A More Realistic Fred And Ginger Problem

[David Sklansky]

Fred is quick to grasp all mathematical concepts. Give him a bunch of well written math books in the proper order and he can zip through them with full understanding.

Ginger can't do this nearly as well. She struggles with certain types of concepts and occasionally needs some tutoring. But unlike Fred, she sometimes does more than merely understand. She anticipates what will be said. She often can derive the proof of a concept first mentioned before she actually reads that proof. She realized completing the square yields the quadratic equation. That repeating fractions proves that the harmonic series diverges. She figured out Euclids's proof for primes before reading about it. And that if a calling frequency does equally well if he always bluffs or never bluffs it will do the same no matter how often he bluffs. As she gets into higher math she continues to anticipate and come up with proofs before she reads them.

But unlike Fred she hits roadblocks. Explanations do not always come easy to her. And she would take three times as long to learn the stuff that Fred learned. And would not score as well on many tests.

Does her extra creativity mean that she is smarter?

[Justin A]

this of course totally depends on your definition of smarter.

[Alex-db]

I have never met anyone like Ginger, so I'm sceptical if its possible she exists. I can't see how she would struggle with concepts and be able to anticipate proofs: they seem like such closely linked attributes of the same type of intelligence to me.

Perhaps I am not thinking about it correctly as it applies to maths though - would it be like a snooker player who can always make a specified shot with 100% acccuracy, but can't always see the correct play, so isn't as good a player?

[madnak]

Ginger's smarter and it's not close.

Given time, Ginger should be able to understand almost anything. She won't have the breadth of understanding that Fred does, but she will have the same depth of understanding. Only she goes one step further - she'll come up with new understanding. Because she's also conversant on the old understanding, she will be able to use her insights effectively (which the other version Ginger could not do because of her handicap).

Ginger will also perform tasks solidly after learning the relevant concepts and when to apply them, but her occasional flashes of insight will lead to significantly better performance at most tasks. This benefit should eventually make up for the cost of spending more time learning.

Obviously Fred will do well for himself, and he may appear smarter while he's young, but eventually Ginger will overtake him as her insights become more relevant. Ginger will be the one who makes history.

[gumpzilla]

[ QUOTE ]

Does her extra creativity mean that she is smarter?

[/ QUOTE ]

Maybe. It certainly means that she is more likely to accomplish something of significance one day.

[Arp220]

'Smarter' (to me at least) is too crude a distinguisher. Instead, I would say that:

Fred is likely to have a good career as a stockbroker, quantitative analyst, or some other such post in a place like a bank or financial services company

Ginger is likely to have a good career as a professor of mathematics at a university.

Fred would be terrible at Gingers career, and Ginger would suck at Freds.

[Borodog]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm skeptical if it's possible [that someone like Ginger] exists.

[/ QUOTE ]

[gumpzilla]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I'm skeptical if it's possible [that someone like Ginger] exists.

[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]

Sklansky may be phrasing it poorly, but if you look at less extreme examples it's perfectly valid. Skill at manipulation and understanding the derivations of others is one sort of power, and creativity and innovativeness is another. Many of the guys who are good that I know don't suck at the first, but the second arena is where they shine.

[Splendour]

this is a paradox because on the surface Fred would appear to be smarter. As an individual unit he may be smarter, but because of her "out of the box" mental capabilities Ginger is more important to the group because she can make discoveries that help the group advance.

Maybe there is more than 1 type of intelligence or different types of intelligence suit different purposes.

[yukoncpa]

[ QUOTE ]
Does her extra creativity mean that she is smarter?


[/ QUOTE ] Of course

[soon2bepro]

Yeah, I think Ginger is smarter.

[recondite7]

Seems like fred would crush sngs, but Ginger would be much better at deepstacked NL cash.

[PairTheBoard]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I'm skeptical if it's possible [that someone like Ginger] exists.

[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]

There are people who have difficulty performing under time constraints of a test and fair poorly in such competition. But they solve the most difficult homework problems, ones that sometimes none of the other students can solve. This is sometimes recognized in the grading of qualifying exams for the PHD program where consideration is given to the quality of the student's overall work.

