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?

[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.

[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.

[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.