首页

55 条评论

PretzelPirate将近 2 年前
Whenever I have to solve a really hard problem, I always have at least two mediocre solutions before I come up with a really good one.<p>That doesn&#x27;t work well in interviews, especially with how terrible most interviewers at time management. I sometimes get 10 minutes for a system design problem because the interviewer was expected to get signals on my non-technical competencies as well as system design.<p>This is never enough time to ask clarifying questions, diagram things, and get a good solution out unless it&#x27;s similar to a problem I&#x27;ve already solved.<p>It&#x27;s often OK to not solve the problem as long as you give an interviewer insight into how you think, but some interviewers expect a miracle.
评论 #36175759 未加载
评论 #36174022 未加载
评论 #36175651 未加载
评论 #36173598 未加载
评论 #36176392 未加载
评论 #36176108 未加载
评论 #36173650 未加载
评论 #36173569 未加载
评论 #36175351 未加载
评论 #36175320 未加载
评论 #36174552 未加载
评论 #36177548 未加载
评论 #36175619 未加载
评论 #36178582 未加载
评论 #36176277 未加载
评论 #36174918 未加载
brink将近 2 年前
Intelligence isn&#x27;t a factor of just speed, but open-mindedness. A willingness to look at something from every angle and solve with a unique solution. This is my big gripe with the intellectual crowd - because they want to be smart solely for being smart&#x27;s sake, so they&#x27;ll sacrifice the due diligence it takes to correctly solve a problem in order to &quot;get further&quot; and appear smarter, and it misleads a lot of people on what true intelligence is.
评论 #36173838 未加载
评论 #36173081 未加载
评论 #36173106 未加载
评论 #36177175 未加载
评论 #36173828 未加载
评论 #36182037 未加载
k__将近 2 年前
Title should have been<p>&quot;People with lower IQ jump to conclusions&quot;<p>If you don&#x27;t think about edge cases, you get &quot;solutions&quot; faster.<p>That&#x27;s why we have so much technical debt.
评论 #36175277 未加载
评论 #36177526 未加载
评论 #36176282 未加载
评论 #36177589 未加载
评论 #36177573 未加载
g9yuayon将近 2 年前
&gt; Intelligent Brains Take Longer to Solve Difficult Problems<p>I find such summary ambiguous. Difficult for who? Isn&#x27;t it very common that a difficult problem for me is a piece of cake for thee, like the PDE that Bezos couldn&#x27;t solve for hours yet his classmate could solve in a matter of seconds?<p>In 1697 Jean Bernoulli challenged the mathematicians and scientists in Europe to solve the brachistochrone problem. Bernoulli was particularly proud of his solution after working on it for weeks. Yet Newton, who was 55 years old at that time and hadn&#x27;t worked on science or math for years, worked out a brilliant solution overnight and submitted the solution anonymously. Reading the solution, Bernoulli famously said &quot;I I recognize the lion by his paw&quot;. Not only did Newton solve the problem, he also invented the Calculus of Variations.
评论 #36173861 未加载
评论 #36174497 未加载
评论 #36173320 未加载
motohagiography将近 2 年前
This is an issue for clever people on the LSAT, where there is a technique to solving the problems that takes practice, and when you do a course on it, the thing STEM people tend to have to unlearn is solving the problem as a class of problem instead of just recognizing which question form it is and grinding through it fastest. The other trick is to recognize which ones are designed as a time suck. When I saw my first set of logical reasoning practice questions I thought, &quot;ah, a state machine,&quot; while the other students had already put down their pencils.<p>Abstraction solves a lot of hard problems, but it is also costly.
评论 #36174272 未加载
评论 #36173300 未加载
评论 #36173994 未加载
评论 #36173328 未加载
jack_riminton将近 2 年前
Came for commenters justifying their own intelligence, comments did not disappoint
评论 #36175306 未加载
winternewt将近 2 年前
This seems to conflict with how IQ tests are issued. They&#x27;re always pretty restricted in time, and I suspect they&#x27;re designed so that someone with 100 IQ is not supposed to get through all of the questions. Not to claim I&#x27;m some super intelligent guy but I always felt like IQ tests fail to measure the kind of cognitive tasks that I&#x27;m good at, which is to hold a problem in my mind for a long time (in my line of work that&#x27;s often days or weeks) and then come up with a novel solution.
