What is Digg?Sponsored by Sony Pictures
Do you believe the 2012 Mayan Prophecy? view!
whowillsurvive2012.com - The Mayan Calendar predicts the end of time: 2012. See the trailer for 2012, opening November 13.
64 Comments
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Interesting read.. maybe this'll give me an excuse for being so forgetful ;)
Josh - pixelwerx, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2"Seems to contradict my experience with very smart people (innovators, engineers, entrepreneurs with advanced degrees...). They all have an above average ability to recall and connect seemingly trivial details that most tend to not even remember, let alone notice."
I might tend to agree except that many of the most intellectually gifted people I know routinely forget to do things like pay their light bill or buy groceries. They have plenty of money in the bank. It just never crossed their minds to actually spend it on necessities.
They are looking at a bigger picture, and to them. food and light are only peripheral concerns while finishing their program/project/book is their one and only focus. What seems trivial to you and me may be overwhelmingly important to someone who sees a bigger picture. - EtherGnat, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2It's funny I was just thinking about this basic concept today. My own personal feeling is that what humans are incredibly good at are filtering and pattern recognition. I like to think of our perceptions and memory as using a very "lossy" compression. We encounter an insane amount of information every day--it is only by filtering out 95% of it that we are able to make any sense out of it. It's no surprise to me that people use different amounts of compression. I doubt that one is better than the other. Sometimes 64kbs WMAs are useful, in other situations 384kbs MP3s are more appropriate. Interesting read.
- semiotix, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2I'm not even reading this. I'm barely aware of this screen-box thingy in front of me. My subconscious is typing this while my conscious mind solves partial differential equations and browses five-dimensional porn.
- Klowner, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1When I was younger I'd memorize people's phone numbers based on the patterns from moving my finger from button to button, rather than the actual numbers.. I guess that's a method of filtering. But now I have a cellphone that remembers numbers for me, so I don't bother with it anymore :) Interesting read, dugg.
- ogletree, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Oh I am so showing this to my wife.
- maninthecold, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1does this mean that creative people are stupid and intelligent people are forgetful?
- MemoryDump, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1digg? never heard of it.. oh wait.. yeah.. maybe I did hear of it... hmm.. no.. where am I? oooohh a donut
- RatBagu, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1"Technically the article is wrong when it equates RAM to more storage. That would technically be the hard drive. The RAM is more like short tem memory."
Maybe the writer means NVRAM? - Wrathernaut, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1"It's not that I'm ignoring you, It's just that the red bricks are more interesting"
I'm going to call people with worthless requests blue bricks from now on. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2This is backed up by Arthur Conan Doyle in the first Sherlock Holmes story.
http://lists.village.virginia.edu/lists_archive/Humanist/v04/0288.html
Something similar hit me as I was playing The Warriors on PS2. I was making my own gang and going to a lot of trouble coming up with "hidden meanings" and "references" and so on. My gang ended up being really cool to me, but really obscure. Contrast that with the most successful gang in America (at least pop culturally), the Bloods. If a friend of mine had created the Bloods on PS2, I would have been like, "Isn't that a little obvious? I mean, come on, red colors on a gang called Bloods. It's too simplistic." But simplistic is another way of saying iconographic and powerful. Stupidity can sometimes mean genius.
Look at prolific authors like Stephen King. Are they geniuses, or are they just really good at shutting off some critical part of their brain?
Game developer Peter Molyneux said:
"I really believe the only difference between a creative person and the non-creative person is that creative people tend not to have a little voice in their head saying, 'That's not going to work, that's a stupid idea.' People who are very creative just have a ridiculous amount of confidence. I don't believe there are geniuses; if you look at any child when they're playing, they are making up scenarios and fighting battles of good and evil - huge epic stories with just a couple of sticks, a ball and a sandpit. I just think creative people tend not to lose that. They tend not to get the adult voice."
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/magazine/story/0,11913,796544,00.html
I see a non-fiction book opportunity. Call it: The Virtue of Stupidity. It could go over well with people who bought The Wisdom of Crowds and Everything Bad is Good for You. - binarypower, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Technically the article is wrong when it equates RAM to more storage. That would technically be the hard drive. The RAM is more like short tem memory.
- ab500, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Hmm. Would explain me and why I always did horrible in classes that required memorization of fine details. In english classes I would have a great grasp on the overall theme and plot but if you asked me about specific details half of them I wouldn't remember, also I am a pretty smart person.
- femmebot, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Seems to contradict my experience with very smart people (innovators, engineers, entrepreneurs with advanced degrees...). They all have an above average ability to recall and connect seemingly trivial details that most tend to not even remember, let alone notice.
- Rajio, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Is the horrible grammar of this post some form of joke?
The emperor is naked! - postscriptum, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Smarter people are good indeed at avoiding stupid things.
- binarypower, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0*short term* < my ignore on the type = genious :)
- indication, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0This article is OLD! Find some better news
- RatBagu, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0I should give this article to my girlfriend.
- fiveoaks, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0I'm reminded of that recent clip of Bush's press conference where he was repeatedly distracted by this swinging camera. Like a cat and a piece of string.
- stoops, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0What's the title of this article again?
- jasdev, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0I think so. To understand something you have to look at the context and semantics. In my humble opinion, really smart people are really good in PRIORITIZING things. You have limited resources and its best to 'optimize' it accordingly. I say context and semantics - because if youre keen on being a suicide bomber you ignore all the other things and optimize to achieve that goal(for example). So are athletes and what not.
- nymphetamine, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0this makes me feel so much better about my bad memory. sweet, now i have an excuse: I'm a freakin genius and you're not!
