Information

How is it possible for fluid iq to be anything besides effort

How is it possible for fluid iq to be anything besides effort


We are searching data for your request:

Forums and discussions:
Manuals and reference books:
Data from registers:
Wait the end of the search in all databases.
Upon completion, a link will appear to access the found materials.

On an untimed test where you are given directions on how to solve progressive matrices there is no reason to fail the question besides the test being wrong or not following directions. How was iq ever perceived as being anything besides effort. The only way might be if modern tests don't have directions in which case it's just knowledge of the directions.


Even under your assumption that everyone would solve correctly every fluid IQ test given enough time, the test outcome measured as completion time would still tell us that some people solve it faster and some slower, so it is a measure of processing speed. By analogy: everyone but the severely disabled can run or at least walk 100 meters. That doesn't mean everyone is going to achieve an olympic record in that sport.

What lies underneath that (processing) speed… i.e. how much is it effort and how much something else is another matter. Experiments that have tried to motivate people financially (albeit with pretty small sums) haven't been able to improve people's performance in such tests. On the other hand, practice/training does improve results to a certain degree.


Low cognitive ability can present a range of challenges in many different areas of life. Research suggests that low IQ is associated with an increased risk of unsuccessful educational and occupational achievement. Because of this association, it is important to identify potential problems as soon as possible in order to provide effective interventions and assistance.  

IQ testing is sometimes used as part of the job screening process. For example, the U.S. military has enlistment standards stipulating that applicants must score at or above the tenth percentile on the Armed Services Vocational Aptitude Battery (ASVAB). Such scores are roughly equivalent to an IQ score of 85.

IQ scores below 70 may indicate the presence of some type of intellectual disability and may be accompanied by difficulties in functioning including learning, self-care, and independent living.

IQ testing is often offered in educational, healthcare, and psychological settings, often to diagnose intellectual disability in children. IQ tests are also available online, but many of these are informal assessments and should not be used for diagnosis purposes.

According to the American Academy of Pediatrics, around 85% of kids with an intellectual disability score between 55 and 70.


Highlights

General cognitive ability (GCA) has been consistently found to correlate with performance in cognitive tasks and complex activities such as playing music, board games, and video games.

In the past two decades, researchers have thus extensively investigated the effects of engaging in cognitive-training programs and intellectually demanding activities on GCA. The results have been mixed.

Several independent researchers have noticed that the between-study variability can be accounted for by the quality of the experimental design and statistical artifacts. Those studies including large samples and active control groups often report no training-related effects.

These findings show that practicing cognitive-training programs or intellectually demanding activities do not enhance GCA or any cognitive skill. At best, such interventions boost one’s performance in tasks similar to the trained task.

Due to potential theoretical and societal implications, cognitive training has been one of the most influential topics in psychology and neuroscience. The assumption behind cognitive training is that one’s general cognitive ability can be enhanced by practicing cognitive tasks or intellectually demanding activities. The hundreds of studies published so far have provided mixed findings and systematic reviews have reached inconsistent conclusions. To resolve these discrepancies, we carried out several meta-analytic reviews. The results are highly consistent across all the reviewed domains: minimal effect on domain-general cognitive skills. Crucially, the observed between-study variability is accounted for by design quality and statistical artefacts. The cognitive-training program of research has showed no appreciable benefits, and other more plausible practices to enhance cognitive performance should be pursued.


This is the easy grasp of how things lay in space that allows a chess master to win or a surgeon to perform near miracles. It's also "what an airplane pilot or a sea captain would have. How do you find your way around large territory and large space," Gardner notes.

Forget the cliché of the dumb jock. Coordinating your body actually takes a great deal of intelligence -- just not the kind measured by IQ tests. This type of smarts "comes in two flavors. One flavor is the ability to use your whole body to solve problems or to make things, and athletes and dancers would have that kind of bodily kinesthetic intelligence. But another variety is being able to use your hands or other parts of your body to solve problems or make things. A craftsperson would have bodily kinesthetic intelligence" too, according to Gardner.


4. Review Learned Information

Once you learn a piece of information, review it. You can’t learn if you don’t remember. Memory functions through repetition. When you repeat a fact, you set the wheels of memory in motion again.

The process of cumulatively reviewing information helps your knowledge to stick. Experiences linger on the outer cortex of the brain before transforming into memories housed in the hippocampus.

Unfortunately, they often dislodge in the hodge-podge of information coming through. Like dropping your keys in a crowded nightclub, memories disappear in the chaos of thought.

Everybody forgets. Anticipate this inevitability by planning to review anything you want to remember. Repetitive learning increases the retention of knowledge.


What to do with your life if you have a low IQ?

Hi I am a 27 year old female, with an IQ of 84. I have always struggled a bit at school and work. Unfortunately I am also fairly low in conscientiousness. I would like to know if there is anything I could do to improve. I would do anything. I would like to go to university and study psychology (please don't laugh) I know that it is probably out of my reach but I still have hope. Is there anything I could do? Do you think it is possible for someone with low IQ to study psychology? Thanks for reading this Also sorry for my english. I'm not a native english speaker

If you’re bilingual focus on translation jobs. Your English seems excellent to me.

This. You speak two languages, that affords you so many opportunities, you already have a massive lead on the rest of us single lingual dummies.

Hi, Jo_Bones Here in germany all students habe to learn english in school so it is nothing special. But thank you for your reply Really appreciate that

So go study. It’s your life, do what you want.

I mean this sub is packed jam full of high IQ people doing absolutely nothing worthwhile with it.

Intelligence isn’t everything.

Thanks to you all for reading my post and giving me advice. I didn't expect so many replies. You guys are really great people.

Having a low IQ doesn't mean you can't, it just means that it'll be generally harder. Iɽ stick to schooling that leads you into a "marketable" skills rather than anything that has a flooded market. If you end up with a degree in psychology but you were a C- student, you'll be looked over in just about every job you apply for. You need to make sure that you're one of the biggest fish in your pond.

From reading your post I find it hard to believe that your IQ is 84. Could there be extenuating circumstances that caused a lower score? Anxiety can play a big part.

IQ ist mehr oder weniger fix, das lässt sich nicht ändern. Aber ein IQ von 84 ist nicht sonderlich niedrig, dies entspricht zum Beispiel dem Durchschnitt der Afro-Amerikanischen Bevölkerung. Davon ausgehend das du einen seriösen IQ test gemacht hast denke ich nicht das die Uni das richtige wäre aber das heißt nicht das du beruflich keinen Erfolg haben kannst, statistisch kann man etwa 15 IQ Punkte im Einkommen durch harte Arbeit steigen, aber selbst wenn das nicht eintritt so gibt es andere Wege ein bedeutsames Leben zu führen. Es ist ja nicht so das man am Ende seines Lebens auf seinen beruflichen Erfolg zurückblickt, vielmehr geht es um die Familie und die persönlichen Beziehungen die man hatte.

All IQ means is that you may have to work harder at learning something, not that it is unachievable. You can do anything you dedicate yourself to. There are an endless number of advantages you might have over other people, even if they have a higher IQ. You could be more disciplined, attentive, thorough, passionate, or even have a higher work ethic. I'm pretty smart but I still dropped out of university due to other reasons. Being practical is good, but not so practical that you never aspire to do something challenging. If you want to study psychology then try it out and re-evaluate whether you think it's a good fit for you after a semester.

I don’t know the answer to your question and I’m afraid it’s going to be tough, no matter what higher education path you may choose. Have you taken the SAT’s or the ACT to know if you can get into college?

I do wish you lots of luck and the fact that you are thinking about it and asking for help gives you an advantage over those who aren’t doing those things, so good on you there, too.

I would like to go to university and study psychology (please don't laugh) I know that it is probably out of my reach but I still have hope.

If someone laughs at you for having a goal, that just shows you need to be more discriminatory in who you share your goals with. Be careful who you share good news with - make friends with people who want the best for you. - two of JBP's 42 rules

Is there anything I could do? Do you think it is possible for someone with low IQ to study psychology?

There is always something you can do. There is a good quote - how do you eat an elephant? One bite at a time. How do you move a mountain? One stone at a time.

So first figure out which mountain you want to tackle. I would recommend the self authoring suite, to help you break down your future into manageable units. Finding a school, finding a major, finding an academic advisor, finding the grants or loans you may be able to apply for, etc. One program similar to the self authoring suite which I think is better is called designing your life from this guy at Stanford. So you have JBP from Harvard and this guy from Stanford saying the same thing - plan out your future.

Also dont get too focused on IQ, it is metaphorically the top speed your car can go, it has no bearing on the direction you point yourself in life other than how fast you get there. Or as JBP would say - the correlation between smart and wise is zero.

I think that defining a brain's intelligence by putting a number to it is like answering the question of the meaning of life with 42.

Was your IQ determined from a clinically administered test?

Yes it was I scored average on the verbal part but failed at the parts that required fluid intelligence. It was not suprising to me since I've always struggled in math

Intellectual curiosity is a sign of intelligence so if psychology interests you then you should pursue that in some form and that interest will grow and maybe you find you are pretty good at understanding it.

As far as psychology degrees go, they are not always a worth the time and money to get one. Many psych degrees are worthless. So be careful before making that investment. But you should definitely listen to podcasts and watch YouTube videos on psychology that interests you. And don’t neglect actual reading either.

In other words, pursue what sparks your curiosity, but whether it remains a hobby or should be a career is an open question.

This is very true, school is important but not all classes are a good investment. I had to take many classes in college which I don’t feel like I learned much in at all, other than that some teachers don’t give a shit about their job. I think that curiosity is certainly a huge key to personal growth and development. If you’re interested in Jordan Peterson I’m assuming you like to listen to lectures online—keep involving yourself in what interests you. While you may have more trouble learning than others, other people may have personal issues, financial issues, or mental health issues holding them back, so you may not be as far behind as you think you are. It’s like the rabbit and the hare—slow and steady wins the race! Consistency is key, just keep at it!

I firmly believe IQ isn't static. Stress and illness can effectively lower IQ as much as anything. The mind is a muscle. Training and fitness still count for more than raw ability.

IQ largely measures speed of learning and problem solving abilities. It's much more difficult to test for intuition, creativity, or mental flexibility and dexterity.

Point is, IQ is really just a number in the context of more important things. Character is one of them. Hermann Goering had an IQ of 138 and all he really amounted to was a mediocre and lazy bureaucrat/criminal.

