Fast Intelligence versus Slow Intelligence

Post Reply New Topic

Personally, I don't believe any tests measure intelligence. Tests revolve around rote memory skills, and I'm surprised that some aspies don't enjoy this aspect of tests. IQs tests do involve some problem-solving skills, but nothing compared to what exists in the real world. Most, if not all, tests generally don't include creative skills. Timed tests are even worse, because forcing a slow thinker, who may be very intelligent, into a fast mode, I assume, will produce mistakes, thus giving a false intelligence quota.

I, myself, am a very fast thinker. I can't think slowly. I can't read slowly. I have to re-read some things twice or three times to understand what I just read. Some teachers at school years ago had tried to get me to read slower, but nothing ever worked.

I kept a B average through college, and I did better on essay questions than on multiple-choice questions. I like questions where I can explain myself in words. I never really cared for questions where I was asked to regurgitate information.

- Ray M -

This seems like it might be true especially for artists who produce very detailed art. Escher comes to mind. IIRC, he spent quite a lot of time making his pictures.

The Mismeasure of Man by Stephen Jay Gould has a section about IQ tests and why they are an inaccurate way to measure actual intelligence, though it spends a bit more time talking about the inheritability of intelligence versus the impact of the environment in which one is raised.

I think most of the world acknowledges the fact of IQ tests not being very accurate. Thats why when u go in to apply for a job, even for like a rocket scientist.... chances are the employer wont ask you what your IQ score is. IQ tests have always just seemed like feel good tests for those that thought they could never be smart and then by chance got a good score from the IQ test cause they finished it.

I have noticed that slow thinkers are better at rationalizing and introspection. Fast thinkers can be impulsive and irrational. You can overload a slow thinker's sensory and outmaneuver with rapid mind numbing violence of action. Fast thinkers can easily be instigated to overeact.

Mensa is a waste of time, IMO. It's an organisation dedicated to letting otherwise ignorant people feel good about themselves. Some of the stupidest, gob-smackingly irritating posts on internet forums have come from supposed Mensa members.
I don't think I've ever seen an IQ test that accurately measured intelligence; I've also never seen proof that an elevated IQ leads to a better or happier life.

My gosh you lot are bitter and depressing. Of course the time taken to solve a problem indicates how clever you are. If we took your standards then someone who takes a day to solve the sum 2 + 2 = 4 would be considered as intelligent as someone who solves it in microseconds. Time is important, if you can't generate a correct answer as quickly as someone else then you are not as intelligent as them, it is as simple as that.

Thinking yourself better then NT's simply because you don't really understand them rather than working to improve your own abilities reeks of defeatism. If you don't really try you've never failed right?

I used to be very slow on IQ tests, and yes it was frustrating when everyone else appeared to be lightyears ahead of me. Instead of moaning about it I practiced the sort of questions you get in those tests. As time progressed I became quicker and more competent. Instead of defeating yourselves, challenge yourselves instead. You have the ability to learn and adapt, only negative thought cycles can prevent you from being as fast as any NT.

No.

First, you have to define "intelligence" and then provide actual evidence that your interpretation of "intelligence" is the "correct" interpretation. "Intelligence," as it stands, is a fuzzy, ill-defined concept and I have little use for fuzzy, ill-defined concepts. And I have not read or seen anything that would convince me IQ is any more of an "objective" measure of this supposed "intelligence" than any other indicator.

Mostly, people will define "intelligence" in whatever way they have to in order to boost their own egos. As for "timing" being an important factor in "intelligence," I tend to think that it's more a reflection of the cultural values of Capitalist Western countries than anything else. "Quickness" is valued because "quick" employees and business owners can stay ahead of competitors and can produce more work in shorter amounts of time.



I haven't seen anyone frame this as an NT verses AS issue.



No.

I'm a slow thinker. There are many types of problems I'm good at, and many types of problems I'm bad it. I will never be very good at timed tests, especially not timed tests conducted in crowded rooms with horrible lighting. Telling me to "try harder" does not work.

Certain abilities are better suited to certain situations. Being "slow" has many advantages and I'd rather focus on what I can do than bemoaning everything I can't. I will not spend my life tearing down the mountains to fill up the valleys.

I have trouble with timed test and people have told me I'm a "slow thinker" (whatever that means). Supposedly my IQ is at genius level, I don't really think I'm smart though, I just know a lot about certain subjects. I'm a "slow thinker" like someone has told me in the past and tend to ruminate on problems/ideas.

In general peoples of superior intelligence got great processing speed, but processing speed is fragile and many intelligent peoples are slow, or at least slower that they should getting they overall intellect.


It don't make you smarter though. By training you simply become better at IQ tests.


Edit: Here a untimed test: http://www.etienne.se/cfnse/

It's only made for those in the gifted range though.

Intelligence, in it's most basic form. Is the ability to problem solve. The faster you can problem solve, the more intelligent you are. The more types of problems you can solve, the better you are.

Again, I go back to my previous point. If it takes you a day to work out 2 + 2 = 4, then you're not as intelligent as someone who takes a few microseconds to work it out. You can muddy the water, and argue definitions all you want. But that's largely a waste of time. Intelligence has to be useful and functional otherwise it's pointless. The faster someone is at problem solving the more work they can do thus the more productivity they can produce.