- diggnationdevon, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0I guess this means I'm smart. XD
- Flyngwalrus, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0It's been known for some time the brain is able to store practically infinite information. The article's suggestion that intelligence has any time recently been associated with brain storage capacity suggests to me the study may not be especially accurate.
Cool idea if it is accurate though. - monofonik, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0"An interesting scientifically test shows that smarter people actually remember less details."
An interesting scientifically test? Horrible english. Digg. - grislygus, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Huh... Now what do they mean by "essential"? I have a spectacular memory, if only for remembering art, wierd trivia, comedy bits, and history. Now, ask me to remember a math equation... then I'm done.
- superdigg, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0this explains why i suck at those detail-oriented history tests i get so often
this and bad studying techniques. - kawai, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0I am sorry, i can't help but to point out that it's spelled "G E N O U S"
thank you. - Arramol, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0@binarypower - It mentions both RAM and hard drive, and the brain actually has more than one level of memory storage, so both components do fit. For what they're talking about, I'd actually think RAM would be the better analogy since it seems to relate more to short-term memory.
My agreements with Josher. I can always use a good excuse. Dugg. - tehfink, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0it should be "fewer details." smarter people, eh?
- Imusion, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0heh I did a science fair experiment on memory and not to my suprise all the smart people scored far more better then he dumbass people..
- cstorm72, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0I think my wife should read this article, but I'd imagine she'll retort with some crap about the detail filtration being more like "male selective hearing"... DUGG...
- carlosglz, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0And here I thought I had Adult ADD...
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0"You Have Already Dugg This Story"
DAMMIT!. - raccoon007, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0this is one of the most interesting articles i've read in a long time
- citrusfizz, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0You guys are all retarded.
You just wish you were as smart as me.
mhahahahaha! - dutter, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0@mister.joshua
Nice call on the Sherlock Holmes reference. Conan Doyle nailed this in the 19th Century.
Needless to say, this story is not just old news, but antique as well.
For the curious, Gutenberg has it here: http://www.gutenberg.org/etext/244 - WillPate, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0I hope this is true.
- gabangel, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0"The more you rattle the marbles around in your brain, the more creative new connections you make, as it were -- connections that might be lost on those focusing intently on just the red ones."
That's right.. I'm not JUST a scatterbrain. Oh, sweet validation. - JPhilipson, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Explains a lot about me! Seriously....
- junesix, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0I think this only touches on intelligence in terms of problem-solving. In my line of work, the employees who excel are the ones who can draw reasonable conclusions from a mountain of information and data - essentially efficiency in discarding unimportant details and focusing on what's relevant. Some people get hung up on all the details and never perform as well and it's difficult to teach past this obstacle. So I don't think it's smart people ignoring details but rather being able to identify and focus on the important details.
- udha, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0"I will be talking to someone and in the middle of a sentence just forget a word. I'm terrible at memorizing names, but I can remember faces with clockwork precision."
I have forgetful moments like that, but I'm not that great with faces, my memery just seems to be pretty bad, what I am good at however is problem solving, that doesn't require you to remember, it requires you to think. Infact, not really remembering what a result was the last time might be part of the reason I'm so thourough each time a solve a problem, mostly of the technical nature, but it works with most problems. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Okay. that's dumb, in a scatterplot, the two axis, no matter how much correlation exists between the two items being tested, there still lies no evidence of causation, that's why the tabacco companies always ask for causational proof in a court of law against anti-drug companies. THIS IS DUMB.
No Digg. - pingviini, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Hmm. Would explain me and why I always did horrible in classes that required memorization of fine details. In english classes I would have a great grasp on the overall theme and plot but if you asked me about specific details half of them I wouldn't remember, also I am a pretty smart person.
posted by ab500 (0)
Story of My Life, pg. 3-4
by Pingviini - foofooz, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0hahaha...I hate forgetting small things like simple vocabulary.
For example, tie or sharpen. I will be talking to someone and in the middle of a sentence just forget a word. I'm terrible at memorizing names, but I can remember faces with clockwork precision. - snapcase, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0I won't bother with reading this article, but I remember either the same story or a different story saying the same thing not too long ago on digg. No digg.
- plzdiekthx, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Looking at my comments I noticed that the previous comment was posted in the wrong article. Since I was reading and responding to a different article it is not apparent why that happened, but I apologize nonetheless for the off-topic spam.
- plzdiekthx, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0The processor in the Xbox 360 is a multicore in-order PPC. It has weak integer and general-purpose performance, and decent streaming vector-performance. In order to maximize the throughput of the processor you need to be able to feed all three cores, and the code stream feeding all three cores needs to be well-optimized by the compiler or hand-optimized by the programmers to prevent or reduce stalling. Branch-heavy code is the anthema of this processor. You cannot suggest that unless a PC has three cores that it is necessarily inferior. In fact the processor in any reasonaly-modern PC will slap it around at anything other than highly-optimized streaming vector processing. If you really think a $400 console really has this sort of performance advantage, you should really ask yourself 1) Why it costs $400 2) Why Microsoft isn't selling it as a general-purpose computer instead of a tightly-controlled gaming console 3) Why all of the PC-oriented games released for it will be cut-down versions, despite having a unified target platform (Exactly like what happened with Xbox titles)
People that compared Halo 2 to Half-Life 2 were clearly retarded, or were playing Half-Life 2 with a GeForce 3. Halo 2 is definitely a last-generation game in its appearance. You might like playing it, but it's not visually competitive.
You buy a $400 computer with limited memory and performance and you get a $400 computer with limited memory and performance. It's a two-edged sword: you get stability of what you can expect. - theman8631, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0OLD NEWS OLD NEWS OLDNEWS
-
Show 51 - 64 of 64 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is