Speaking a second language fluently is not what a dumb person does. It's a marketable skill right there. It's also a hint that you have skills beyond standardized tests.

I find that having good character, a firm grip on reality, and some developed talents counts for far more than any number. And I've met a lot of highly intelligent people who trip over themselves or give up entirely trying to achieve those things.

I know a fair few people who feel similarly to yourself, and all I can really say is that I wouldn't take any test as absolute, or let the results dictate what you do with yourself. If you have a passion then I would suggest giving it your all, as no one can fully know what is right for them without experience.

Taking what you have said at face value, yes you may have to put a few more hours in at the library, but that extra effort will be a lot less painful than going the rest of your life wondering what it would have been like to pursue your dreams

IQ is not the most perfect metric to use for intelligence. As you are already interested in psychology read about Cattell & fluid vs crystallised intelligence if you haven't already come across it. IQ, from what I understand is a reflection of fluid intelligence and the ability to apply logic to new/unseen problems, but plenty of subjects do not require those skills, and are more recall based (for example maths vs history). You could try and determine a niche field to work within that better suits you?

Also, as a last piece of inspiration, I myself failed my chemistry exams at the end of high school, meaning that I didn't have the grades to be accepted into any of the university courses that I applied to. I took a "gap year" in order to re-sit, and I now have a masters degree in chemistry and I'm currently studying for my PhD.


IQ is a measure of which cognitive function?

There are exceptions to most rules I guess. I liked the post that some made about gifted to normal people, and I'd like to point out that the sensors, though lower than most, still could have as much as a .5 ratio. So for that particular group of sensors (ISTJs ) one out every two were "gifted". These is not a matter of "every sensor is stupid". I have an ISTP girlfriend who is a sensor and also extremely smart.

Oh and I was trying to say that SJs did the best in school, which would make sense no? I dated an ISFJ once who was as smart as many of the intuitives I know. And of course IQ tests only measure how they take their test, but when I was talking about intelligence in that first post and in later posts, I was talking about IQ as the tests tested it. Though I don't think I actually was able to make that clear until about my third or fourth post.

My original palindrome (2009 - 10th grade)

"All that is true, and emphatically acknowledged by Jung—One can never give a description of a type, no matter how complete, that would apply to more than one individual, despite the fact that in some ways it aptly characterizes thousands of others." - Daryl Sharp (this is all you need to know in order to not worry about identifying with the adjectives of type descriptions)

Spades

Ace of Spades

I agree that there's a correlation between IQ and personality types. But cognitive functions are not personality types. A lot of INTP and INTJ, as shown in your statistical data, are gifted and the ratio is indeed higher than other types. My INTP friend and I are both the top in our own class, and I think gifted people do have a high probability to be INTP or INTJ. But the cognitive functions of INTJ are totally different from INTP. There's no evidenence showing a certain cognitive function relates to IQ score or giftedness.

The existence of both gifted INTP and ISTP are good counter-examples showing that correlation does not show cognitive functions relate to IQ. Both have Ti as dominant function but there the ratio differs a lot. There's no relationship because IQ is about quality while cognitive functions is not about the quality, it's about preference.

No, you're just hallucinating.


Personality exists only in the realm of the ego.
Our inner selves are fluid and changing, as is our brain chemistry and physiology.

"Whatever the Thinker thinks, the Prover will prove"

Staffan

Registered

To say that there is no evidence that the studies ever took place since you haven't found the sources is making your personal experience the determining factor on what is scientific. Which is weird. The MBTI manual is easily found and contains lots of stats on type and IQ and SAT scores.

It's true that Jung never made this connection but then again did he ever do studies of that sort? Anyway, I don't think he is the true expert just because he came up with the theory. In his Psychological Types he claims that thinking types and feeling types are almost without exception male and female. I think few would agree with that today.

It may be that some people who score high on IQ tests see themselves as INTJ or INTP and affect their MBTI result. But the MBTI is taken by over a million people every year in America alone and most people don't seem very familiar with the theory.

I think a likely reason why sensors on average score less is because they are more meticulous than intuitives and are disadvantaged by the time limit. Which of course is a weakness in the IQ concept if the purpose is to predict things like work performance, since few jobs need to be carried out at a blistering pace and many jobs require attention to detail.

Tainted Streetlight

Registered

There are more, but this is all I'm going to find for you.

JungyesMBTIno

Registered

My original palindrome (2009 - 10th grade)

"All that is true, and emphatically acknowledged by Jung—One can never give a description of a type, no matter how complete, that would apply to more than one individual, despite the fact that in some ways it aptly characterizes thousands of others." - Daryl Sharp (this is all you need to know in order to not worry about identifying with the adjectives of type descriptions)

JungyesMBTIno

Registered

No. This is a common practice in science. If you can't find the source of the results on type and IQ, then you have to be skeptical about it. Anyone could easily make up a list and post it on the internet, but researchers would be hard-pressed to release their work online without some kind of documentation, so their work doesn't get stolen by others. I've never found the exact source for the studies that claim that INTJs or INTPs are at the top, along with other IN types, while ES types are at the bottom. Most of the claims about this seem like intuitive guesses based on knowledge of only the type codes, rather than the cognitive functions.

Well, the problem with the determination of IQ based on like S/N, for instance, is that Jung defined them not as abilities, but as ways of perceiving the world. IQ tests, as far as I'm aware, are not modeled off of these ways of seeing the world as described by Jung so far as I know (if so, the psychology textbooks have been keeping secrets from us for a loooooong time). So how can IQ tests have any idea that they are testing for cognitive functions? That's why being able to find the study behind these claims would be so important.

Indeed. This is a huge problem even on these forums.

Well, then that's a good reason for researchers not to be conducting these studies, since the MBTI tests are pretty unreliable, according to numerous studies. Just google "Problems with the MBTI" to see what I mean.

I highly doubt this. I'm an extremely, notoriously slow and meticulous test-taker, and I'm an INTJ. I know a ton of S types who are extremely fast test takers relative to the N types just from school alone. What you said is just speculation.

My original palindrome (2009 - 10th grade)

"All that is true, and emphatically acknowledged by Jung—One can never give a description of a type, no matter how complete, that would apply to more than one individual, despite the fact that in some ways it aptly characterizes thousands of others." - Daryl Sharp (this is all you need to know in order to not worry about identifying with the adjectives of type descriptions)

TheOperator

Registered

i'll agree that brain size and intelligence may have a link just as running fast and having long legs go together, but either can exist without the other being present.

i saw a documentary about a guy who had an IQ of about 160. he was a successful wall street trader at a very young age. he always spoke about how quickly and easily he seemed to do the calculations and then judge which/when to buy/sell. they did a scan of his brain and the section of tissue that deals with that line of thinking was actually quite a bit smaller than that of the average person--weird huh?

having a big brain may help, but there have to be factors that we haven't taken into account such as the brain being able to "wire" itself more effectively--the need for volume would go down, would it not?

Staffan

Registered

Yes, but denying the existence of evidence is going a step further than that. Anyway, I remember reading about this in the MBTI manual (I don't have a copy of it sorry) and it had loads of stats on this which suggested that N-types were scoring higher on IQ than S-types. It also makes sense in view of that Big Five's Openness correlates strongly both IQ and N.

Sure it's speculation. Just like your idea that Jung would be the true expert because he was the first to formulate the type theory is also specualation. I don't think any thread has ever been spun here with all posts backed up by scientific studies. So we throw in a little of our experience as well. In your experience there are plenty of really fast sensors and in mine there aren't. And doesn't it make more sense that a type known for being meticulous, careful and with a good sense of detail would have to be a bit slower than others who cut corners here and there?

JungyesMBTIno

Registered

I'm not denying the existence of evidence. I've looked everywhere for it and can't find any scientific peer-reviewed studies on this. I might ask a professor at my university about studies, but I highly doubt they'll have any. The stuff in MBTI manuals is probably some kind of propaganda, because, as I've said before, the validity of MBTI tests is pretty inaccurate, so relative to IQ tests, which have a better validity track record than MBTI (last I read, MBTI's was about 50% accurate in a study on it by many workplaces), I have no idea how any researchers can expect anything conclusive from these.

Jung was more of an expert on his own ideas than Myers and Briggs and whatnot, because they lightly based their own off of his extensive work. All of the theorists out there basically use Jung as their source, except for Keirsey, who hijacked personality types to create his own sorter. None of their ideas were original except for the J/P stuff, which still ultimately relates back to his original theories. I did read in one study that Myers believed that there was an IQ correlation, but she never tested this herself, so I have no idea if any of this stuff was ever really tested. Jung worked with mental patients to try to apply and derive his ideas, for which he noted some type correlations. A lot of his original theories were a lot like Freuds, which didn't relate their concepts of psychology to intelligence, EQ, etc. Testing IQ and type would most certainly bring Jung back into the equation, since he was the originator of most of the ideas behind personality typing that the modern theorists work with today. My issue with it is that making intuitive guesses is a dangerous thing to do with no evidence of the correlation, since people will latch onto these ideas as if they're valid since they were stated on an intellectual internet forum, even though there's the good chance that they may not be, which results in needless persecution and whatnot (it's obvious that IQ matters matter in the real world - for instance, think of all of the controversies when the topic of race and IQ come up IRL - why should this be expected to be any different with type?).

No, but that's the danger in people stating their opinions as fact, which a lot of people do here. People reading these posts are going to fall for this stuff, unless they are fairly well-educated in this stuff and start spreading misinformation. Intellectual integrity is certainly allowed on this forum as well as mere speculation.

My original palindrome (2009 - 10th grade)

"All that is true, and emphatically acknowledged by Jung—One can never give a description of a type, no matter how complete, that would apply to more than one individual, despite the fact that in some ways it aptly characterizes thousands of others." - Daryl Sharp (this is all you need to know in order to not worry about identifying with the adjectives of type descriptions)


This article hits at the core of why I don't like IQ as a concept. If it were widely acknowledged that Intelligence is a "skill set" (like basketball ability) and not something innate and fixed (like height, as an adult). I would have far less of an issue with it.

Fixed versus growth intelligence mindsets: It's all in your head, Dweck says

When psychology Professor Carol Dweck was a sixth-grader at P.S. 153 in Brooklyn, N.Y., she experienced something that made her want to understand why some people view intelligence as a fixed trait while others embrace it as a quality that can be developed and expanded.