You can be a "slow thinker" and go a long way in mathematics. Some people are not "quick" but they can go slow and bore deeply into mathematical concepts, gaining a more powerful understanding than someone quick to pick up the surface details. In fact, I've often thought this is a major reason why so many smart people give up their study of mathematics when the concepts start to get more abstract.

Their "quick" intelligence which has provided them such easy success in the past is no longer adequate to the task. They need to "slow down" their thinking to allow deeper understanding to develop. Many "quick smart" people catch on to this fact and learn to adapt. However, most just give up the study of math and go on to other things. It's debatable what they would do with a gun to their head. Even with such motivation the talent may just not be there.

PairTheBoard

[CrayZee]

[ QUOTE ]
I have never met anyone like Ginger, so I'm sceptical if its possible she exists. I can't see how she would struggle with concepts and be able to anticipate proofs: they seem like such closely linked attributes of the same type of intelligence to me.

[/ QUOTE ]

Most people hit roadblocks, too. I haven't met anyone that doesn't struggle a bit at least here and there w/ some concepts.

I side with Ginger because I value creativity more than rote memorization, but it's possible that Fred is smarter if he is constantly researching new material. Ginger has more skill with the material she's absorbed because she's both knowledgeable and creative; Fred is really just knowledgeable.

Ginger really just needs more time and effort to grasp some concepts. I'm unsure to what extent someone can train for creativity, but I doubt Fred will ever get as creative no matter how much research on creativity he does.

Fred and Ginger should get married because their skills overlap nicely.

[Taraz]

[ QUOTE ]
'Smarter' (to me at least) is too crude a distinguisher. Instead, I would say that:

Fred is likely to have a good career as a stockbroker, quantitative analyst, or some other such post in a place like a bank or financial services company

Ginger is likely to have a good career as a professor of mathematics at a university.

Fred would be terrible at Gingers career, and Ginger would suck at Freds.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree with this. Nobody agrees on what the definition of intelligence is, so the best you can say is that they are each better at some things.

Ginger would clearly be the better academic and is more likely to make a meaningful contribution to the advancement of a field. Fred on the other hand would make a much better "worker" and would clearly outproduce Ginger in terms of the work he can accomplish in any given set of time.

[tame_deuces]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
'Smarter' (to me at least) is too crude a distinguisher. Instead, I would say that:

Fred is likely to have a good career as a stockbroker, quantitative analyst, or some other such post in a place like a bank or financial services company

Ginger is likely to have a good career as a professor of mathematics at a university.

Fred would be terrible at Gingers career, and Ginger would suck at Freds.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree with this. Nobody agrees on what the definition of intelligence is, so the best you can say is that they are each better at some things.

Ginger would clearly be the better academic and is more likely to make a meaningful contribution to the advancement of a field. Fred on the other hand would make a much better "worker" and would clearly outproduce Ginger in terms of the work he can accomplish in any given set of time.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not protesting your post, but Fred would be an awesome academic too. For example he would make an excellent peer reviewer of material.

[Siegmund]

If I had to give a one-word answer I would say Ginger. My justification would be "Ginger has potential to do something new, Fred can only understand all that has come before." The better answer, as already noted by several in the thread, is that they are suited for different careers - Fred as a 'technician' (accountant, broker, limit poker grinder, editor, whatever) and Ginger as a 'creator' (researcher or author or whatever.)

Somebody asked, are there really Gingers in the world? Yes there are - and, I have to say, from my time as a mathematics student, I thought much more highly of the people who grasped the concepts and could "see where we were going next" than I did of the people who wrote the best proofs. Writing the proof is the necessary evil that comes AFTER the flash of insight of what you want to prove.

[bovine_boat]

I'm not sure where the break even point is (in terms of Ginger taking 3x as long as Fred to get through things). But practically, problems given to smart people are almost never simple enough that being able to fully research a problem is better than having a good intuition.
I think Ginger would nearly always be perceived as smarter than Fred, though Fred would be more useful in some circumstances.

[Jcrew]

This is related to a subject I've been thinking about for the past few days. Breaking down different aspects of intelligence. To me, it looks there are three broad disjoint categories:

1.) Short term and long term memorization. How many iterations of exposure does it take to commit to memory.
2.) Size of working memory. How many different thought objects you can juggle at once in your mind.
3.) Permutation speed. How fast can you permute through different scenarios.

