<p>Even though this is an old post, I'll post what I found online. I found the accepted answer to be missing something. For me, the definition of intelligence includes (even) more than either processing speed, or </p>

<blockquote>
  <p>"creativity, originality, and an understanding of a domain of knowledge",</p>
</blockquote>

<p>the points Sydney names. There's also the ability to understand difficult concepts with ease, for example.</p>

<p>So, I understood the question as "Are there people who understand difficult concepts very easily, but take longer than others to solve simpler problems / understand simpler concepts?" (While these others might not manage to understand the difficult concepts at all, or at least take much longer until they do).</p>

<p>I found only annectotal evidence that "brilliance" while being slow could be possible:
 - In his <a href="http://lesswrong.com/lw/lpf/the_truth_about_mathematical_ability/" rel="nofollow noreferrer">post</a>, Jonah Sinick writes that <em>"They referred me to a school psychologist, who found that I had exceptionally high reasoning abilities, but only average short term memory and processing speed:[...]"</em> </p>

<p>At least it seems that processing speed can be separated from other factors of intelligence:</p>

<ul>
<li>In their book "Information Processing Speed in Clinical Populations", J. DeLuca and J. Kalmar describe (in chapter 1, paragraph "Processing speed in the assessment of intelligence", ~p.12-14 - I could read it on google books), how they added another factor "processing speed" to the "Wechsler adult intelligence scale - III" because they found it to be an indepentent factor. (Other "indices" are verbal comprehension, perceptual organization, working memory. Don't know whether there are more.) </li>
<li>In an <a href="http://journal.frontiersin.org/article/10.3389/fpsyg.2014.00107/full" rel="nofollow noreferrer">article</a> on childhood math skill development: <em>" Findings suggest that EC [they mean 'executive capability'] and processing speed are tightly intertwined in early childhood. As EC becomes progressively decoupled from processing speed with age, it begins to take on unique, discriminative importance for children's mathematics achievement."</em></li>
</ul>

<p>I'd say</p>

<ol>
<li>Processing speed definitely is a part of intelligence (as other
posts say). </li>
<li>It's not the only factor, and an IQ test should make it possible to measure other factors separately. </li>
</ol>

<p>There's different IQ tests out there, I don't know how much they separate this factor from others. </p>

<hr>

<p><strong>Edit:</strong> Regarding the 'Wechsler adult intelligence scale' IQ test:</p>

<p>According to Wikipedia, in WAIS-III and WAIS-IV, there are only the mentioned four secondary indices. And WAIS-IV seems to separate a category not depending on neither working memory, nor processing speed; it's called "General Ability Index".</p>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2017-01-15T19:50:12.480Z
2017-01-16T18:56:28.243Z
2017-01-16T18:56:28.243Z
dasWesen
<p>An otherwise 'brilliant' person can be slow at solving certain problems, yes. And no, cognitive performance is not the same thing as running a marathon. A marathon measures your ability to reach a certain point in a certain amount of time. An intelligence test (or any academic test, for that matter) assesses to make sure that you have learned the material well enough that you can correctly answer a subset of questions pertaining to the material within a certain time constraint. The motivations here are completely different.</p>

<p>That being said, I would argue that the ability to answer questions rapidly has less to do with intelligence and more to do with executive functioning. For the sake of argument, I am going to use the word 'genius' to describe what you may otherwise be describing as a 'brilliant' person:</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>A genius is a person who displays exceptionally superior intellectual ability, creativity, or originality, typically to a degree that is associated with the achievement of new advances in a domain of knowledge...There is no scientifically precise definition of genius, and the question of whether the notion itself has any real meaning has long been a subject of debate, although psychologists are converging on a definition that emphasizes creativity and eminent achievement.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>Notice how this definition capitalizes on creativity, originality, and an understanding of a domain of knowledge to the point where he or she can advance the field forward. Notice how there is no mention of cognitive speed or processing speed outlined here. However, take a look at the definition of executive functioning:</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>Executive functions (also known as cognitive control and supervisory attentional system) is an umbrella term for the management (regulation, control) of cognitive processes, including working memory, reasoning, task flexibility, and problem solving as well as planning and execution.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>Sounds like executive functioning plays a large role in one's ability to rapidly solve problems. And this makes sense.</p>