Dweck's teacher that year, Mrs. Wilson, seated her students around the room according to their IQ. The girls and boys who didn't have the highest IQ in the class were not allowed to carry the flag during assembly or even wash the blackboard, Dweck said. "She let it be known that IQ for her was the ultimate measure of your intelligence and your character," she said. "So the students who had the best seats were always scared of taking another test and not being at the top anymore."

Asked what seat number Dweck occupied during that memorable year, the professor paused, and silently raised her right index finger. "But it was an uncomfortable thing because you were only as good as your last test score," she said. "I think it had just as negative an effect on the kids at the top [as those at the bottom] who were defining themselves in those terms."

From that experience, Dweck became fascinated with intelligence, convinced that IQ tests are not the only way to measure it. "I also became very interested in coping with setbacks, probably because being in that classroom made me so concerned about not slipping, not failing," she said.

Dweck, a soft-spoken, elegantly attired woman, joined Stanford's faculty in 2004 as the Lewis and Virginia Eaton Professor. Before that, she taught at Columbia for 15 years, as well as at Harvard and the University of Illinois. A native New Yorker, Dweck earned a bachelor's degree from Columbia and a doctorate in psychology from Yale.

According to Dweck, people's self-theories about intelligence have a profound influence on their motivation to learn. Students who hold a "fixed" theory are mainly concerned with how smart they are—they prefer tasks they can already do well and avoid ones on which they may make mistakes and not look smart. In contrast, she said, people who believe in an "expandable" or "growth" theory of intelligence want to challenge themselves to increase their abilities, even if they fail at first.

Dweck's research about intelligence and motivation, and how they are variously influenced by fixed and growth mindsets, has attracted attention from teachers trying to help underperforming students, parents concerned with why their daughters get turned off math and science, and even sports coaches and human-resources managers intent on helping clients reach higher levels of achievement.

The journal Child Development is releasing a paper Wednesday, Feb. 7, co-authored by Dweck titled "Implicit Theories of Intelligence Predict Achievement Across Adolescent Transition: A Longitudinal Study and an Intervention." The research shows how at one New York City junior high school students' fixed and growth theories about intelligence affected their math grades. Over two years, she said, students with a fixed mindset experienced a downward academic trend while the others moved ahead.

The psychologists then designed an eight-week intervention program that taught some students study skills and how they could learn to be smart—describing the brain as a muscle that became stronger the more it was used. A control group also learned study skills but were not taught Dweck's expandable theory of intelligence. In just two months, she said, the students from the first group, compared to the control group, showed marked improvement in grades and study habits.

"What was important was the motivation," Dweck said. "The students were energized by the idea that they could have an impact on their mind." Dweck recalled a young boy who was a ringleader of the troublemakers. "When we started teaching this idea about the mind being malleable, he looked up with tears in his eyes, and he said, 'You mean, I don't have to be dumb?'" she said. "A fire was lit under him."

Later on, the researchers asked the teachers to single out students who had shown positive changes. They picked students who were in the growth mindset group, even though they didn't know two groups existed. Among them was the former troublemaker, who "was now handing in his work early so he could get feedback and revise, plus study for tests, and had good grades," Dweck said. The research showed how changing a key belief—a student's self-theory about intelligence and motivation—with a relatively simple intervention can make a big difference. Since then, Dweck and her colleagues at Columbia have developed a computer-based version of the intervention, dubbed "Brainology," that has been tested in 20 New York City schools.

Although "Brainology" is not yet commercially available, Dweck has brought her work to public attention with her latest book, Mindset: The New Psychology of Success. The author of many academic books and articles, Dweck noted Mindset was her first foray into mainstream publishing. "My students [at Columbia] kept saying to me, 'You write for these professional journals and that's important, but what about people in the world?' We are in a profession that talks to each other and writes for each other. That's what we're rewarded for. But my students kept saying, 'Everybody should know this.'"

Mindset certainly resonated with Ross Bentley, a world-renowned car racing coach based in Seattle. Unlike coaches who stress technical skills, Bentley focuses on teaching mental competitiveness. He said great drivers strive to attain "a state of flow—a moment when you lose yourself in the act of driving, when it becomes effortless and time slows down. When you get into the flow, or the zone, you're at your peak."

Bentley was thrilled to learn that Dweck's research confirmed his personal approach to coaching. "One of the things that's fascinating for me is that someone with her knowledge has verified things I've known," he said. "She brings a scientific approach and we're able to give her real-world experience. The majority of champion racing drivers have a growth mindset."

This month, Dweck and Bentley are launching a study of about 40 racing-car drivers to learn how applying a growth mindset approach improves their speed times during the 2007 racing season. Bentley explained that car races can last hours and drivers may lose their concentration at pivotal points, making it possible to lose a race by only a few seconds. The objective of coaching is to help drivers recover quickly and maintain an optimal state of flow, he said. The research, carried out by psychology graduate student Fred Leach, will use surveys to gauge the mindset of drivers before, during and after races to see if there is a correlation with their race results, Bentley said. "The goal is to build a growth mindset," he said.

In addition to sports coaches, parents and teachers have written to Dweck to say that Mindset has given them new insight into their children and students. "One very common thing is that often very brilliant children stop working because they're praised so often that it's what they want to live as—brilliant—not as someone who ever makes mistakes," she said. "It really stunts their motivation. Parents and teachers say they now understand how to prevent that—how to work with low-achieving students to motivate them and high-achieving students to maximize their efforts." The point is to praise children's efforts, not their intelligence, she said.

Last year, Dweck taught a freshman seminar based on Mindset. She chose 16 students from more than 100 who applied, selecting those who expressed personal motivation rather than intelligence. "You can impress someone with how smart you are or how motivated you are, and I picked students who expressed their motivation," she said.

It turned out that embracing a growth mindset was critical to the students' transition to Stanford. The freshmen loved being on campus and quickly became involved in activities, Dweck said, but failed to anticipate the approach of midterm exams. "They were just really overwhelmed," she said. "How did they deal with it? They told me they would have dealt with it poorly, thinking they weren't smart or were not meant to be at Stanford. But knowing about the growth mindset allowed them to realize that they hadn't learned how to be a college student yet. They were still learning how to be successful as a Stanford student." Dweck described the seminar as a "peak experience" in her long teaching career. "The students were fantastic," she said.

Dweck continues to conduct research into what motivates people and what holds them back. Based on the success of Mindset, which is being published in nine countries, Dweck has been asked to collaborate on other non-academic projects involving business and sports. "I'm such an egghead," she said with a smile. "My book was my first foray into the real world. Articles go out into the [academic] field and it's very gratifying, but a book goes to all corners of the earth. People take a lot from it, and they introduce themselves into your life."

Dweck's work is to be featured on National Public Radio and in New York magazine. She also will present her research at the upcoming annual meeting in San Francisco of the American Association for the Advancement of Science.

I can identify Dweck's experience as a kid. Besides the pressure to keep up from adults, you are also branded as some sort of freak by the kids.

I tried convincing kids that they could do better with some practice, but all I'd get is some version of "That's easy for you to say".


People frequently expect you to be a top performer.

"You are automatically expected to be the best, no matter what," writes Roshna Nazir. "You have nobody to talk to about your weaknesses and insecurities."

What's more, you're panicked about what would happen if you didn't perform up to snuff.

"This makes you so cautious about your failure that you cannot sometimes afford to take risks just fearing that what would happen if you lose," writes Saurabh Mehta.

In an excerpt from "Smart Parenting for Smart Kids" posted on PsychologyToday.com, the authors write that parents are generally most anxious about their kids' achievement when those kids are smart and already doing well in school.

Unfortunately, they write, "sometimes that can lead to too much focus on what they do rather than on who they are."


Talk:Fluid and crystallized intelligence


This article is one of the worst I've ever seen on Wikipedia--it's garbled, poorly written, blatantly sexist, and doesn't rely on the state of academic knowledge on the topic. When I read it, I was actually surprised--even by the standards of Wikipedia, this is shocking. It reads like it was written in the middle of the night by somebody on drugs who imagined that they were writing something "scientific." I am going to suggest that the article be removed. Editing wouldn't help, because the fundamental basis of the article is too incoherent. Fluid intelligence is an interesting concept, but this article doesn't really address it in a very sophisticated or useful way. — Preceding unsigned comment added by KopeckyMaxime (talk • contribs) 23:17, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

I wikified it a bit, but does this concept really need its own article? It is a concept seemingly only put up by one psychologist. I created a page for him. Should it be merged into his page? - Taxman 18:47, Nov 8, 2004 (UTC)

wikkified a bit and cleaned up some grammar. don't know how good of a job i did. but i tried.--Cypocryphy 23:44, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Taxman: This is not an isolated concept dreamed up by a single individual. this is a fundamental distinction regognized widely by psychologists and others who study human abilities.--Amead 3:45, Jan 5, 2005 (UTC)

The concept of fluid intelligence seems to be analogous to the role of white matter in the brain. Both white matter and fluid intelligence establish meaning through connections for the grey matter or crystallized intelligence. However, this is inconsistent with how development of these types of intelligence proceeds in this article. These developmental patterns should be reversed. The following is from wikipedia'a article on white matter. “Unlike grey matter, which peaks in development in a persons twenties, the white matter continues to develop and peaks in late middle age.” —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.178.202.187 (talk) 19:26, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

As for the above comment: that's quite a crazy opinion you have there. I'd suggest you don't try to edit in anything about fluid intelligence being entirely the function of white matter (which, in case you don't know, is not a separate processing substrate in the brain, but is just the means by which neurons communicate over distance). As for what I'm about to add (or delete): the third paragraph in the last section is out of place and seems just to have been added because someone wrote/read that particular paper. The point it makes adds nothing to the article that is not already there, despite what the paragraph begins by saying.163.1.143.161 (talk) 20:30, 18 May 2008 (UTC)


Fluid intelligence deserves good attention, as it's dynamic nature, violates the, long upheld postulate (and rather convenient one, at that), of intellectual constancy, and it has come to violate the assumption of inherent intelligence. As it is evidence of the existence of higher processing skills, it debunks the view that complex cognitive skills are solely related to STM and LTM recall speed (and suggests that the problems on conventional IQ tests are, in fact, 'simple' and not complex). Essentially, it is evidence of significant, and broad inter-personal differences in our ability to manipulate information in short-term memory, while simultaneously accessing relevant information stored in long term memory. Genetic and environmentally related differences, in the rates of development and specific functionings of the human pre-frontal cortex, need to be used as a basis for an alternative theory of intelligence. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.1.114.97 (talk) 22:02, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

