defining fluid
a physics analogy.
distance:velocity:acceleration
knowledge:means of knowledge acquisition:fluid
this makes some sense to me... does this make sense to anyone else?
distance:velocity:acceleration
knowledge:means of knowledge acquisition:fluid
this makes some sense to me... does this make sense to anyone else?
medicalstudent | 3 years ago
Reply
I believe the physical analogy is not regarding motion, but about the state of matter, as in the possibility of motion.
The counterpart of "fluid" in "fluid intelligence" is "crystallized" in "crystallized intelligence." In a way, this corresponds to "working" in "working memory," versus the declarative and episodic memories. One adapts rapidly to its surroundings (liquid), while the other is stable even when the environment is not (solid).
The counterpart of "fluid" in "fluid intelligence" is "crystallized" in "crystallized intelligence." In a way, this corresponds to "working" in "working memory," versus the declarative and episodic memories. One adapts rapidly to its surroundings (liquid), while the other is stable even when the environment is not (solid).
cognitivefun | 3 years ago
Reply
It seems like there is too much crossover between the different types of intelligence to make any general distinction.
I think Chase's (or was it Erickson's) research on chess players indicates that preexisting knowledge, crystallized, provides the basis of the difference between experts and novices. Since neither can recall the nonsensical patterns with ease but the experts can remember a legal board of chess pieces with incredible speed, it seems expertise is more a function of purposeful practice than fluid intelligence.
If we accept that working memory is a function of both crystallized intelligence and fluid intelligence, directed practice a better researched and more promising pursuit than increasing fluid intelligence.
To continue with our analogy: for the price of a slightly more efficient engine, we can probably by enough gas to get us far enough. All we need is persistence and hundreds of hours alone on the road.
I think Chase's (or was it Erickson's) research on chess players indicates that preexisting knowledge, crystallized, provides the basis of the difference between experts and novices. Since neither can recall the nonsensical patterns with ease but the experts can remember a legal board of chess pieces with incredible speed, it seems expertise is more a function of purposeful practice than fluid intelligence.
If we accept that working memory is a function of both crystallized intelligence and fluid intelligence, directed practice a better researched and more promising pursuit than increasing fluid intelligence.
To continue with our analogy: for the price of a slightly more efficient engine, we can probably by enough gas to get us far enough. All we need is persistence and hundreds of hours alone on the road.
Whoopska | 3 years ago
Reply
Gc is positively correlated with Gf and Time.
Gc is obtained through the agency of Gf.
Increasing fluid (if possible) is the way to maximize efficiency. Low Gf with "purposeful practice" = inefficiency. Or as Biden so articulately put it in the VP debate, "the ultimate bridge to nowhere"... or at least somewhere not-very-quickly.
Time is the ultimate resource. Gf saves it.
Gc is obtained through the agency of Gf.
Increasing fluid (if possible) is the way to maximize efficiency. Low Gf with "purposeful practice" = inefficiency. Or as Biden so articulately put it in the VP debate, "the ultimate bridge to nowhere"... or at least somewhere not-very-quickly.
Time is the ultimate resource. Gf saves it.
medicalstudent | 3 years ago
Reply
But what is "intelligence"? ;-)
Is it that little o with a j -- a g? or something else? A number based on comparative population analysis of test-taking (where mathematicians are easily flung to the top of the scales) as it has been for more than a century?
Anyway, if you (OP) want the crux of the definition of fluid intelligence by way of comparison to crystallized intelligence (as cognitivefun kindly touches), go ahead and do a search on Wikipedia and follow up with more in-depth research elsewhere.
Is it that little o with a j -- a g? or something else? A number based on comparative population analysis of test-taking (where mathematicians are easily flung to the top of the scales) as it has been for more than a century?
Anyway, if you (OP) want the crux of the definition of fluid intelligence by way of comparison to crystallized intelligence (as cognitivefun kindly touches), go ahead and do a search on Wikipedia and follow up with more in-depth research elsewhere.
? | 3 years ago
Reply
As an analogue, I can see what you are trying to say.
Here's my version as a kind of variation on your theme:
Distance * Velocity = Acceleration as Knowledge * Ability to Gain Knowledge = Fluid (Intelligence)
But, when all is said and done, it is arbitrary and does seem helpful in cornering the question of what intelligence is in the first place.
Here's my version as a kind of variation on your theme:
Distance * Velocity = Acceleration as Knowledge * Ability to Gain Knowledge = Fluid (Intelligence)
But, when all is said and done, it is arbitrary and does seem helpful in cornering the question of what intelligence is in the first place.
? | 3 years ago
Reply
? | 3 years ago
Reply
lory | 3 years ago
Reply
