Talk:Fluid and crystallized intelligence

Earliest comments

needs work

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)

Intelligence Citations Bibliography for Articles Related to IQ Testing

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)

Fluid versus crystallized

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)

From the Hayashi et al. (2007) article cited in the Wikipedia article:

• "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)

Hayashi just happens to be an article cited in the Wikipedia article. There are other studies with conflicting results. The discrepancies probably are related to the specific ways fluid reasoning is measured. But the bottom line is that there is research supporting deficits in fluid reasoning in autistic spectrum, and there are studies supporting superiority in fluid reasoning. I never objected to adding the comments about superior fluid intelligence. I did object to removing the comments about deficits. Some of the anons editing here apparently just read the titles and summaries. The truth is in the details. Cresix (talk) 01:20, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Most of the other anons were me (sorry for that; I will post as a registered user from now on). I read the full articles (all three, and more), and did not miss those passages. I am also familiar with citation standards (I have published peer-reviewed articles). If you stand by the studies cited in Hayashi et al. (and have read them), those studies should be cited in the main article - the currently cited studies explicitly argue against the claim that fluid reasoning is impaired, and they are not review articles (it is therefore inappropriate to cite them in support of claims that they argue *against*). If you are familiar with the autism literature, you will also know that Block Design is *very* frequently cited as a test that autistics perform disproportionately well on (compared to other Wechsler subtests); this is easily confirmed by doing a PubMed search (though I'll provide numerous citations if requested). I'll wait for a response from you before adding the need for citations back to the article. --Kachen (talk) 03:36, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

It would be appropriate to not make false accusations about accusations, especially when you are editing both as a registered user and anonymously (albeit by accident if you're being honest). Also be advised that WP:3RR applies regardless of how many accounts you use to edit in a 24 hour period. It is acceptable to add additional studies (and yes I have read them; and yes I am quite familiar with the literature on PDD as well as the factoral structure of cognitive abilities), but it is not necessary. The statement "Deficits in fluid intelligence are found on some measures in individuals with Autism spectrum disorders, including Asperger syndrome" is sourced by Hayashi. Wikipedia does not require multiple citations for a statement. Please don't create your own policies. Please do not add a "citation needed" tag for a statement that has a proper citation. Believe it not, it is possible for a journal article to point out conflicting findings; you are simply wrong that "it is therefore inappropriate to cite them"; please link a policy to support that assertion, or again stop making up your own policies. I don't know how long you've been hanging around Wikipedia, but in case you don't know, let me clue you in from someone who has both the advanced degrees as well as years of experience editing here. You're not writing a dissertation here. You editing on the encyclopedia that anyone can edit. Your credentials, or my credentials, don't mean jack-squat here. What does matter here are the policies that Wikipedia has developed over a number of years. And the rules you learn at university don't necessarily apply here. So spend some time reading policies before you declare that "it is therefore inappropriate to cite" a source. That may work in the ivory tower (and trust me, I've spent lots of time there), but it doesn't work on Wikipedia. One source (and it doesn't have to be a review article) is sufficient. I could add more sources -- plenty more -- but it is not necessary just because you say so or your dissertation committee says so, and I have more important things to do. Cresix (talk) 03:48, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Re: citation, my position would be that the following would apply here - "You need to cite a source that directly supports the statement" (Referencing for beginners); "It is also important, however, for our articles to clearly indicate the person who...first performed an experiment, or was otherwise responsible for the idea being discussed. The process of giving credit to the original discoverer will be called attribution here." (Scientific citation guidelines); "Primary sources should be used when discussing a particular result or recent research directions." (Identifying reliable sources (natural sciences)); distinction between primary & secondary sources in medicine (Identifying reliable sources (medicine)); "Unlike in the humanities, scientific and medical peer reviewed sources are not generally considered secondary unless they are a review or a meta-analysis." (Secondary sources).

If you have read, and stand by studies arguing *for* impairment in fluid reasoning, then it would be appropriate to cite *those studies* (and I'm quite aware that journal articles can present conflicting findings, for Christ's sake, but brief mention in a non-review article of past conflicting findings by *others* [of uncertain quality, unless you've read through the studies yourself] does not make for an adequate source for a scientific claim). I'm not asking for the comments about deficits to be removed - I'm asking that they be sourced if they are included (per typical guidelines in cognitive science/medicine). --Kachen (talk) 04:56, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

For example: Blair (2006) does not present any relevant data. The little mention it makes of autism is primarily a reference to Pennington & Ozonoff (1996) (which may be an appropriate source to cite; I'll look at it more closely and possibly add it myself). Courchesne & Pierce (2005) is a neuroimaging (inc. postmortem) study - there are no direct measures of any type of reasoning ability involved, so it's likely inappropriate. Just, Cherkassky, Keller, & Minshew (2004) is a neuroimaging study involving a sentence comprehension task (it's somewhat questionable how directly this measures fluid reasoning, and how generalizable the findings are, but I'll look more closely at this, as well). --Kachen (talk) 05:40, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

This should be the last of my notes on this. Something that may be worth mentioning is that the segment of the article in question was initially added, by someone other than me, with only mention of *enhanced* performance (with admittedly very clunky wording) - see here. This stayed up for some time, then was 'corrected' by someone to state that the cited work showed *deficits* (it should be plainly clear that the person who 'corrected' it did not look at the work in question). My edit was a more clearly worded reversion to the original, since this is the only claim being made in the work actually cited (reviewing claims previously made by others does not amount to making that same claim). --Kachen (talk) 07:18, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

• "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)

Per same citation guidelines, primary sources are considered acceptable in absence of appropriate secondary sources (this is stated elsewhere in the Wikipedia article citation guidelines/articles above). I was objecting to the use of the currently cited work as support for deficit-related claums (it falls into neither primary nor secondary source categories for those purposes). I sourced Wikipedia policies in this. If you agree it's appropriate, I will add those sources myself at a later point (I would like to take a more careful look through them first). --Kachen (talk) 16:16, 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

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)

Horn, the"primary student" of Cattell

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)

Crystallized form of fluid intelligence?

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)

Lead too complex

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)

In reading the lead, it's helpful that it is in line with Cattell's original theory. However, if I was looking to gain a better understanding of fluid versus crystallized intelligence from just reading the lead, I would be more confused than enlightened. Do you guys know of or have found sources that provide clearer general explanations of the two concepts? Jorabbit0715 (talk) 00:29, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

Fluid versus crystallized section is a mess

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)

Example of fluid and crystallized approaches to problem solving

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 g_f-g_c 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)

I feel as though this article could benefit from the addition of more recent sources and research. Bnh12 (talk) 05:19, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Adult Development winter 2024

This article is currently the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 8 January 2024 and 20 April 2024. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Mtaz0801 (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by Mtaz0801 (talk) 19:24, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

shoe equation is wrong

This, {\displaystyle x+1/2*(100-x)*2} is the number of shoes worn, has the + and * swapped at the beginning. If x is the one-legged people, it's reasonable to believe x * 1/2 is the number of shoes worn, not x + 1/2.

The answer isn't 100 either. Let's say 50 people have one leg. That's 25 shoes. Half of the remainder wear two shoes, that 50 shoes. The total is 75. Let's say you have all one-legged patients, that's 50 shoes. 96.231.246.62 (talk) 09:26, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

The shoe example comes directly from Horn's article in the journal Trans-Action. I am going to change the citation. I don't remember if it was in the book by the same name. Iss246 (talk) 04:38, 13 April 2024 (UTC)