So to place Fred and Ginger in this framework, it seems like Fred's strength would be 1 and 2 while Ginger's would be 3?

[Siegmund]

I don't think so, jcrew -- none of your three points address the ability of Ginger to look in a *new direction*, as opposed to her or Fred's ability to remember and recombine facts they have already covered.

Or, if you prefer, you can say you've chosen to treat creativity and intelligence as two separate abilities. But I would prefer to say that your 1-2-3 all are connected specifically to memory, and not to intelligence (what use you make of your memories and your information about the present.)

[Splendour]

[ QUOTE ]
Fred is quick to grasp all mathematical concepts. Give him a bunch of well written math books in the proper order and he can zip through them with full understanding.

Ginger can't do this nearly as well. She struggles with certain types of concepts and occasionally needs some tutoring. But unlike Fred, she sometimes does more than merely understand. She anticipates what will be said. She often can derive the proof of a concept first mentioned before she actually reads that proof. She realized completing the square yields the quadratic equation. That repeating fractions proves that the harmonic series diverges. She figured out Euclids's proof for primes before reading about it. And that if a calling frequency does equally well if he always bluffs or never bluffs it will do the same no matter how often he bluffs. As she gets into higher math she continues to anticipate and come up with proofs before she reads them.

But unlike Fred she hits roadblocks. Explanations do not always come easy to her. And she would take three times as long to learn the stuff that Fred learned. And would not score as well on many tests.

Does her extra creativity mean that she is smarter?

[/ QUOTE ]


Ginger is like the personification of science or theology or any other multidiscipline where you study the origin and end result of something to understand the middle. She is the one that can mentally fill in a jigsaw puzzle.

Fred is a personification of the perfect application of a discipline. He can take anything known for a fact and manipulate it to its best usage.

[jogger08152]

[ QUOTE ]
Does her extra creativity mean that she is smarter?

[/ QUOTE ]
Of course.

[wtfsvi]

I think I'm an unmotivated ginger.

Somehow I feel like I'm not the only person in the world who thinks that about himself /images/graemlins/tongue.gif

[furyshade]

based on what i have read einstein was a ginger, im not sure how relevent that is. einstein had great trouble learning and understanding high level math, but what he did with it...well that is pretty well known. i think all the historically "smartest" people have been like ginger, spending months if not years coming up with new proofs and theories.
i think the root of this is the ability to think in a different way, they don't understand other's explanations because they understand these concepts in a way different from most people. einstein spent a great deal of time when he was stuck on the problem of general relativity learning the latest theories of non-euclidean geometry and minkowskian space-time to prove his theory. he said it was one of the most difficult experiences of his life and gave him a new respect for advanced mathematics

[pokervintage]

[ QUOTE ]
Does her extra creativity mean that she is smarter?

[/ QUOTE ]

If by smarter you mean more valuable then Ginger is smarter. Suppose all humans were Fred clones. Man would then have reached his maximum potential. What fred knows is all that man will ever know. Now suppose that all humans are Ginger Clones. Man would never reach a maximum potential. There would be no maximum potential. With Ginger man would continue to create and continue to improve.

Ginger is smarter. Marry her.

pokervintage

[MidGe]

[ QUOTE ]
Does her extra creativity mean that she is smarter?

[/ QUOTE ]

Not her extra creativity but her linguistics abilities. It is obvious that linguistic abilities come into play before math ability even in a mere numerical type problem.

[FortunaMaximus]

[ QUOTE ]
I think I'm an unmotivated ginger.

Somehow I feel like I'm not the only person in the world who thinks that about himself /images/graemlins/tongue.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

You aren't. <wry grin>

I think a big point in Ginger's favor is that she's probably psychologically likely to accept and adapt to mistakes, while Fred would go off-track when he ran into a succession of mistakes. Might take longer but she gets there, and more fully.

[tame_deuces]

Well, I think the best recipe for development are found in the cooperation and/or competition between Fred and Ginger types.

[mrick]

[ QUOTE ]
Fred is quick to grasp all mathematical concepts. Give him a bunch of well written math books in the proper order and he can zip through them with full understanding.