<p>Consider "wonder drugs" (amphetamines, Modafinil, even caffeine) that typically boost cognitive performance and processing speed. One can take a drug to become more focused, and to increase their executive functioning. Amphetamines in particular (such as Vyvanse, Adderall, Ritalin) are drugs that are commonly administered to children and adults who struggle with ADHD -- a disorder caused by "significant problems with executive functions." <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attention_deficit_hyperactivity_disorder" rel="noreferrer"> 1 </a> These drugs work by increasing norepinephrine and dopamine in the brain, thus temporarily boosting cognitive performance. Would you call a medicated adult with (ordinarily) poor executive functioning 'brilliant', as opposed to the unmedicated adult? To do so wouldn't make sense, unless we are to assume that one's intelligence is malleable based on the drugs that they take -- in which case, perhaps IQ tests (and achievement tests in general) are worthless.</p>

<p>I would reject the definition for 'intelligence' given earlier</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>The ... capacity of the individual ... to deal effectively with his environment</p>
</blockquote>

<p>because it can be used to refer to a multitude of things. The 'capacity of the individual to deal effectively with his environment' would more easily fit the stereotype of the salesman than that of the absentminded college professor. Take this description of Albert Einstein:</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>[Einstein] was forgetful, could never find his keys and often seemed oblivious to his surroundings.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>And take this description of Isaac Newton, taken from the Oxford Press:</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>Quarrelsome and quirky, a disheveled recluse who ate little, slept less, and yet had an iron constitution, Isaac Newton rose from a virtually illiterate family to become one of the towering intellects of science.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>None of these descriptions leave me with the impression that these otherwise-intelligent men had a knack for 'deal[ing] effectively with his environment'. Is the environment not external -- the antithesis of mental?</p>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2015-07-25T11:12:28.153Z
Einstein said something like ,imagination is more important than intelligence. So maybe I.Q. tests are not a good measure of intelligence potential....
201044
CC BY-SA 3.0
2015-07-26T01:40:04.150Z
IQ tests are typically looking for one 'right' answer (a 'convergent' solution) to a problem, whereas creativity (by loose definition) capitalizes on one's ability to produce a novel and often brilliant solution to the same problem (a 'divergent' solution). In fact, those who struggle with convergent thinking often compensate with an extraordinary ability to think divergently. I believe that Einstein was one of these men. Neither method is incorrect, and both have contributed to the advancement of scientific reasoning.
Sydney Maples
CC BY-SA 3.0
2015-08-29T05:12:34.180Z
I think I.Q. tests really measure how fast one can efficiently process information and thus creativity-potential might not be considered. Although if one uses creative ' leaps'  or ' cleverness' one could probably 'see' shortcuts to useful answers faster than just processing relevant information quickly..
201044
CC BY-SA 3.0
2015-07-21T01:27:55.687Z
2015-07-21T01:27:55.687Z
Sydney Maples
<p>Can a person be very intelligent, able to solve difficult problems if given enough time, yet really a slow thinker? Especially if nervous. Could such a slow thinking brilliant person get all the questions on an IQ test correct even though they were 20 minutes beyond the required end of the test?</p>

