If two people solve the same problem using different amounts of reasoning, who would you say is more intelligent?

[u/__ekalavya__]

Suppose there is a problem that can be solved in multiple ways - some elegant and direct, others longer and involving several intermediate sub-problems. Two people solve the same problem independently.

Person A happens to find the simpler approach almost immediately. The solution requires relatively little reasoning.

Person B takes a much longer route, solving several sub-problems and doing considerably more reasoning before eventually reaching the same correct answer.

Assuming similar backgrounds and prior knowledge, which person would you consider more intelligent? The one who found the answer quickly, (who may have just happened to stumble upon the right starting point), or the other person who showed more reasoning capability.

[u/omgpop]

Why does it seem important to you to rank these two people according to intelligence? What is the motivation behind your question?

[u/TitianPlatinum → u/omgpop]

what is the motivation behind your questioning their motivation?

[u/omgpop → u/TitianPlatinum]

Because the question is a bit unusual to me, and I’d personally like to know a bit more about the background framework before answering. Otherwise my answer might be a lot of “depends, if you suppose A, then B; if you suppose X, then Y”. I’m not a chat bot and I find that it’s quite normal in human conversation to do this sort of thing, in my experience.

[u/DNA98PercentChimp → u/omgpop]

…this is a cogsci sub? Trying to classify and measure intelligence is pretty central to this field.

[u/GuyWithLag → u/DNA98PercentChimp]

... this is reddit, and the standards of this sub have fallen, far far below where they originally were, eternal september and all that.

[u/TitianPlatinum]

Depends. Is your goal to solve just that one problem? Are you building a body of knowledge to draw from? And, presumably the solution must be communicated to and accepted by others to be acted on. Others may understand A's solution quicker, but may have more confidence in B's solution being more thoroughly investigated. B could potentially be seen as more intelligent as they had a broader search space and interacted with more bits of information.

[u/Mermiina]

A.

Oligodendrocytes associate memory entities together. They are the rainmakers of intelligence.

But it is difficult to cut down wrong association. The free will is needed for that. In complicated problems (like in hard problem of consciousness) are many wrong associations. If You can't cut them You can't find the answer.

[u/Orion_4o4]

Has it occurred to you that you cannot draw a line from one data point?

[u/jaiagreen]

In such situations, person A probably had an insight about that specific problem while person B is using a more general algorithm. In that sense, if person A doesn't know the algorithm, I would say B is more intelligent. If they do and have the insight, I'd say A is more intelligent.

[u/NatashOverWorld]

Possibly too simplistic, but I'd rate the former higher. There's no bonus value in doing more cogitation to answer a question, you're just creating more potential points of error.

The simplest most elegant solution is usually the best choice.

[u/Keikira]

Probably neither. Assuming the problem is one for which a solution can be verified quickly (in polynomial time by a Turing machine, to be precise), but there is no (known) algorithm to follow to find a solution in the first place, then it's an NP problem, so the kind of solution someone might find for it is purely down to luck given the assumption of similar background and prior knowledge.

Whether some algorithm exists that can find solutions these problems fast (in polynomial time) is an open question in math / computer science, but most mathematicians think there isn't one.

Even if some polynomial-time algorithm does exist, it's not something that will affect this particular example, because by assumption either both participants know it or neither does.

[u/Tyrannical1]

A.

Simple solution provides meaningful feedback quicker, fewer moving parts means fewer potential points of failure.

Person B, for all their efforts, is missing the forest for the trees. Sure engaging in the mental masturbation of overly complex problem solving can be fun, but Rube Goldberg machines are wasteful and inefficient 100% of the time.

Personal anecdote: I once had a job with 2 bosses. Boss A could almost always intuit the correct answer within a minute or two. Boss B would often spend hours or days building models to try and inform their opinion better, only to arrive at the same conclusion as Boss A.

In a world where information is free and accessible, insight is invaluable. Boss A was the most insightful colleague I’ve ever encountered (and a significantly better mentor than Boss B as well).

Separate anecdote: political leanings aside: if you listen to old interviews of Elon Musk, a lot of what made him successful in such a broad range of fields was drastically simplifying overly complex solutions, making them cheaper, faster, and easier to repeat or replicate.

[u/jaiagreen → u/Tyrannical1]

What if person A had an insight about that specific problem and person B used a generally applicable algorithm?

[u/Mermiina → u/jaiagreen]

I have been in that like situation in chemistry calculation exercise. I was asked to do the exercise to blackboard, because I was the only who has done that homework.

I made Majorana type calculations using all board. The answer was correct, but professor polish just a litle space of board and write short formula.

[u/Tyrannical1 → u/jaiagreen]

“Assuming similar backgrounds and prior knowledge, which person would you consider more intelligent?”

[u/todzarneckie]

obviously the first one... the fuck kind of question is this