I have posted a bibliography of Intelligence Citations for the use of all Wikipedians who have occasion to edit articles related to human intelligence and related issues. I happen to have circulating access to a huge academic research library at a university with an active research program in issues related to this topic (and to another library that is one of the ten largest public library systems in the United States) and have been researching these issues since 1989. You are welcome to use these citations for your own research and to suggest new sources to me by comments on that page. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 17:35, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Math, in the example with the girl, is said to be crystal. I would assume that math, as a raw problem-solving method, would be fluid, or is it somewhere in-between?--John Bessa (talk) 19:18, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

There are contextual issues to deal with in answering this question. Check the sources, but in general "crystallized intelligence" is taken to be accumulated knowledge from learning processes, and "fluid intelligence" to on-the-spot problem-solving ability for dealing with unfamiliar problems that take a person by surprise. A mathematics problem could tap either kind of intelligence. (Mathematicians would tend to distinguish "problems" from "exercises," and I think you can guess which goes with which kind of intelligence.) But this Wikipedia article should reflect, based on the sources, that not everyone thinks this is a clear, cut-and-dried distinction. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 20:31, 30 August 2010 (UTC) It wouldn't be "wiki" without at least a little confusion. Perhaps the answer is anthropological: what kind of math to isolated Amazon tribes-children do as part of self-actualization. That would be fluid.--John Bessa (talk) 01:00, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

There seems to be disagreement concerning the presence of fluid intelligence deficits in Autism Spectrum Disorders. The references currently provided make claims of enhanced or superior performance (the articles are freely available online). While there may well also be evidence of deficits, other sources should be provided to substantiate this claim. If there is a claim that the work currently cited does suggest deficits, I would suggest that this claim be substantiated on this page, in order to prevent further disagreement. --Kachen (talk) 21:30, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

  • "Some studies have indicated that children with Asperger’s disorder have high performances on the Vocabulary and Comprehension verbal subtests of the WISC, while their performances on nonverbal subtests, including Block Design and Object Assembly, are impaired (Ehlers et al.,1997)." [Note: Block Design is a measure of fluid reasoning it is a component of the Wechsler Perceptual REASONING Index].
  • "autistics who showed poor fluid reasoning (Blair, 2006 Pennington & Ozonoff, 1996) and poor performance on the tests of high-level integration or abstraction (Courchesne & Pierce, 2005 Just, Cherkassky, Keller, & Minshew, 2004)." (italics added)
  • "scientific and medical peer reviewed sources are not generally considered secondary unless they are a review or a meta-analysis": Which you have not provided for your claims.
  • "for Christ's sake": Christ has nothing to do with this article.
  • "it would be appropriate to cite *those studies*": Appropriate, but not required.

As always, please conform to Wikipedia's policies rather than you own. This should be the last of my notes on this. Cresix (talk) 14:52, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

  • "I sourced Wikipedia policies in this.": As did I.
  • "I will add those sources myself at a later point.": As I have said repeatedly, additional sources are acceptable but not required. Add all the sources you wish, but don't change the meaning of the text in the article. The text is fine as it is adding sources is up to you. Cresix (talk) 16:29, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Journal of Intelligence — Open Access Journal is a new, open-access, "peer-reviewed scientific journal that publishes original empirical and theoretical articles, state-of-the-art articles and critical reviews, case studies, original short notes, commentaries" intended to be "an open access journal that moves forward the study of human intelligence: the basis and development of intelligence, its nature in terms of structure and processes, and its correlates and consequences, also including the measurement and modeling of intelligence." The content of the first issue is posted, and includes interesting review articles, one by Earl Hunt and Susanne M. Jaeggi and one by Wendy Johnson. The editorial board[1] of this new journal should be able to draw in a steady stream of good article submissions. It looks like the journal aims to continue to publish review articles of the kind that would meet Wikipedia guidelines for articles on medical topics, an appropriate source guideline to apply to Wikipedia articles about intelligence. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 21:12, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

The Journal of Intelligence — Open Access Journal website has just been updated with the new articles for the latest edition of the journal, by eminent scholars on human intelligence. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 21:33, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

What is meant by "John L. Horn, the primary student of Raymond Cattell." The bio of Cattell says he was provided with 2 postdocs and several graduate research assistants at U of Illinois in 1945 and retired circa 1973, so if he maintained a 6 person lab he might have had dozens of such research workers, as well as countless students in classes and advisees. What would make Horn his primary student? A reliable source is needed or the word "primary" should be removed. Edison (talk) 21:18, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Fixed. If anyone has a citation that Horn was Cattell's primary student, he or she can change it back and add the citation. I knew Cattell and Horn distantly and I would describe Horn as perhaps Cattell's most successful student but I don't even know how one student becomes the "primary student" of a professor/researcher. 24.15.88.9 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 22:21, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

From the introduction: "The terms are somewhat misleading because one is not a "crystallized" form of the other. Rather, they are believed to be separate neural and mental systems." But then right after: "It is the product of educational and cultural experience in interaction with fluid intelligence. Fluid and crystallized intelligence are thus correlated with each other." This looks contradictory to me, and is very confusing. Perhaps it makes sense technically, but this is in the introduction to the article. The second quote makes perfect sense to me and fits well with the rest of the text, but the first quote seems really out of place. (Since crystallized intelligence clearly seems to stem largely from fluid intelligence, why emphasize that they are separate systems?) --Ornilnas (talk) 00:07, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

In order to understand the definition of the topic at hand in the lead, you need to know the difference between induction and deduction, know what working memory is, and have figured out what is meant by "relational abstractions". Just linking these concepts to their pages isn't enough, they should be either adequately explained in the lead itself, or rewritten in such a way as to avoid them.--Megaman en m (talk) 09:54, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

I came here from the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Openness_to_experience article. I wanted to know what fluid and crystalline intelligence were, but this reads like a particularly wordy and technical medical journal, not an encyclopedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:447:4101:96B0:3914:4EBB:29F2:5252 (talk) 18:52, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

Agree. I moved the working memory statement from the lead to a lower section. I revised the lead to simplify the explanation and keep it aligned with Cattell's original theory. It is quite brief now, but open to further expansion. July 2020. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Karenwilson12345 (talk • contribs) 04:10, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Can anyone else confirm that the section "Fluid versus crystallized" makes no sense? I can't see what the first paragraph, which seems to be talking about something related to physics, has to do with intelligence at all. This whole section seems to rely purely on primary sources as well. There are also notable cases of what seems to be original research synthesized from primary sources.

A prime example seems to be "The reason why hard scientists cannot see this obvious absurdity is in the fact that they are effeminate and thus visuospatially handicapped. Since gravitational potential energy is the energy of instantaneous spatial configuration, hard scientists are neurologically unable to understand it." The first sentence only has primary sources and contains original (unencyclopedic) statements like "visuospatially handicapped". The second sentence in this example. I can't even begin to understand what it's trying to say. This is by far not the only sentence like this.

Can anyone else skim through this section and tell me what they think? Because I can't make heads or tails of it.--Megaman en m (talk) 14:44, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

I confirm this section makes no sense. I just made some revisions to the section. I had to align it with the current CHC theory for it to make sense and have adequate references. All of the previous (confusing) information has essentially been removed because of the reasons you already stated. I think the fluid vs. crystallized section reads better now, but the entire page still needs work. Feel free to continue revisions. I tried. July 2020" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Karenwilson12345 (talk • contribs) 04:27, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

I read a paper by John Horn more than 35 years ago. The paper contains an illustrative example of fluid and crystallized approaches to problem solving. I no longer have the paper in my personal archive (or can't find it in the welter of papers in my house) and, for the sake of accuracy, I don't want to recapitulate the example from memory. I am familiar enough with the paper because I cited it in my doctoral dissertation. I ordered a copy of the paper from my university's inter-library loan service. When I get the paper, I will use the example Horn provided to help explain the fluid and crystallized approaches. Iss246 (talk) 00:01, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Inter-library loan sent me the above article. I used the article's contents to beef up the section describing fluid and crystallized abilities. Iss246 (talk) 00:48, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

I may be nit picking, but the example does not say whether the one legged people have one shoe or two. I have often seen two shoes on one legged people. Nobody has peg legs anymore except maybe in underdeveloped countries. Counterexample then: 14 one leggers have 28 shoes. Half of 86 two leggers which I will assume have pairs is 86 people with one shoe. 86 + 28 = 114. This is how smart people can come up stupid on iq tests. What this example measures is the stupidity of the psychometrician. My take on this fluid vs. crystal thing is that this seems characteristic of psychological theories. That they are full of subjective statements. I think the concept of chi is analogous. The Chinese talk all about one's chi even though it doesn't exist.

I am changing my comment here. Does f/c intelligence exist? I'm not sure. I doubt it. But I want to comment that most thoughts are not conceivable without knowlege, especially something such as a deep mathematical theory. I have heard of and use a term, "mathematical maturity." It seems that the contention is that by claming to be able to test for one or the other, they are saying that f/c are mutually exclusive. And that fluid declines with age. So, we are all getting more stupid with age. Haven't psychologists done enough damage to people's self esteem with the iq concept? Suicides? In the article, I get the feeling that the term "fluid" seems to connote "real" and "crystalized", "fake." I ask the question: What is "real" magic? Is real the supernatural kind that does not exist, or is it the art of the (aetheist) magician? 2602:306:3248:A50:CA08:E9FF:FE96:F0E0 (talk) 01:25, 16 March 2021 (UTC) --- Maybe "crystalized" is the Ph.D kind, and "fluid" is the "Mensa" kind. I'm being sarcastic. (Everyone knows that Mensa people are narcissistic assholes that demand respect immediately after telling.) Feynmann showed real class after rejecting a membership offer. He said he was "not smart enough." He wore his 125 iq as a badge of honor. I have something even better. I have twice been diagnosed as "cognitively impaired!" I make myself laugh. I admit my rant here is inapproprate. Sorry. I will delete sometime. --- 2602:306:3248:A50:CA08:E9FF:FE96:F0E0 (talk) 01:25, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

I thought the shoes example provides a reasonably clear illustration of what Cattell and Horn meant by fluid and crystallized abilities. I thought Horn did it in a nice way because he avoided being overly technical. The entry is for a wide audience, not specialists. Iss246 (talk) 14:10, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

You raise a larger, more important issue, namely, the validity of the theory itself. Two preeminent critics of gf-gc theory to reference are Lloyd Humphreys and Robert Sternberg. I recommend referencing them in a section devoted to criticism of the theory. Iss246 (talk) 01:18, 12 March 2021 (UTC)


What to do with your life if you have a low IQ?