So lets define intelligence as follows.

1) Ability to complete a task.
2) Speed at which you can complete that task.
3) The number of tasks you are able to complete.

IQ tests do this very well. They give a a wide range of subject area's and problems to solve, and they ensure you can do them within a set time limit. Some tests even test you base on your speed to do each task.

Intelligence is also not fixed. If you can improve your speed and accuracy doing these tests then your IQ raises. This should not be surprising. After all, if I pick up a weight, and repeatedly lift it many hundreds of times, my body responds by increasing the density of my muscle structure. The brain works in the same way, we form pathways in our minds, the more we use them the stronger and more defined they become until in many cases problems that were once complicated become easy.

So if you want to raise your intelligence, practice.

If you want to sit and moan that you're and intelligent as someone who's more accurate and quicker then you in regards to a wide range of problems. Then I'm just going to giggle and let you have your delusion, in the firm knowledge that my practising has definitely paid off more then you're moaning.

You want to be good at something, practice. You want to be quick at something, practice. You want to moan and complain that someone better then you, delude yourself that you're just as clever if you'd only try! Then you're wasting your time, and everyone elses time.

Nothing in life is free. Work for it, or shutup. Unless you want to be a champion moaner, in which case carry on practising!

Now let the emotionalisms and denial begin! Remember if you say the same things over and over enough times, you might just start to believe it yourself , laters!

speed = memorization
intelligence = ability to understand

Lets go back to your example of 2 + 2 = X. Anyone can memorize that the answer is four. You could answer it in milliseconds, because you don't have to think about it. But does that mean you understand it? Absolutely not.

Lets look at a more complex example. What is i^8? You may have memorized that i^4 is positive one, and the cycle repeats so that i^8 is the same answer. If that is true, you probably got the answer very quickly. But do you understand why i^8 = 1? Lets pretend you did not know that. You attempt to work out i^2 in your head. i^2 = -1. So you realize that you have -1*-1*-1*-1, which equals 1*1, which is 1. Sure that might have taken longer, but it only means that you understood what you were doing. You don't have to understand anything about imaginary numbers to know that i^8 = 1. So how then, can intelligence be represented as a function of speed, dcforeman? I do not understand your logic.

The only possible answer I can think of is that your definition of intelligence is slightly different. So lets look it up in the dictionary. You might find something like this:

"capacity for learning, reasoning, understanding, and similar forms of mental activity; aptitude in grasping truths, relationships, facts, meanings, etc."

Intelligence is not something you can change. In mathematical terminology, intelligence is a fixed coefficient in which you were born with. Although I am completely making this up, this is the way I look at it. U = I * ( 10 - D ), where U is the level of understanding, I is intelligence, and D is the difficulty of the subject. Say your intelligence coefficient is 1.3. If something has a difficulty level of 7.3, meaning it is rather difficult on a scale of 0 to 10, then your understanding of the subject material is equal to 1.3 * ( 10 - 7.3 ), which is 3.51, so that is, hypothetically how much you would understand with that intelligence. Say for example, if you were less intelligent (average would equal 1), so that I = 0.8, and you're trying to learn the same material, your arbitrary value of understanding would be 2.16, on a scale of 0 to 10, indicating you have a lesser understanding of the material.

You know, I might be able to get a patent on this or something, seems like a good idea, doesn't it? I'll call it Sammich's theorem, which states that the level of understanding is indirectly proportional to the complexity of the material and the intelligence of the person.

I'm not sure if I got my point across or if I'm just babbling on and on, but to put it simply, you cannot change your intelligence. End of story.

Last edited by SammichEater on 19 Mar 2011, 10:09 pm, edited 1 time in total.

I've haven't done an IQ test recently. However, when I have a time limit to do an assignment, like if the teacher is super strict about homework and getting it done, I can't get it done, just because of the pressure.

I am very quick verbally, but slow mathematically. This year in math, I was the last to hand in my worksheets often. I got how to do the work, I just couldn't do it quickly.

Uh, I feel stupid for asking this but it's not answered in either the FAQ on that test or on the results... what exactly are the percentiles at the end? Do you know? Because the score itself seems fairly meaningless and I have this hunch as to what the percentages are, but I'm not sure if I'm right. It seemed like an interesting test though and I soo rushed through the thing but that result sheet is proving to be more puzzling than the test (story of my life, I can do the work but will stop dead in my tracks on the instructions).

A 75th percentile would mean you got better results that 75% of the population. This test though is made for peoples of high intelligence, so theorically useless for about 95% of the population.



I guess my computer is more intelligent that you then.


You improve your result on the tests, but your intelligence only slightly. Your brain has learned to do well in test, but nothing else, rendering the results invalid.
If you want to be more intelligent, then read books.

Ahh, good, that's what I suspected it was but I didn't want to make assumptions. I'll have to sit down and take more time on it some time in the future, I didn't get a half bad score (imo) but a couple of those number questions had me stumped and I got impatient trying to figure it out and decided to just guess.

Last edited by KBerg on 20 Mar 2011, 10:30 am, edited 1 time in total.