Ginger can't do this nearly as well. (a) She struggles with certain types of concepts and occasionally needs some tutoring. But unlike Fred, she sometimes does more than merely understand. She anticipates what will be said. (b) She often can derive the proof of a concept first mentioned before she actually reads that proof. She realized completing the square yields the quadratic equation. That repeating fractions proves that the harmonic series diverges. She figured out Euclids's proof for primes before reading about it. And that if a calling frequency does equally well if he always bluffs or never bluffs it will do the same no matter how often he bluffs. As she gets into higher math she continues to anticipate and come up with proofs before she reads them.

[/ QUOTE ]

I just don't think (a) is compatible with (b). Are you talking about a multiple personality disorder ?

[southerndog]

Ginger's going to advance the field , fred isn't.

[furyshade]

[ QUOTE ]

Ginger's going to advance the field , fred isn't.

[/ QUOTE ]

gingers don't exist without freds. gingers have a hard time being organized and dealing with others in the field and when they get stuck they need a fred to help them along. again to my einstein reference, einstein would have spent his life at the patent office and may have fail out of the ETH if not for marcel grossmann

[Fly]

As described, neither Fred nor Ginger exist outside of Sklansky's imagination.

[BPA234]

[ QUOTE ]
Fred is quick to grasp all mathematical concepts. Give him a bunch of well written math books in the proper order and he can zip through them with full understanding.

Ginger can't do this nearly as well. She struggles with certain types of concepts and occasionally needs some tutoring. But unlike Fred, she sometimes does more than merely understand. She anticipates what will be said. She often can derive the proof of a concept first mentioned before she actually reads that proof. She realized completing the square yields the quadratic equation. That repeating fractions proves that the harmonic series diverges. She figured out Euclids's proof for primes before reading about it. And that if a calling frequency does equally well if he always bluffs or never bluffs it will do the same no matter how often he bluffs. As she gets into higher math she continues to anticipate and come up with proofs before she reads them.

But unlike Fred she hits roadblocks. Explanations do not always come easy to her. And she would take three times as long to learn the stuff that Fred learned. And would not score as well on many tests.

Does her extra creativity mean that she is smarter?

[/ QUOTE ]

Fred's a computer and Ginger is a human being. Until Fred can do what Ginger does, it's Ginger.

[JMAnon]

I don't believe anyone like Ginger exists. I have never met such a person or seen an exposition of someone's life who resembled Ginger. Every great creative mind I have come across or seen documented has been Fred+, not Ginger.

[Jcrew]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't believe anyone like Ginger exists. I have never met such a person or seen an exposition of someone's life who resembled Ginger. Every great creative mind I have come across or seen documented has been Fred+, not Ginger.

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually I seem to recall reading about a top topologist having trouble doing simple arithmetic. Cannot recall the name now.

[Splendour]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Fred is quick to grasp all mathematical concepts. Give him a bunch of well written math books in the proper order and he can zip through them with full understanding.


Wow I hadn't seen the computer/human thing before BPA. The funny thing is computers can't make leaps.
Ginger can't do this nearly as well. She struggles with certain types of concepts and occasionally needs some tutoring. But unlike Fred, she sometimes does more than merely understand. She anticipates what will be said. She often can derive the proof of a concept first mentioned before she actually reads that proof. She realized completing the square yields the quadratic equation. That repeating fractions proves that the harmonic series diverges. She figured out Euclids's proof for primes before reading about it. And that if a calling frequency does equally well if he always bluffs or never bluffs it will do the same no matter how often he bluffs. As she gets into higher math she continues to anticipate and come up with proofs before she reads them.

But unlike Fred she hits roadblocks. Explanations do not always come easy to her. And she would take three times as long to learn the stuff that Fred learned. And would not score as well on many tests.

Does her extra creativity mean that she is smarter?

[/ QUOTE ]

Fred's a computer and Ginger is a human being. Until Fred can do what Ginger does, it's Ginger.

[/ QUOTE ]

Wow I never saw this as a computer vs. a human, but you may be right. Computers can't make leaps. At least not at this time can they?

Edit: came across this article right after making this post. Seems the figurative is pretty important in human thinking.
http://www.prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/stories.pl?ACCT=105&STORY=/www/story/10-02-2003/0002028376

Its interesting to contrast the figurative thinking skills with this article:

http://www.wcg.org/lit/bible/literal2.htm