Why do you think that would be the case? So long as there is value to be had from delivering a result faster, I would expect a correct solution delivered faster to be better than the same correct solution delivered more slowly.
It's like the classic "pick two" triangle of cheap, quick, or high quality. Of course we assign more weight to solutions that don't make us choose.
Because taking care to do something right has value too and that takes time. Not everybody is wired the same way and by prioritizing speed over correctness you may end up with sub-optimal solutions.
> So long as there is value to be had from delivering a result faster, I would expect a correct solution delivered faster to be better than the same correct solution delivered more slowly.
Correct is not a binary proposition, and by making it the same solution you are making my words say something that I did not imply: a solution can keep you moving but a good solution may save more work than just implementing any solution and may well be more future proof. Depending on the context it may in fact be the only solution that is really valid.
> It's like the classic "pick two" triangle of cheap, quick, or high quality. Of course we assign more weight to solutions that don't make us choose.
High quality may in the long term be cheaper and even faster, but you'll never know.
As a society we seem to value the quickly found ones over the ones that are found through a more contemplative process that requires some more time. And this means we may be throwing out some good stuff for the wrong reasons.
Slower answers involve more deliberate thinking rather than quick rote pattern matching. The speeders are good pattern matchers but not better thinkers. Let me give you an example from high school. I was in a math Olympics in the 7th grade and speed was not my thing so I did not have time to solve a problem while others did. On the other hand it appeared I got another question wrong while the speeders got it right. Fast forward a few weeks and it turns out I got it right and everybody else got it wrong including the professors who chose the math problems. So speed is just a metric after all, may enable you to cover more material but it's not everything.
I was passionate about math back then and remember enjoying slow and thorough thinking. Is there anything wrong with that??
It depends on the problem being solved and the probability that quicker solution could fail. A recent article posted on YC about solving puzzles [0] (I'll have to find the post), described a normal chess player with that of a grandmaster in how they thought about a single move. That move had a ratio of ways the move could backfire to it succeeding. A normal chess player has a ratio of 0.5:1. Where as the grandmaster's ratio floats around 5:1.
This really irks me because I know some people that are much, much smarter than they appear because they are a bit slower (and possibly less extrovert). In a 'just world' (which we clearly do not have) their chances would be at least equal. We seem to give speed simply too much weight.