Hi I am a 27 year old female, with an IQ of 84. I have always struggled a bit at school and work. Unfortunately I am also fairly low in conscientiousness. I would like to know if there is anything I could do to improve. I would do anything. I would like to go to university and study psychology (please don't laugh) I know that it is probably out of my reach but I still have hope. Is there anything I could do? Do you think it is possible for someone with low IQ to study psychology? Thanks for reading this Also sorry for my english. I'm not a native english speaker

If you’re bilingual focus on translation jobs. Your English seems excellent to me.

This. You speak two languages, that affords you so many opportunities, you already have a massive lead on the rest of us single lingual dummies.

Hi, Jo_Bones Here in germany all students habe to learn english in school so it is nothing special. But thank you for your reply Really appreciate that

So go study. It’s your life, do what you want.

I mean this sub is packed jam full of high IQ people doing absolutely nothing worthwhile with it.

Intelligence isn’t everything.

Thanks to you all for reading my post and giving me advice. I didn't expect so many replies. You guys are really great people.

Having a low IQ doesn't mean you can't, it just means that it'll be generally harder. Iɽ stick to schooling that leads you into a "marketable" skills rather than anything that has a flooded market. If you end up with a degree in psychology but you were a C- student, you'll be looked over in just about every job you apply for. You need to make sure that you're one of the biggest fish in your pond.

From reading your post I find it hard to believe that your IQ is 84. Could there be extenuating circumstances that caused a lower score? Anxiety can play a big part.

IQ ist mehr oder weniger fix, das lässt sich nicht ändern. Aber ein IQ von 84 ist nicht sonderlich niedrig, dies entspricht zum Beispiel dem Durchschnitt der Afro-Amerikanischen Bevölkerung. Davon ausgehend das du einen seriösen IQ test gemacht hast denke ich nicht das die Uni das richtige wäre aber das heißt nicht das du beruflich keinen Erfolg haben kannst, statistisch kann man etwa 15 IQ Punkte im Einkommen durch harte Arbeit steigen, aber selbst wenn das nicht eintritt so gibt es andere Wege ein bedeutsames Leben zu führen. Es ist ja nicht so das man am Ende seines Lebens auf seinen beruflichen Erfolg zurückblickt, vielmehr geht es um die Familie und die persönlichen Beziehungen die man hatte.

All IQ means is that you may have to work harder at learning something, not that it is unachievable. You can do anything you dedicate yourself to. There are an endless number of advantages you might have over other people, even if they have a higher IQ. You could be more disciplined, attentive, thorough, passionate, or even have a higher work ethic. I'm pretty smart but I still dropped out of university due to other reasons. Being practical is good, but not so practical that you never aspire to do something challenging. If you want to study psychology then try it out and re-evaluate whether you think it's a good fit for you after a semester.

I don’t know the answer to your question and I’m afraid it’s going to be tough, no matter what higher education path you may choose. Have you taken the SAT’s or the ACT to know if you can get into college?

I do wish you lots of luck and the fact that you are thinking about it and asking for help gives you an advantage over those who aren’t doing those things, so good on you there, too.

I would like to go to university and study psychology (please don't laugh) I know that it is probably out of my reach but I still have hope.

If someone laughs at you for having a goal, that just shows you need to be more discriminatory in who you share your goals with. Be careful who you share good news with - make friends with people who want the best for you. - two of JBP's 42 rules

Is there anything I could do? Do you think it is possible for someone with low IQ to study psychology?

There is always something you can do. There is a good quote - how do you eat an elephant? One bite at a time. How do you move a mountain? One stone at a time.

So first figure out which mountain you want to tackle. I would recommend the self authoring suite, to help you break down your future into manageable units. Finding a school, finding a major, finding an academic advisor, finding the grants or loans you may be able to apply for, etc. One program similar to the self authoring suite which I think is better is called designing your life from this guy at Stanford. So you have JBP from Harvard and this guy from Stanford saying the same thing - plan out your future.

Also dont get too focused on IQ, it is metaphorically the top speed your car can go, it has no bearing on the direction you point yourself in life other than how fast you get there. Or as JBP would say - the correlation between smart and wise is zero.

I think that defining a brain's intelligence by putting a number to it is like answering the question of the meaning of life with 42.

Was your IQ determined from a clinically administered test?

Yes it was I scored average on the verbal part but failed at the parts that required fluid intelligence. It was not suprising to me since I've always struggled in math

Intellectual curiosity is a sign of intelligence so if psychology interests you then you should pursue that in some form and that interest will grow and maybe you find you are pretty good at understanding it.

As far as psychology degrees go, they are not always a worth the time and money to get one. Many psych degrees are worthless. So be careful before making that investment. But you should definitely listen to podcasts and watch YouTube videos on psychology that interests you. And don’t neglect actual reading either.

In other words, pursue what sparks your curiosity, but whether it remains a hobby or should be a career is an open question.

This is very true, school is important but not all classes are a good investment. I had to take many classes in college which I don’t feel like I learned much in at all, other than that some teachers don’t give a shit about their job. I think that curiosity is certainly a huge key to personal growth and development. If you’re interested in Jordan Peterson I’m assuming you like to listen to lectures online—keep involving yourself in what interests you. While you may have more trouble learning than others, other people may have personal issues, financial issues, or mental health issues holding them back, so you may not be as far behind as you think you are. It’s like the rabbit and the hare—slow and steady wins the race! Consistency is key, just keep at it!

I firmly believe IQ isn't static. Stress and illness can effectively lower IQ as much as anything. The mind is a muscle. Training and fitness still count for more than raw ability.

IQ largely measures speed of learning and problem solving abilities. It's much more difficult to test for intuition, creativity, or mental flexibility and dexterity.

Point is, IQ is really just a number in the context of more important things. Character is one of them. Hermann Goering had an IQ of 138 and all he really amounted to was a mediocre and lazy bureaucrat/criminal.

Speaking a second language fluently is not what a dumb person does. It's a marketable skill right there. It's also a hint that you have skills beyond standardized tests.

I find that having good character, a firm grip on reality, and some developed talents counts for far more than any number. And I've met a lot of highly intelligent people who trip over themselves or give up entirely trying to achieve those things.

I know a fair few people who feel similarly to yourself, and all I can really say is that I wouldn't take any test as absolute, or let the results dictate what you do with yourself. If you have a passion then I would suggest giving it your all, as no one can fully know what is right for them without experience.

Taking what you have said at face value, yes you may have to put a few more hours in at the library, but that extra effort will be a lot less painful than going the rest of your life wondering what it would have been like to pursue your dreams

IQ is not the most perfect metric to use for intelligence. As you are already interested in psychology read about Cattell & fluid vs crystallised intelligence if you haven't already come across it. IQ, from what I understand is a reflection of fluid intelligence and the ability to apply logic to new/unseen problems, but plenty of subjects do not require those skills, and are more recall based (for example maths vs history). You could try and determine a niche field to work within that better suits you?

Also, as a last piece of inspiration, I myself failed my chemistry exams at the end of high school, meaning that I didn't have the grades to be accepted into any of the university courses that I applied to. I took a "gap year" in order to re-sit, and I now have a masters degree in chemistry and I'm currently studying for my PhD.


This article hits at the core of why I don't like IQ as a concept. If it were widely acknowledged that Intelligence is a "skill set" (like basketball ability) and not something innate and fixed (like height, as an adult). I would have far less of an issue with it.

Fixed versus growth intelligence mindsets: It's all in your head, Dweck says

When psychology Professor Carol Dweck was a sixth-grader at P.S. 153 in Brooklyn, N.Y., she experienced something that made her want to understand why some people view intelligence as a fixed trait while others embrace it as a quality that can be developed and expanded.

Dweck's teacher that year, Mrs. Wilson, seated her students around the room according to their IQ. The girls and boys who didn't have the highest IQ in the class were not allowed to carry the flag during assembly or even wash the blackboard, Dweck said. "She let it be known that IQ for her was the ultimate measure of your intelligence and your character," she said. "So the students who had the best seats were always scared of taking another test and not being at the top anymore."

Asked what seat number Dweck occupied during that memorable year, the professor paused, and silently raised her right index finger. "But it was an uncomfortable thing because you were only as good as your last test score," she said. "I think it had just as negative an effect on the kids at the top [as those at the bottom] who were defining themselves in those terms."

From that experience, Dweck became fascinated with intelligence, convinced that IQ tests are not the only way to measure it. "I also became very interested in coping with setbacks, probably because being in that classroom made me so concerned about not slipping, not failing," she said.

Dweck, a soft-spoken, elegantly attired woman, joined Stanford's faculty in 2004 as the Lewis and Virginia Eaton Professor. Before that, she taught at Columbia for 15 years, as well as at Harvard and the University of Illinois. A native New Yorker, Dweck earned a bachelor's degree from Columbia and a doctorate in psychology from Yale.

According to Dweck, people's self-theories about intelligence have a profound influence on their motivation to learn. Students who hold a "fixed" theory are mainly concerned with how smart they are—they prefer tasks they can already do well and avoid ones on which they may make mistakes and not look smart. In contrast, she said, people who believe in an "expandable" or "growth" theory of intelligence want to challenge themselves to increase their abilities, even if they fail at first.

Dweck's research about intelligence and motivation, and how they are variously influenced by fixed and growth mindsets, has attracted attention from teachers trying to help underperforming students, parents concerned with why their daughters get turned off math and science, and even sports coaches and human-resources managers intent on helping clients reach higher levels of achievement.

The journal Child Development is releasing a paper Wednesday, Feb. 7, co-authored by Dweck titled "Implicit Theories of Intelligence Predict Achievement Across Adolescent Transition: A Longitudinal Study and an Intervention." The research shows how at one New York City junior high school students' fixed and growth theories about intelligence affected their math grades. Over two years, she said, students with a fixed mindset experienced a downward academic trend while the others moved ahead.

