I spent quite a bit of time philosophizing about what intelligence actually (as in function-wise is) and I came to the conclusion that it consists of two (or so) properties

  • Number of operations per unit time or "processing speed" (Jordan Peterson mentions this in one of his videos, he then also mentions that it's not all that it is but that it's a huge portion of it)
  • The ability to pay sustained attention or simply attention (Jordan Peterson also mentioned this in the discussion with Richard Haier, briefly states that he went through the literature of attention and that it's basically the same as I.Q. A neat "reference" for this is also the Visual Motion Intelligence test: http://www.quantumday.com/2013/05/visual-motion-intelligence-test-to.html

(You could maybe decouple the sustainability of attention and information cancelling from attention in sub-modules but that is just more philosophizing)

My question is the following, has there ever been a formal (or formal-ish) model that combined these two properties or something similar been conceived?

  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Biological brains don't work like computers, so thinking about "processing speed" is pretty meaningless. $\endgroup$
    – Bryan Krause
    Jul 1, 2021 at 19:58
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Mentioning Jordan Peterson like he's a credible and well-respected psychologist already makes your question off to a bad start. As Krause mentioned above your first point has a bad premise and your second point is pretty nonsensical. If paying attention is required for intelligence then how does Bill Gates have ADHD and was able to win the National Medal of Technology and Innovation in 1992? People with attention deficit disorders can be intelligent. $\endgroup$
    – RexxiA
    Jul 2, 2021 at 7:50
  • $\begingroup$ Wait a second, I thought Peterson was a reputable clinician? Forget about his philosophical and ethical inquiries, I'm talking about purely psychometrics and psychobiology (on which he also has lectures). $\endgroup$
    – blazg_7S
    Jul 2, 2021 at 13:00
  • $\begingroup$ @blazg_7S Eh, yes and no. I don't actually know what his reputation as a clinician is but it's quite separate from a researcher. In any event, he's quite discredited himself with his self-help publishing and random rants about how women are the cause of all the problems men have, and the two bullet points you mentioned make it pretty clear he's not at all credible in the area of understanding what intelligence is. $\endgroup$
    – Bryan Krause
    Jul 2, 2021 at 20:14
  • $\begingroup$ If you're just interested in personal philosophies of intelligence and aren't looking for an operationalized and evidence-supported statistical analysis of the thing, I might say that this distinction about "speed vs. profundity" of smarts is akin to Grothendieck's musings on how some mathematicians (e.g. Neumann) are like human computers, while others (like he himself) are more slow and plodding by comparison, despite being equally prodigious. See here: math.stackexchange.com/questions/2851586/… $\endgroup$
    – Feryll
    Jul 2, 2021 at 23:37


Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge you have read our privacy policy.

Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.