评论 #36184652 未加载
codethief将近 2 年前
&gt; To simulate the mechanisms of the human brain, Ritter and her team use digital data from brain scans like magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) as well as mathematical models based on theoretical knowledge about biological processes. This initially results in a “general” human brain model. The scientists then refine this model using data from individual people, thus creating “personalized brain models.” […] “We can reproduce the activity of individual brains very efficiently,” says Ritter. “We found out in the process that these <i>in silico</i> brains behave differently from one another – and in the same way as their biological counterparts. Our virtual avatars match the intellectual performance and reaction times of their biological analogues.”<p>Huh, I hadn&#x27;t heard of this before. Does anyone know more about how exactly those &quot;in silico&quot; brains work and how they compare to their real-world counterparts? I mean, the article makes it sound as if the researchers fully understood how the brain works and had managed to create a faithful digital copy, which I find difficult to believe.<p>EDIT: The original paper says<p>&gt; To study neuronal processing in silico we created BNMs [brain network models] for the 650 subjects using a tuning algorithm that fits each participant’s simulated FC with their empirical FC (Figs. 2 and 3). The BNMs use coupled neural mass models to simulate the electric, synaptic, firing, and hemodynamic (fMRI) activity of a 379-nodes whole-brain network. Each node consists of one excitatory and one inhibitory population that mutually and recurrently interact. To simulate long-range white matter coupling, the neural masses were connected by each participant’s SC, which were estimated by dwMRI tractography. Importantly, we added feedforward inhibition to increase biological realism<p>Sounds like they used small neural networks for simulation and adjusted the weights between the neurons to what they saw in participants&#x27; MRI measurements.
DiscourseFan将近 2 年前
I wouldn&#x27;t think someone who took calc for engineers would be able to work through a problem concerning group theory very easily if they were just being introduced to the topic--but they could probably solve some calculus problems (relatively) quickly since they are more used to doing them.<p>All I&#x27;m saying is I think it has more to do with familiarity of material than &quot;intellect.&quot; Intelligence to me is being able to rapidly comprehend and assimilate new systems of logic and signification as they are approached. Biology is going to have different rules from Set Theory which is going to have different rules than Political Science. Someone might note that these things are all interrelated: which they are, of course. But I think intelligence here would be noticing the contradictions that appear when they are set in relation, <i>not</i> simply trying to understand how they all stand together in some grand, unified fashion; nor (on the other hand), making humble claims (like formalism) which are not truly held by anyone.
onlypositive将近 2 年前
I must be really smart, I&#x27;m still working on some of the problems my math teacher gave me.
评论 #36173531 未加载
评论 #36173159 未加载
评论 #36174783 未加载
mannyv将近 2 年前
So is the corollary to this &quot;less intelligent brains take less time to come up with solutions that don&#x27;t work?&quot;
评论 #36173872 未加载
nomilk将近 2 年前
That is the most egregious cookie popup I&#x27;ve seen. The worst part is it&#x27;s not immediately obvious what an indifferent user has to click on quickly get rid of it, necessitating reading and thinking.<p><a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;imgur.com&#x2F;a&#x2F;YbRlUSB" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;imgur.com&#x2F;a&#x2F;YbRlUSB</a>
评论 #36174379 未加载
评论 #36174313 未加载
评论 #36174825 未加载
评论 #36174546 未加载
评论 #36176040 未加载
评论 #36174002 未加载
评论 #36174740 未加载
DanHulton将近 2 年前
...but come up with better results, buried deep within the article.<p>Not shocking.
评论 #36174838 未加载
riccardomc将近 2 年前
It&#x27;s amusing how in many accounts in the comments the authors assume they&#x27;re endowed with an intelligent brain...
评论 #36175617 未加载
评论 #36176738 未加载
评论 #36177824 未加载
bob1029将近 2 年前
Solving difficult problems <i>well</i> typically involves some form of root cause analysis. A novice looking at a broken thing may decide to simply replace it and move on with the day. You can mindlessly replace widgets very rapidly. A master looking at the same might be more inclined to ask &quot;why&quot; a few times and set up some additional calls with the customer.<p>I don&#x27;t think this really has anything to do with &quot;intelligence&quot; as much as it does patience.