The psychologists then designed an eight-week intervention program that taught some students study skills and how they could learn to be smart—describing the brain as a muscle that became stronger the more it was used. A control group also learned study skills but were not taught Dweck's expandable theory of intelligence. In just two months, she said, the students from the first group, compared to the control group, showed marked improvement in grades and study habits.

"What was important was the motivation," Dweck said. "The students were energized by the idea that they could have an impact on their mind." Dweck recalled a young boy who was a ringleader of the troublemakers. "When we started teaching this idea about the mind being malleable, he looked up with tears in his eyes, and he said, 'You mean, I don't have to be dumb?'" she said. "A fire was lit under him."

Later on, the researchers asked the teachers to single out students who had shown positive changes. They picked students who were in the growth mindset group, even though they didn't know two groups existed. Among them was the former troublemaker, who "was now handing in his work early so he could get feedback and revise, plus study for tests, and had good grades," Dweck said. The research showed how changing a key belief—a student's self-theory about intelligence and motivation—with a relatively simple intervention can make a big difference. Since then, Dweck and her colleagues at Columbia have developed a computer-based version of the intervention, dubbed "Brainology," that has been tested in 20 New York City schools.

Although "Brainology" is not yet commercially available, Dweck has brought her work to public attention with her latest book, Mindset: The New Psychology of Success. The author of many academic books and articles, Dweck noted Mindset was her first foray into mainstream publishing. "My students [at Columbia] kept saying to me, 'You write for these professional journals and that's important, but what about people in the world?' We are in a profession that talks to each other and writes for each other. That's what we're rewarded for. But my students kept saying, 'Everybody should know this.'"

Mindset certainly resonated with Ross Bentley, a world-renowned car racing coach based in Seattle. Unlike coaches who stress technical skills, Bentley focuses on teaching mental competitiveness. He said great drivers strive to attain "a state of flow—a moment when you lose yourself in the act of driving, when it becomes effortless and time slows down. When you get into the flow, or the zone, you're at your peak."

Bentley was thrilled to learn that Dweck's research confirmed his personal approach to coaching. "One of the things that's fascinating for me is that someone with her knowledge has verified things I've known," he said. "She brings a scientific approach and we're able to give her real-world experience. The majority of champion racing drivers have a growth mindset."

This month, Dweck and Bentley are launching a study of about 40 racing-car drivers to learn how applying a growth mindset approach improves their speed times during the 2007 racing season. Bentley explained that car races can last hours and drivers may lose their concentration at pivotal points, making it possible to lose a race by only a few seconds. The objective of coaching is to help drivers recover quickly and maintain an optimal state of flow, he said. The research, carried out by psychology graduate student Fred Leach, will use surveys to gauge the mindset of drivers before, during and after races to see if there is a correlation with their race results, Bentley said. "The goal is to build a growth mindset," he said.

In addition to sports coaches, parents and teachers have written to Dweck to say that Mindset has given them new insight into their children and students. "One very common thing is that often very brilliant children stop working because they're praised so often that it's what they want to live as—brilliant—not as someone who ever makes mistakes," she said. "It really stunts their motivation. Parents and teachers say they now understand how to prevent that—how to work with low-achieving students to motivate them and high-achieving students to maximize their efforts." The point is to praise children's efforts, not their intelligence, she said.

Last year, Dweck taught a freshman seminar based on Mindset. She chose 16 students from more than 100 who applied, selecting those who expressed personal motivation rather than intelligence. "You can impress someone with how smart you are or how motivated you are, and I picked students who expressed their motivation," she said.

It turned out that embracing a growth mindset was critical to the students' transition to Stanford. The freshmen loved being on campus and quickly became involved in activities, Dweck said, but failed to anticipate the approach of midterm exams. "They were just really overwhelmed," she said. "How did they deal with it? They told me they would have dealt with it poorly, thinking they weren't smart or were not meant to be at Stanford. But knowing about the growth mindset allowed them to realize that they hadn't learned how to be a college student yet. They were still learning how to be successful as a Stanford student." Dweck described the seminar as a "peak experience" in her long teaching career. "The students were fantastic," she said.

Dweck continues to conduct research into what motivates people and what holds them back. Based on the success of Mindset, which is being published in nine countries, Dweck has been asked to collaborate on other non-academic projects involving business and sports. "I'm such an egghead," she said with a smile. "My book was my first foray into the real world. Articles go out into the [academic] field and it's very gratifying, but a book goes to all corners of the earth. People take a lot from it, and they introduce themselves into your life."

Dweck's work is to be featured on National Public Radio and in New York magazine. She also will present her research at the upcoming annual meeting in San Francisco of the American Association for the Advancement of Science.

I can identify Dweck's experience as a kid. Besides the pressure to keep up from adults, you are also branded as some sort of freak by the kids.

I tried convincing kids that they could do better with some practice, but all I'd get is some version of "That's easy for you to say".


Low cognitive ability can present a range of challenges in many different areas of life. Research suggests that low IQ is associated with an increased risk of unsuccessful educational and occupational achievement. Because of this association, it is important to identify potential problems as soon as possible in order to provide effective interventions and assistance.  

IQ testing is sometimes used as part of the job screening process. For example, the U.S. military has enlistment standards stipulating that applicants must score at or above the tenth percentile on the Armed Services Vocational Aptitude Battery (ASVAB). Such scores are roughly equivalent to an IQ score of 85.

IQ scores below 70 may indicate the presence of some type of intellectual disability and may be accompanied by difficulties in functioning including learning, self-care, and independent living.

IQ testing is often offered in educational, healthcare, and psychological settings, often to diagnose intellectual disability in children. IQ tests are also available online, but many of these are informal assessments and should not be used for diagnosis purposes.

According to the American Academy of Pediatrics, around 85% of kids with an intellectual disability score between 55 and 70.


4. Review Learned Information

Once you learn a piece of information, review it. You can’t learn if you don’t remember. Memory functions through repetition. When you repeat a fact, you set the wheels of memory in motion again.

The process of cumulatively reviewing information helps your knowledge to stick. Experiences linger on the outer cortex of the brain before transforming into memories housed in the hippocampus.

Unfortunately, they often dislodge in the hodge-podge of information coming through. Like dropping your keys in a crowded nightclub, memories disappear in the chaos of thought.

Everybody forgets. Anticipate this inevitability by planning to review anything you want to remember. Repetitive learning increases the retention of knowledge.


IQ is a measure of which cognitive function?

There are exceptions to most rules I guess. I liked the post that some made about gifted to normal people, and I'd like to point out that the sensors, though lower than most, still could have as much as a .5 ratio. So for that particular group of sensors (ISTJs ) one out every two were "gifted". These is not a matter of "every sensor is stupid". I have an ISTP girlfriend who is a sensor and also extremely smart.

Oh and I was trying to say that SJs did the best in school, which would make sense no? I dated an ISFJ once who was as smart as many of the intuitives I know. And of course IQ tests only measure how they take their test, but when I was talking about intelligence in that first post and in later posts, I was talking about IQ as the tests tested it. Though I don't think I actually was able to make that clear until about my third or fourth post.

My original palindrome (2009 - 10th grade)

"All that is true, and emphatically acknowledged by Jung—One can never give a description of a type, no matter how complete, that would apply to more than one individual, despite the fact that in some ways it aptly characterizes thousands of others." - Daryl Sharp (this is all you need to know in order to not worry about identifying with the adjectives of type descriptions)

Spades

Ace of Spades

I agree that there's a correlation between IQ and personality types. But cognitive functions are not personality types. A lot of INTP and INTJ, as shown in your statistical data, are gifted and the ratio is indeed higher than other types. My INTP friend and I are both the top in our own class, and I think gifted people do have a high probability to be INTP or INTJ. But the cognitive functions of INTJ are totally different from INTP. There's no evidenence showing a certain cognitive function relates to IQ score or giftedness.

The existence of both gifted INTP and ISTP are good counter-examples showing that correlation does not show cognitive functions relate to IQ. Both have Ti as dominant function but there the ratio differs a lot. There's no relationship because IQ is about quality while cognitive functions is not about the quality, it's about preference.

No, you're just hallucinating.


Personality exists only in the realm of the ego.
Our inner selves are fluid and changing, as is our brain chemistry and physiology.

"Whatever the Thinker thinks, the Prover will prove"

Staffan

Registered

To say that there is no evidence that the studies ever took place since you haven't found the sources is making your personal experience the determining factor on what is scientific. Which is weird. The MBTI manual is easily found and contains lots of stats on type and IQ and SAT scores.

It's true that Jung never made this connection but then again did he ever do studies of that sort? Anyway, I don't think he is the true expert just because he came up with the theory. In his Psychological Types he claims that thinking types and feeling types are almost without exception male and female. I think few would agree with that today.

It may be that some people who score high on IQ tests see themselves as INTJ or INTP and affect their MBTI result. But the MBTI is taken by over a million people every year in America alone and most people don't seem very familiar with the theory.

I think a likely reason why sensors on average score less is because they are more meticulous than intuitives and are disadvantaged by the time limit. Which of course is a weakness in the IQ concept if the purpose is to predict things like work performance, since few jobs need to be carried out at a blistering pace and many jobs require attention to detail.

Tainted Streetlight

Registered

There are more, but this is all I'm going to find for you.

JungyesMBTIno

Registered

My original palindrome (2009 - 10th grade)

"All that is true, and emphatically acknowledged by Jung—One can never give a description of a type, no matter how complete, that would apply to more than one individual, despite the fact that in some ways it aptly characterizes thousands of others." - Daryl Sharp (this is all you need to know in order to not worry about identifying with the adjectives of type descriptions)

JungyesMBTIno

Registered

No. This is a common practice in science. If you can't find the source of the results on type and IQ, then you have to be skeptical about it. Anyone could easily make up a list and post it on the internet, but researchers would be hard-pressed to release their work online without some kind of documentation, so their work doesn't get stolen by others. I've never found the exact source for the studies that claim that INTJs or INTPs are at the top, along with other IN types, while ES types are at the bottom. Most of the claims about this seem like intuitive guesses based on knowledge of only the type codes, rather than the cognitive functions.

Well, the problem with the determination of IQ based on like S/N, for instance, is that Jung defined them not as abilities, but as ways of perceiving the world. IQ tests, as far as I'm aware, are not modeled off of these ways of seeing the world as described by Jung so far as I know (if so, the psychology textbooks have been keeping secrets from us for a loooooong time). So how can IQ tests have any idea that they are testing for cognitive functions? That's why being able to find the study behind these claims would be so important.

