> If most people solve a problem by going from: A -> B -> C
> 'Smart' people will consistently go straight to: A -> C
Cutting out intermediate steps in a chain of analysis is more typical of people with applicable, domain-specific expertise than general smarts. Being smart isn't the same as being an expert.
General smarts is reflected more in a reduction in the average number of dead-end side paths pursued before making the connection from A -> B and again before making the one from B -> C.
I was good at math growing up but not in a "#1 in the world" way. I've been to a couple of math contest national finals. So I naturally have seen many "geniuses". Some of them when they see a problem sometimes just come up with the answer immediately. These are questions that require procedural thinking so I couldn't understand how it was possible to come up with the correct answer instantly. One day I asked him. He said he doesn't know but sometimes he can just "see" the answer. I used to think that's bullshit, but after having experienced more of life I think it is not entirely impossible.
We have no idea how brain works, so we can only make hypotheses based on experience. When someone can "see" an answer without being able to explain how he came up with that answer, regardless of how useful that skill is in the real world, that is something. Maybe sometimes all his neurons connect instantly in certain circumstances. Who knows.
Another reason I think this is possible is because sometimes I come off that way (to much lesser degree) to other people. Sometimes when I come up with a solution to a problem (not at all domain specific), people wonder how I can do that. I can't explain of course. I am not trying to say I'm a genius. I'm saying things like this happen sometimes for no reason. And "highly intelligent" people tend to have more of these than "normal" people.
Anyway, these are all just theories, yours included. So I think just saying that our brains objectively work in certain ways is not a good idea, and is probably wrong.
Im not talking about being an expert, Im talking about intelligence. Intelligent people tend to 'see the forest through the trees' on a grander scale than average or unintelligent people (you can tell Im less than intelligent by my over use of bad analogies) . They don't need to go A -> B because they already know that A -> C is correct. It's a lousy example because everyone here is looking at it like its a procedural problem being solved and it's not. It's about individuals having greater cognitive ability.
I know what you are talking about intelligence, I'm disagreeing with your description and saying it doesn't capture the advantage intelligence provides, but more accurately captured what expertise provides. Now, I'm not clear whether it's just a bad articulation of what you are trying to illustrate or if your underlying concept is wrong, but your description doesn't, IMO, accurately portray the difference that intelligence creates.
Its the most generic explanation I can use in the shortest amount of text that generally gets the point across. It is a lousy example. It's obvious when people are smart/intelligent and also obvious when the are not, I believe its largely genetic and out of people's control so discussing it or creating websites to better your 'IQ' are mostly a waste of time.
I don't think it's obvious at all, and I think people often mistake a number of other things in others (philosophical agreement, expertise in a domain, certain social skills, among others) for general intelligence.
There's also considerable evidence, IIRC, that, while the upper limit a person can reach in intelligence is genetic, that environmental factors play significant roles in both how closely that limit will ever be approached and how well/long what is achieved will be maintained.
Well we'll just agree to disagree on this one :) At the end of the day though it doesn't matter if either one of us is correct, nothing really changes either way.
I don't think that is the case. Trained people will go A -> C. Also careless people will go A -> C, because it is easier to make a mistake when skipping the partial steps.
I read a book where they talked about a Boeing (I think) pilot training exercise. They constructed checklists for new pilots of what to do in various situations, gathered from their best pilots (likely not exclusively their best, my memory is fallible). These lists worked very well - but they noticed their best pilots didn't exactly follow the list.
The book I was reading made a point that early learning on a topic is rote (You do this then this because you are supposed to), while advanced practitioners _intuit_ . "I'll check this because it feels like that kind of problem, and if that isn't it I'll hit the other more likely things in turn or question my assumptions, but I don't think those steps out explicitly, I just do them". That certainly matches my programming experience, though my anecdote does not data make.
IIRC, this book was focused on how to improve skills, and was making the point that you can't expect to jump straight to intuit without experience, you have do rote first. So in this example, "smart" people will go straight from A->C, people with only moderate experience will have to go A->B->C, people with enough experience will go from A->C, and careless people MIGHT end up A->C, but more likely never made it to B and so can't even get to C from where they are.
Thus the appeal of "brain training" - people want to up their ability to intuit with less experience, and they feel that training can do it like most skills. This study (I've not yet read article) seems to be saying "no, it doesn't work that way".
Assuming the headline and study are correct, it's shame but I don't feel people should be mocked for feeling it was worth a try. There are certainly a number of other studies that show forced mental effort helps avoid degradation at a minimum. (I recall a study about Bridge delaying Alzheimers as an example, though I can't say anything about how well that study has held up).
This is how aeroplanes fall out of the sky. Pilots think they know more than the engineers, and decide to skip the checklist, where the checklist includes a very rare edge case that the pilot has never encountered.
Reminds me of this case where airlines routinely skipped a step during maintenance because it took too much time. Skipping that step in the manufacturer's process ended up costing 273 people their lives.
A smart person who is also pragmatic and takes the team into account though is superproductive. Their solutions may take a bit of learning but it pays off.
> Their solutions may take a bit of learning but it pays off.
Solution that takes a bit of learning is always worse than a solution that does not need any learning and is obvious to anyone, even to someone in my IQ range.
Try to look at a smart-ass solution and compare it to a good, solid, dumb solution. The former is A->"some-obscure-magic"->D, while the latter would be like "A->B->C->D" with each step explained in an ELI5 style. No matter what, I'd always prefer the second option.
You're not talking about smart people, you're talking about "smart" people, who are clearly not that smart if they're doing such obviously stupid things.
Actually, no. I believe Python is exactly the opposite thing, despite preaching some of the right ideas. Python is too low level, and therefore it invites obscure solutions that hides the real meaning behind layers upon layers of low level, irrelevant details. Exactly a tool for the "smart" people, pretty much useless for a reproducible and maintainable development.
> therefore it invites obscure solutions that hides the real meaning behind layers upon layers of low level, irrelevant details
And thats exactly why I said "mostly agree" with my coworker! This is my exact gripe. Basically its the same idea, taken to an extreme to the point where it no longer matches the original reason.
There is nothing wrong with the idea per se. It's just implemented badly in Python. Instead of allowing unlimited abstraction, which is the only way to unlock this desired simplicity on all possible levels, they're limiting the abstraction and therefore increasing the complexity needlessly.
'Smart' people will consistently go straight to: A -> C
It different than just having access to information, speed and how it's processed makes a significant difference.