评论 #36173910 未加载
mrangle将近 2 年前
The article uses strange language to couch the results. Making an error isn&#x27;t solving a problem at all. It should read that higher IQ leads to more reliable problem solving. Which would be less click-baity, admittedly. I understand why researchers would make the time variable the focus, but it isn&#x27;t the story.<p>Who would you want to be your airline pilot: the person who solves 70% of problems quicker or who solves close to 100% of the problems slower? The ability to error check has a time cost but also is of infinite value for any position of consequence.
javajosh将近 2 年前
Good heavens, for 10 years after college I was having &quot;aha&quot; moments about physics and math. Looking back I don&#x27;t see how it could have been any other way, and it&#x27;s crazy to think you can recapitulate 300 years of science in 4 years into the brain of an 18-year-old. But we act like that&#x27;s what we&#x27;re doing. Maybe that&#x27;s what phd programs and postdocs are really for, not so much learning more but letting what you did learn actually soak in.
StrangeATractor将近 2 年前
I must be smarter than all of you, I never solve any difficult problems.
honeybadger1将近 2 年前
I knew all this time that I was procrastinating for a good reason.
brianjlogan将近 2 年前
This isn&#x27;t a particularly shocking result but it&#x27;s great to see validation of a theoretical model put to practice using computing. So they were able to match a similar result in their model of intelligence and mental computation time between the real and simulated participants.<p>Fascinating..what a time to be alive!
tekla将近 2 年前
Damn, how do I ask my professor to give me extra time because I&#x27;m too damn smart for the exam?
quickthrower2将近 2 年前
Makes sense: the IQ tests train you to think quick but double check to be sure. To do well at them (unless genius) requires meta stuff like how much time to give to a question, how much to check the answer, and so on. Time is limited.
arisAlexis将近 2 年前
Feynman botched the Mensa IQ test. My hypothesis is either he did it as prank or he just thought about another million possibilities for each item that others couldn&#x27;t even imagine.
评论 #36175127 未加载
评论 #36175058 未加载
anacrolix将近 2 年前
Well that&#x27;s a relief.
themerone将近 2 年前
I can write code a lot faster when I am extremely sleep deprived. I&#x27;ve always assumed it&#x27;s because I&#x27;m allocating zero brainpower to anything else.
bhaney将近 2 年前
&gt; In personalized brain simulations of the 650 participants<p>Uh huh
spacephysics将近 2 年前
Any number times 7 takes forever for me to do. Now I know it’s because I’m actually a super genius.
beebmam将近 2 年前
Wouldn&#x27;t this imply, at least a little bit, that the current definition of IQ is a poor metric?
评论 #36174036 未加载
评论 #36184644 未加载
评论 #36174863 未加载
评论 #36174330 未加载
评论 #36174339 未加载
mynegation将近 2 年前
Not even in mice.
esperent将近 2 年前
The title should be &quot;high IQ&quot; not &quot;intelligent&quot;. Those get equated far to often, while real intelligence is far more than just solving logic puzzles (even if that&#x27;s an important part of of it).
评论 #36175509 未加载
killjoywashere将近 2 年前
The most common guidance in medical board exams: don&#x27;t think too hard.
2h将近 2 年前
when tackling a large problem, in the beginning I find it hard to concentrate because I dont know &quot;the best way&quot;, but even from the beginning I can understand that you could handle it about 99 different ways. I want to chase down nearly all of them so I can decide the best one, but sometimes its better to just get something crappy done 100%, then you can go back and iterate. otherwise you might get stuck on side quests forever:<p><a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;youtube.com&#x2F;watch?v=zViYpS3BIqY">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;youtube.com&#x2F;watch?v=zViYpS3BIqY</a>
ganesh7将近 2 年前
I knew it. I take longer because I have an intelligent brain.
swayvil将近 2 年前
A smart guy creates 1, 2.. 10... solutions. Iterating and rehashing and rebuilding.<p>That&#x27;s how you explore the space.<p>You can&#x27;t expect a good solution before you&#x27;ve fully explored the space.
nonethewiser将近 2 年前
More fuel for the Dunning-Krueger effect.<p>(This is not to say its false)
globalnode将近 2 年前
Something about the fact that it was a simulation rather than a methodical study of real humans kinda makes me not really value the results.
arkadiytehgraet将近 2 年前
If both more intelligent and less intelligent brains were able to solve the problem, can we really say that it was a difficult problem?
egberts1将近 2 年前
Thats why insurance companies mandate aptitude test for law enforcement: liability is higher with &quot;smarter&quot; cops.
nnurmanov将近 2 年前
Intelligent people have wider knowledge, they can see the problem from different angles, different edge cases. It takes time. On the other there is The Dunning–Kruger effect where less intelligent people jump to results too quick.