Indeed. This is a huge problem even on these forums.

Well, then that's a good reason for researchers not to be conducting these studies, since the MBTI tests are pretty unreliable, according to numerous studies. Just google "Problems with the MBTI" to see what I mean.

I highly doubt this. I'm an extremely, notoriously slow and meticulous test-taker, and I'm an INTJ. I know a ton of S types who are extremely fast test takers relative to the N types just from school alone. What you said is just speculation.

My original palindrome (2009 - 10th grade)

"All that is true, and emphatically acknowledged by Jung—One can never give a description of a type, no matter how complete, that would apply to more than one individual, despite the fact that in some ways it aptly characterizes thousands of others." - Daryl Sharp (this is all you need to know in order to not worry about identifying with the adjectives of type descriptions)

TheOperator

Registered

i'll agree that brain size and intelligence may have a link just as running fast and having long legs go together, but either can exist without the other being present.

i saw a documentary about a guy who had an IQ of about 160. he was a successful wall street trader at a very young age. he always spoke about how quickly and easily he seemed to do the calculations and then judge which/when to buy/sell. they did a scan of his brain and the section of tissue that deals with that line of thinking was actually quite a bit smaller than that of the average person--weird huh?

having a big brain may help, but there have to be factors that we haven't taken into account such as the brain being able to "wire" itself more effectively--the need for volume would go down, would it not?

Staffan

Registered

Yes, but denying the existence of evidence is going a step further than that. Anyway, I remember reading about this in the MBTI manual (I don't have a copy of it sorry) and it had loads of stats on this which suggested that N-types were scoring higher on IQ than S-types. It also makes sense in view of that Big Five's Openness correlates strongly both IQ and N.

Sure it's speculation. Just like your idea that Jung would be the true expert because he was the first to formulate the type theory is also specualation. I don't think any thread has ever been spun here with all posts backed up by scientific studies. So we throw in a little of our experience as well. In your experience there are plenty of really fast sensors and in mine there aren't. And doesn't it make more sense that a type known for being meticulous, careful and with a good sense of detail would have to be a bit slower than others who cut corners here and there?

JungyesMBTIno

Registered

I'm not denying the existence of evidence. I've looked everywhere for it and can't find any scientific peer-reviewed studies on this. I might ask a professor at my university about studies, but I highly doubt they'll have any. The stuff in MBTI manuals is probably some kind of propaganda, because, as I've said before, the validity of MBTI tests is pretty inaccurate, so relative to IQ tests, which have a better validity track record than MBTI (last I read, MBTI's was about 50% accurate in a study on it by many workplaces), I have no idea how any researchers can expect anything conclusive from these.

Jung was more of an expert on his own ideas than Myers and Briggs and whatnot, because they lightly based their own off of his extensive work. All of the theorists out there basically use Jung as their source, except for Keirsey, who hijacked personality types to create his own sorter. None of their ideas were original except for the J/P stuff, which still ultimately relates back to his original theories. I did read in one study that Myers believed that there was an IQ correlation, but she never tested this herself, so I have no idea if any of this stuff was ever really tested. Jung worked with mental patients to try to apply and derive his ideas, for which he noted some type correlations. A lot of his original theories were a lot like Freuds, which didn't relate their concepts of psychology to intelligence, EQ, etc. Testing IQ and type would most certainly bring Jung back into the equation, since he was the originator of most of the ideas behind personality typing that the modern theorists work with today. My issue with it is that making intuitive guesses is a dangerous thing to do with no evidence of the correlation, since people will latch onto these ideas as if they're valid since they were stated on an intellectual internet forum, even though there's the good chance that they may not be, which results in needless persecution and whatnot (it's obvious that IQ matters matter in the real world - for instance, think of all of the controversies when the topic of race and IQ come up IRL - why should this be expected to be any different with type?).

No, but that's the danger in people stating their opinions as fact, which a lot of people do here. People reading these posts are going to fall for this stuff, unless they are fairly well-educated in this stuff and start spreading misinformation. Intellectual integrity is certainly allowed on this forum as well as mere speculation.

My original palindrome (2009 - 10th grade)

"All that is true, and emphatically acknowledged by Jung—One can never give a description of a type, no matter how complete, that would apply to more than one individual, despite the fact that in some ways it aptly characterizes thousands of others." - Daryl Sharp (this is all you need to know in order to not worry about identifying with the adjectives of type descriptions)


Talk:Fluid and crystallized intelligence


This article is one of the worst I've ever seen on Wikipedia--it's garbled, poorly written, blatantly sexist, and doesn't rely on the state of academic knowledge on the topic. When I read it, I was actually surprised--even by the standards of Wikipedia, this is shocking. It reads like it was written in the middle of the night by somebody on drugs who imagined that they were writing something "scientific." I am going to suggest that the article be removed. Editing wouldn't help, because the fundamental basis of the article is too incoherent. Fluid intelligence is an interesting concept, but this article doesn't really address it in a very sophisticated or useful way. — Preceding unsigned comment added by KopeckyMaxime (talk • contribs) 23:17, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

I wikified it a bit, but does this concept really need its own article? It is a concept seemingly only put up by one psychologist. I created a page for him. Should it be merged into his page? - Taxman 18:47, Nov 8, 2004 (UTC)

wikkified a bit and cleaned up some grammar. don't know how good of a job i did. but i tried.--Cypocryphy 23:44, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Taxman: This is not an isolated concept dreamed up by a single individual. this is a fundamental distinction regognized widely by psychologists and others who study human abilities.--Amead 3:45, Jan 5, 2005 (UTC)

The concept of fluid intelligence seems to be analogous to the role of white matter in the brain. Both white matter and fluid intelligence establish meaning through connections for the grey matter or crystallized intelligence. However, this is inconsistent with how development of these types of intelligence proceeds in this article. These developmental patterns should be reversed. The following is from wikipedia'a article on white matter. “Unlike grey matter, which peaks in development in a persons twenties, the white matter continues to develop and peaks in late middle age.” —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.178.202.187 (talk) 19:26, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

As for the above comment: that's quite a crazy opinion you have there. I'd suggest you don't try to edit in anything about fluid intelligence being entirely the function of white matter (which, in case you don't know, is not a separate processing substrate in the brain, but is just the means by which neurons communicate over distance). As for what I'm about to add (or delete): the third paragraph in the last section is out of place and seems just to have been added because someone wrote/read that particular paper. The point it makes adds nothing to the article that is not already there, despite what the paragraph begins by saying.163.1.143.161 (talk) 20:30, 18 May 2008 (UTC)


Fluid intelligence deserves good attention, as it's dynamic nature, violates the, long upheld postulate (and rather convenient one, at that), of intellectual constancy, and it has come to violate the assumption of inherent intelligence. As it is evidence of the existence of higher processing skills, it debunks the view that complex cognitive skills are solely related to STM and LTM recall speed (and suggests that the problems on conventional IQ tests are, in fact, 'simple' and not complex). Essentially, it is evidence of significant, and broad inter-personal differences in our ability to manipulate information in short-term memory, while simultaneously accessing relevant information stored in long term memory. Genetic and environmentally related differences, in the rates of development and specific functionings of the human pre-frontal cortex, need to be used as a basis for an alternative theory of intelligence. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.1.114.97 (talk) 22:02, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

I have posted a bibliography of Intelligence Citations for the use of all Wikipedians who have occasion to edit articles related to human intelligence and related issues. I happen to have circulating access to a huge academic research library at a university with an active research program in issues related to this topic (and to another library that is one of the ten largest public library systems in the United States) and have been researching these issues since 1989. You are welcome to use these citations for your own research and to suggest new sources to me by comments on that page. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 17:35, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Math, in the example with the girl, is said to be crystal. I would assume that math, as a raw problem-solving method, would be fluid, or is it somewhere in-between?--John Bessa (talk) 19:18, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

There are contextual issues to deal with in answering this question. Check the sources, but in general "crystallized intelligence" is taken to be accumulated knowledge from learning processes, and "fluid intelligence" to on-the-spot problem-solving ability for dealing with unfamiliar problems that take a person by surprise. A mathematics problem could tap either kind of intelligence. (Mathematicians would tend to distinguish "problems" from "exercises," and I think you can guess which goes with which kind of intelligence.) But this Wikipedia article should reflect, based on the sources, that not everyone thinks this is a clear, cut-and-dried distinction. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 20:31, 30 August 2010 (UTC) It wouldn't be "wiki" without at least a little confusion. Perhaps the answer is anthropological: what kind of math to isolated Amazon tribes-children do as part of self-actualization. That would be fluid.--John Bessa (talk) 01:00, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

There seems to be disagreement concerning the presence of fluid intelligence deficits in Autism Spectrum Disorders. The references currently provided make claims of enhanced or superior performance (the articles are freely available online). While there may well also be evidence of deficits, other sources should be provided to substantiate this claim. If there is a claim that the work currently cited does suggest deficits, I would suggest that this claim be substantiated on this page, in order to prevent further disagreement. --Kachen (talk) 21:30, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

  • "Some studies have indicated that children with Asperger’s disorder have high performances on the Vocabulary and Comprehension verbal subtests of the WISC, while their performances on nonverbal subtests, including Block Design and Object Assembly, are impaired (Ehlers et al.,1997)." [Note: Block Design is a measure of fluid reasoning it is a component of the Wechsler Perceptual REASONING Index].
  • "autistics who showed poor fluid reasoning (Blair, 2006 Pennington & Ozonoff, 1996) and poor performance on the tests of high-level integration or abstraction (Courchesne & Pierce, 2005 Just, Cherkassky, Keller, & Minshew, 2004)." (italics added)
  • "scientific and medical peer reviewed sources are not generally considered secondary unless they are a review or a meta-analysis": Which you have not provided for your claims.
  • "for Christ's sake": Christ has nothing to do with this article.
  • "it would be appropriate to cite *those studies*": Appropriate, but not required.

