make mistakes, of…

Call me naive, but if my proposed solution is not correct, the problem isn't solved.

Re: Intelligent people take longer to solve hard problems: study

#147

Post by sopooneo »

ChatGTP wrote: post #118
MSFT_Edging wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've always felt like I have awful short term memory. I use tiling WMs so I can see information side-by-side. If I need to type something exactly, I forget the exact details almost immediately. I need to derive things to understand them, ie music theory. I'm jealous of people who can memorize and take at face value but if I'm looking at a chord, I need to know the components that create that chord, which gets frustra…

Hey, do you drink alcohol ? A few years back I accepted a challenge to take a year off drinking from a family member. I cannot tell you how much it improved my memory. Before that I was always losing things, frustrated I couldn’t remember the names of things etc. After about 3 months I felt like I had doubled my memory. I wasn’t really a heavy drinker, but I would go for a few months having 1-2 beers a day. Anyway ju…

Piggybacking to share very similar circumstances and results, though memory improvement while noticeable was not quite as dramatic. What was dramatic? Immediately dropped ten pounds landing me at my ideal weight. Without trying.

Re: Intelligent people take longer to solve hard problems: study

#148

Post by sopooneo »

amatecha wrote: post #56
Solvency wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I struggled in math in HS for this reason. Every time a concept was presented to me I felt like I needed to deeply understand it at the most universally root level and create a painstaking mental model of it, to a degree that I imposed on myself for some inexplicable reason. To answer "but WHY". Almost like a form of self-sabotage in hindsight because I think there are decreasing returns in "truly, deeply" grokking m…

Yeah, I basically have no choice but to deeply, truly understand something. If I don't "completely get it", I will struggle endlessly to employ the "knowledge" I have. It's been a lifelong challenge (indeed I barely finished high school because I was actually failing classes because it was impossible to keep up -- yet I am a senior software engineer today), while some people forge ahead seemingly effortlessly, I am s…

In my twenties I decided not to get a motorcycle for this very reason. I realized I would have disappeared for six months, learning every aspect of every part. And there were other things in my life that needed doing.

Re: Intelligent people take longer to solve hard problems: study

#149

Post by anyfoo »

hgsgm wrote: post #138
ChainOfFools wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree with this, and the rationalization that I eventually worked out and learned to live with is that as you get into more advanced areas of math, much of what you are learning are building blocks for assembling more complex tools - but those are tools you have no use for yet, and therefore can't hook constituent elements into any existing framework of understanding. There is no way to pass through these obstacles…

No! Instead of rushing ahead into meaningless abstraction, you should spend more learning in the world of concrete examples and applications, to provide meat for those abstract skeletons. We don't need a mathematician is who is a poor imitation of a computer or a reference book.

In my experience, it helps to approach from both sides, and that's also part of the point I'm trying to make. If you come only from the "concrete examples and applications" side, you might not actually fully understand, despite thinking you do, and miss some finer subtleties. Those are often the "gotchas" that get pointed out in textbooks (but even then are easily forgotten).

I am definitely a "hands on" math person. Almost every piece of math I learn has application ultimately, personally I would not really be motivated otherwise. I learn math because I want to use it. I then also find joy in the abstract beauty, but I would not uncover that beauty without something I could use it for in the first place in mind. For me specifically, a large application of the math I'm learning is signal processing (both digital and analog), and analog circuits (e.g. "EE stuff").

And in that, some of the learning of "meaningless abstractions" first, and later entangling it with actual application, definitely, positively helped in getting a good understanding of the underlying math, which I can in turn integrate with what I'm doing in the "real world".

Re: Intelligent people take longer to solve hard problems: study

#150

Post by sopooneo »

sigg3 wrote: post #81
Solvency wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I struggled in math in HS for this reason. Every time a concept was presented to me I felt like I needed to deeply understand it at the most universally root level and create a painstaking mental model of it, to a degree that I imposed on myself for some inexplicable reason. To answer "but WHY". Almost like a form of self-sabotage in hindsight because I think there are decreasing returns in "truly, deeply" grokking m…

> I also abhor rote memorization. Not because I don't think it's valuable, I just hate extremely repetitive tasks. Memorization leads to a different kind of knowledge, I think. You don't know the thing, you know the steps to reproduce. It's like my grandmother who knows several songs by heart, but if you ask about the second line in the third verse she'll sing it from the start until she reaches the line in question.…

Fully agree. I am annoyed by the educational pendulum swinging so far away from rote memorization that it eliminates it altogether.
Post reply on HN