zlacker

>>colinc+(OP)
Seems very Taleb's Ugly Surgeon / Berkson's Paradox to me. It's like how software engineers who are at Google are worse if they're better competitive programmers.

e.g. https://viz.roshangeorge.dev/taleb-surgeon/

>>arjie+Ev
Makes sense. My perspective is that fast learners are fast because they absorb information quickly without the overhead of cross-domain synthesis. They have more logical contradictions in their minds which they haven't resolved or aren't even aware of. Their worldview is not coherent as a whole. In some cases, they don't have a worldview; instead they just rely on expert data to inform their decisions... But the experts themselves are often victim to the same kind of domain-specific tunnel vision. Such people often lack creativity in their work because cross-domain pattern synthesis is precisely how you can solve complex problems that haven't been solved before.

>>jongjo+uU
That is a very idealistic perspective. There are certainly fast learners due to the fact they are faster at cross domain synthesis.

>>gmadse+Ae1
This does not match my observations. Also, what I've heard from experts is that 'intelligent' people are more suggestible. The way society measures intelligence is thinking speed; which tends to correlate with learning speed.

Some people learn surface-level information quickly without deep integration; what educational researchers sometimes call "shallow learning." And specialization can create blind spots.

>>jongjo+np1
I've seen very often people with good memory will be regarded as intelligent. They integrate "knowledge" by just recording verbatim phrases. That takes them a very long way... But when the time comes to analyze something, they break down. I've fallen in that myself, people I regarded as intelligent, because they "knew" so much things, could not keep up with the most basic syllogism, they were just stupid.