评论 #36173259 未加载
sylware将近 2 年前
Common sense: it is expected that higher planes of reasoning have more complex neural connectomes, then takes more time.
kanodiaayush将近 2 年前
Clickbait worked. You&#x27;re not really saying that the less intelligent brains solve these problems less accurately.
tremere将近 2 年前
In my view, we need to stop putting all notions of intelligence on a pedestal. In my opinion, it interferes with productive science. It&#x27;s useful to know that mentally rotating an object is a task that allows you to sort people by IQ, roughly. It&#x27;s less useful to have studies that say &quot;aww it&#x27;s okay if you take long to solve hard problems, it&#x27;s actually a sign of intelligence.&quot; It just creates cope.
engineer_22将近 2 年前
The conclusions of this study are based on simulated brains. The headline may therefore be misleading.
lobocinza将近 2 年前
See bossman that&#x27;s why my deliveries are always late. &#x2F;s
booleandilemma将近 2 年前
I don&#x27;t think we know what intelligence is or if it even exists as we conceive it.
Weryj将近 2 年前
What role could meditation play in modifying this waiting period to refine the output?
VoodooJuJu将近 2 年前
Oh no wonder I&#x27;m so slow - I&#x27;m just too gosh darn intelligent!
nsbk将近 2 年前
Now it all makes sense
tpoacher将近 2 年前
Aesop&#x27;s fable of the cat and the fox comes to mind.
codethief将近 2 年前
* and the solution they come up with is correct more often.<p>The article title refers to something that&#x27;s been long known even in pop science since Daniel Kahnemann&#x27;s &quot;Thinking Fast and Slow&quot;. In fact, the original paper[0] even cites Daniel Kahnemann&#x27;s work:<p>&gt; Simulation results indicate that decision-making speed is traded with accuracy, resembling influential theories from the fields of economy and psychology on fast and slow thinking.<p>Kahnemann&#x27;s work might be summarized (very roughly) as follows: &quot;System 1&quot; often quickly suggests an intuitive (and frequently wrong) answer, whereas &quot;System 2&quot; is the part that does the slower, more rational, and conscious thinking. &quot;Intelligent&quot; people tend to be those who control their System 1 and thus their urge for intuitive answers more effectively.<p>And indeed this is what the article says, too:<p>&gt; Resting-state functional MRI scans showed that slower solvers had higher average functional connectivity, or temporal synchrony, between their brain regions. In personalized brain simulations of the 650 participants, the researchers could determine that brains with reduced functional connectivity literally “jump to conclusions” when making decisions, rather than waiting until upstream brain regions could complete the processing steps needed to solve the problem.<p>&gt; “In more challenging tasks, you have to store previous progress in working memory while you explore other solution paths and then integrate these into each other. This gathering of evidence for a particular solution may sometimes takes longer, but it also leads to better results.<p>However, if I understand correctly, the thing about the research here that&#x27;s <i>actually</i> novel is that they now have a better understanding of the neural processes underlying System 1 vs. System 2 (&quot;we identified a mechanistic link between functional connectivity, intelligence, processing speed and brain synchrony for trading accuracy with speed in dependence of excitation-inhibition balance&quot;) and that they in fact simulated the brain digitally, see my other comment.<p>[0]: <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;doi.org&#x2F;10.1038&#x2F;s41467-023-38626-y" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;doi.org&#x2F;10.1038&#x2F;s41467-023-38626-y</a>
andy_ppp将近 2 年前
I must be infinitely smart then?
keyle将近 2 年前
Let&#x27;s have a gigantic popup in the face of people the first time they visit the website. And talk about intelligence.
评论 #36173481 未加载
indus将近 2 年前
Interesting how much we know almost nothing about human brains.<p>1. Dunning Kruger in 1999 on overconfidence when unskilled.<p>2. Selection bias in favor of “quick thinkers”<p>3. Compounding effect of selection bias in capitalism—-often survivorship in decision making theories.
felipelalli将近 2 年前
I feel
nu11ptr将近 2 年前
This is interesting, but not surprising when you think about it. My whole career I&#x27;ve noticed there are always people who think as soon as a problem is mentioned, it needs an instant solution - and they are quick to volunteer one. Others say &quot;Hold on a moment, let&#x27;s back up and start from the beginning&quot;. They are calm and methodical and careful to withhold their conclusion until all data is gathered, and have removed the impossibilities from the possible solution set. They usually are the ones to solve the problem in the end I&#x27;ve noticed.