As always, please conform to Wikipedia's policies rather than you own. This should be the last of my notes on this. Cresix (talk) 14:52, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

  • "I sourced Wikipedia policies in this.": As did I.
  • "I will add those sources myself at a later point.": As I have said repeatedly, additional sources are acceptable but not required. Add all the sources you wish, but don't change the meaning of the text in the article. The text is fine as it is adding sources is up to you. Cresix (talk) 16:29, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Journal of Intelligence — Open Access Journal is a new, open-access, "peer-reviewed scientific journal that publishes original empirical and theoretical articles, state-of-the-art articles and critical reviews, case studies, original short notes, commentaries" intended to be "an open access journal that moves forward the study of human intelligence: the basis and development of intelligence, its nature in terms of structure and processes, and its correlates and consequences, also including the measurement and modeling of intelligence." The content of the first issue is posted, and includes interesting review articles, one by Earl Hunt and Susanne M. Jaeggi and one by Wendy Johnson. The editorial board[1] of this new journal should be able to draw in a steady stream of good article submissions. It looks like the journal aims to continue to publish review articles of the kind that would meet Wikipedia guidelines for articles on medical topics, an appropriate source guideline to apply to Wikipedia articles about intelligence. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 21:12, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

The Journal of Intelligence — Open Access Journal website has just been updated with the new articles for the latest edition of the journal, by eminent scholars on human intelligence. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 21:33, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

What is meant by "John L. Horn, the primary student of Raymond Cattell." The bio of Cattell says he was provided with 2 postdocs and several graduate research assistants at U of Illinois in 1945 and retired circa 1973, so if he maintained a 6 person lab he might have had dozens of such research workers, as well as countless students in classes and advisees. What would make Horn his primary student? A reliable source is needed or the word "primary" should be removed. Edison (talk) 21:18, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Fixed. If anyone has a citation that Horn was Cattell's primary student, he or she can change it back and add the citation. I knew Cattell and Horn distantly and I would describe Horn as perhaps Cattell's most successful student but I don't even know how one student becomes the "primary student" of a professor/researcher. 24.15.88.9 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 22:21, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

From the introduction: "The terms are somewhat misleading because one is not a "crystallized" form of the other. Rather, they are believed to be separate neural and mental systems." But then right after: "It is the product of educational and cultural experience in interaction with fluid intelligence. Fluid and crystallized intelligence are thus correlated with each other." This looks contradictory to me, and is very confusing. Perhaps it makes sense technically, but this is in the introduction to the article. The second quote makes perfect sense to me and fits well with the rest of the text, but the first quote seems really out of place. (Since crystallized intelligence clearly seems to stem largely from fluid intelligence, why emphasize that they are separate systems?) --Ornilnas (talk) 00:07, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

In order to understand the definition of the topic at hand in the lead, you need to know the difference between induction and deduction, know what working memory is, and have figured out what is meant by "relational abstractions". Just linking these concepts to their pages isn't enough, they should be either adequately explained in the lead itself, or rewritten in such a way as to avoid them.--Megaman en m (talk) 09:54, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

I came here from the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Openness_to_experience article. I wanted to know what fluid and crystalline intelligence were, but this reads like a particularly wordy and technical medical journal, not an encyclopedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:447:4101:96B0:3914:4EBB:29F2:5252 (talk) 18:52, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

Agree. I moved the working memory statement from the lead to a lower section. I revised the lead to simplify the explanation and keep it aligned with Cattell's original theory. It is quite brief now, but open to further expansion. July 2020. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Karenwilson12345 (talk • contribs) 04:10, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Can anyone else confirm that the section "Fluid versus crystallized" makes no sense? I can't see what the first paragraph, which seems to be talking about something related to physics, has to do with intelligence at all. This whole section seems to rely purely on primary sources as well. There are also notable cases of what seems to be original research synthesized from primary sources.

A prime example seems to be "The reason why hard scientists cannot see this obvious absurdity is in the fact that they are effeminate and thus visuospatially handicapped. Since gravitational potential energy is the energy of instantaneous spatial configuration, hard scientists are neurologically unable to understand it." The first sentence only has primary sources and contains original (unencyclopedic) statements like "visuospatially handicapped". The second sentence in this example. I can't even begin to understand what it's trying to say. This is by far not the only sentence like this.

Can anyone else skim through this section and tell me what they think? Because I can't make heads or tails of it.--Megaman en m (talk) 14:44, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

I confirm this section makes no sense. I just made some revisions to the section. I had to align it with the current CHC theory for it to make sense and have adequate references. All of the previous (confusing) information has essentially been removed because of the reasons you already stated. I think the fluid vs. crystallized section reads better now, but the entire page still needs work. Feel free to continue revisions. I tried. July 2020" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Karenwilson12345 (talk • contribs) 04:27, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

I read a paper by John Horn more than 35 years ago. The paper contains an illustrative example of fluid and crystallized approaches to problem solving. I no longer have the paper in my personal archive (or can't find it in the welter of papers in my house) and, for the sake of accuracy, I don't want to recapitulate the example from memory. I am familiar enough with the paper because I cited it in my doctoral dissertation. I ordered a copy of the paper from my university's inter-library loan service. When I get the paper, I will use the example Horn provided to help explain the fluid and crystallized approaches. Iss246 (talk) 00:01, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Inter-library loan sent me the above article. I used the article's contents to beef up the section describing fluid and crystallized abilities. Iss246 (talk) 00:48, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

I may be nit picking, but the example does not say whether the one legged people have one shoe or two. I have often seen two shoes on one legged people. Nobody has peg legs anymore except maybe in underdeveloped countries. Counterexample then: 14 one leggers have 28 shoes. Half of 86 two leggers which I will assume have pairs is 86 people with one shoe. 86 + 28 = 114. This is how smart people can come up stupid on iq tests. What this example measures is the stupidity of the psychometrician. My take on this fluid vs. crystal thing is that this seems characteristic of psychological theories. That they are full of subjective statements. I think the concept of chi is analogous. The Chinese talk all about one's chi even though it doesn't exist.

I am changing my comment here. Does f/c intelligence exist? I'm not sure. I doubt it. But I want to comment that most thoughts are not conceivable without knowlege, especially something such as a deep mathematical theory. I have heard of and use a term, "mathematical maturity." It seems that the contention is that by claming to be able to test for one or the other, they are saying that f/c are mutually exclusive. And that fluid declines with age. So, we are all getting more stupid with age. Haven't psychologists done enough damage to people's self esteem with the iq concept? Suicides? In the article, I get the feeling that the term "fluid" seems to connote "real" and "crystalized", "fake." I ask the question: What is "real" magic? Is real the supernatural kind that does not exist, or is it the art of the (aetheist) magician? 2602:306:3248:A50:CA08:E9FF:FE96:F0E0 (talk) 01:25, 16 March 2021 (UTC) --- Maybe "crystalized" is the Ph.D kind, and "fluid" is the "Mensa" kind. I'm being sarcastic. (Everyone knows that Mensa people are narcissistic assholes that demand respect immediately after telling.) Feynmann showed real class after rejecting a membership offer. He said he was "not smart enough." He wore his 125 iq as a badge of honor. I have something even better. I have twice been diagnosed as "cognitively impaired!" I make myself laugh. I admit my rant here is inapproprate. Sorry. I will delete sometime. --- 2602:306:3248:A50:CA08:E9FF:FE96:F0E0 (talk) 01:25, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

I thought the shoes example provides a reasonably clear illustration of what Cattell and Horn meant by fluid and crystallized abilities. I thought Horn did it in a nice way because he avoided being overly technical. The entry is for a wide audience, not specialists. Iss246 (talk) 14:10, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

You raise a larger, more important issue, namely, the validity of the theory itself. Two preeminent critics of gf-gc theory to reference are Lloyd Humphreys and Robert Sternberg. I recommend referencing them in a section devoted to criticism of the theory. Iss246 (talk) 01:18, 12 March 2021 (UTC)


Highlights

General cognitive ability (GCA) has been consistently found to correlate with performance in cognitive tasks and complex activities such as playing music, board games, and video games.

In the past two decades, researchers have thus extensively investigated the effects of engaging in cognitive-training programs and intellectually demanding activities on GCA. The results have been mixed.

Several independent researchers have noticed that the between-study variability can be accounted for by the quality of the experimental design and statistical artifacts. Those studies including large samples and active control groups often report no training-related effects.

These findings show that practicing cognitive-training programs or intellectually demanding activities do not enhance GCA or any cognitive skill. At best, such interventions boost one’s performance in tasks similar to the trained task.

Due to potential theoretical and societal implications, cognitive training has been one of the most influential topics in psychology and neuroscience. The assumption behind cognitive training is that one’s general cognitive ability can be enhanced by practicing cognitive tasks or intellectually demanding activities. The hundreds of studies published so far have provided mixed findings and systematic reviews have reached inconsistent conclusions. To resolve these discrepancies, we carried out several meta-analytic reviews. The results are highly consistent across all the reviewed domains: minimal effect on domain-general cognitive skills. Crucially, the observed between-study variability is accounted for by design quality and statistical artefacts. The cognitive-training program of research has showed no appreciable benefits, and other more plausible practices to enhance cognitive performance should be pursued.


People frequently expect you to be a top performer.

"You are automatically expected to be the best, no matter what," writes Roshna Nazir. "You have nobody to talk to about your weaknesses and insecurities."

What's more, you're panicked about what would happen if you didn't perform up to snuff.

"This makes you so cautious about your failure that you cannot sometimes afford to take risks just fearing that what would happen if you lose," writes Saurabh Mehta.

In an excerpt from "Smart Parenting for Smart Kids" posted on PsychologyToday.com, the authors write that parents are generally most anxious about their kids' achievement when those kids are smart and already doing well in school.

Unfortunately, they write, "sometimes that can lead to too much focus on what they do rather than on who they are."


This is the easy grasp of how things lay in space that allows a chess master to win or a surgeon to perform near miracles. It's also "what an airplane pilot or a sea captain would have. How do you find your way around large territory and large space," Gardner notes.

Forget the cliché of the dumb jock. Coordinating your body actually takes a great deal of intelligence -- just not the kind measured by IQ tests. This type of smarts "comes in two flavors. One flavor is the ability to use your whole body to solve problems or to make things, and athletes and dancers would have that kind of bodily kinesthetic intelligence. But another variety is being able to use your hands or other parts of your body to solve problems or make things. A craftsperson would have bodily kinesthetic intelligence" too, according to Gardner.



Comments:

  1. Agoston

    Sorry, but this is not exactly what I need. There are other options?

  2. Pratham

    Brilliant idea and in a timely manner

  3. Etalpalli

    In my opinion, you are wrong. I'm sure. I can defend my position. Email me at PM, we will discuss.

  4. Arazil

    You were visited with excellent idea

  5. Morn

    cannot be



Write a message