I’ve to read twice to make sure they talked about brain simulations and not real humans. Although they said there were a remarkable synchronicity between brain models and their human counterpart, I wonder how realistic the simulation could be, given the stand of the sciences and technologies we have at hand. Sadly, they didn’t describe the tasks they let the simulations solve in details, thus we cannot know more about it.<p>But I guess they let humans solve the problems, measures the times and brains’ activities and then they use the simulations to explain the reason behind the differences: aka the waiting for gathering enough informations before jumping to conclusion.<p>Will love it if anyone could shed more light on the matter.
I suppose this could be true. Before getting too excited, I have to weigh this information against the procrastination-prone behavior of taking too long to think about things before actually starting on any work. At least the results are noteworthy in a lab setting.<p>As an aside, my senses are sharp (maybe not <i>common sense</i>), but the benefits are a little counter-intuitive, like the conclusion here. I can see very small things up-close and far away, more than a good chunk of my peers. I can also hear conversations from very far away, to the surprise of people around me. Somehow, I still miss so many things that are obvious to others. I wonder if having too sharp senses gives one too many inputs to process, leading to a similar result as this study here.
>In fact, the brain models for higher score participants also needed more time to solve challenging tasks but made fewer errors.<p>Einstein was like this from the early childhood. He started to speak late, but then he started to speak in complete sentences immediately. His teachers assumed that he was slow witted because it took so long to answer questions. He took time to consider questions from multiple angles.