<p>Another way of putting this question is regarding the validity of time limits on IQ tests.  How have these been arrived at?  Have other (extended) time limits been tested?  Have such time limits yielded different (higher) scores?</p>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2015-06-03T16:14:50.837Z
The difficulty with this question is finding an operationalized and valid definition of "brilliant" that isn't just "got those questions right", because under that definition the question becomes just "Could a slow-thinking person get all the questions correct even though slow?"
Krysta
CC BY-SA 3.0
2015-06-03T16:19:43.653Z
Could define 'brilliant' as anyone who can get an I.Q. of 120 or more consistently on the standard I.Q. test.
201044
CC BY-SA 3.0
2015-06-03T16:55:28.853Z
Isn't that question answered in your own text?  You can't score correctly on the questions after the time limit is up.  That doesn't seem like a meaningful question, though.
Krysta
CC BY-SA 3.0
2015-06-05T15:29:43.953Z
A computer programmer once told me that a good programmer can do in 3 days what a poor programmer cannot do in a lifetime.  Perhaps more on point to your question: Nervousness can cause decrements in performance.
Joel W
CC BY-SA 3.0
2015-06-15T11:43:39.183Z
Sure a good problem solver can solve something very fast BUT by doing this fast he or she might miss some very clever alternatives. A SLOW but clever problem solver might not need a lifetime to solve something ; he or she might come up wih a very clever solution in a few days if not under a deadline. Some people play tournament level chess by mail or e-mail taking a while for each move..
201044
CC BY-SA 3.0
2015-06-25T08:59:22.853Z
This question doesn't really make much sense. As Krysta said, IQ tests incorporate a time limit, so if you're 20 minutes behind, you will score low, and therefore can't also score high. How this maps on to your idea of 'brilliance' is unclear. You might want to read Ritchie's new lay book on IQ, [Intelligence: All That Matters](http://www.amazon.co.uk/Intelligence-That-Matters-Stuart-Ritchie/dp/1444791877).
Christian Hummeluhr
CC BY-SA 3.0
2015-06-26T15:49:58.387Z
I've edited the question to formalize it better - see if my suggested edit is in line with the OP's intention.  I think it can be an interesting question, so voting to leave open.
Arnon Weinberg
CC BY-SA 3.0
2015-07-13T15:06:32.110Z
One of my points was if a person got everything correct in the test FIRST and then because of an oversight he was found to be 10 minutes overtime  what then??
201044
CC BY-SA 3.0
2015-07-15T11:23:06.800Z
Perhaps the question should be "is the IQ test valid," to which you would probably get several reasons why it is not, this perhaps being only one of them.
theMayer
CC BY-SA 3.0
2015-07-16T13:24:24.623Z
In terms of some historical anecdotes ; Cantor was obviously a math genius 'discovering' different types of infinities. He was heavily ridiculed initially and had a nervous breakdown. A case of a genius in a state were he can't think to well.
201044
CC BY-SA 3.0
2015-07-16T13:25:48.690Z
Also Kurt Godel ( forgive spelling) was a genius who got extremely paranoid and as a result could't think to well , at that time.
201044
CC BY-SA 3.0
2015-07-26T01:22:45.933Z
A "slow" thinker might not actually be thinking slowly. Perhaps he sees the question from so many different angles that it takes him a longer time to answer from all these different perspective. Hence the answer he derives is more thoroughly thought through than a quick answer. They only way to know it's to understand the person's problem solving process.
Yvonne Liew
CC BY-SA 3.0
2015-08-26T10:04:53.660Z
Related: https://cogsci.stackexchange.com/questions/8944/is-there-a-relation-between-speed-of-executing-a-task-and-ones-intelligence
Arnon Weinberg
CC BY-SA 3.0
2015-10-09T21:22:34.140Z
Are there effective I.Q. tests with no time limit ? If so theoretically a brilliant person who 'freezes' at the mention of time limits for whatever reason might do well on such a test. I took the I.Q. that Omni magazine once published. They indicated partly since there was no time limit one could look up relevant information in any resource as the test was designed this way.
201044
CC BY-SA 3.0
2016-01-25T07:11:16.817Z
I read there are children that are called twice blessed , that is having a high I.Q. but learning disabled. There are also adults like this , who might do terribly at tests yet are brilliant thinkers. People with frontal lobe autism or aspergers syndrome ( forgive spelling) can be brilliant yet terrible at structured tests..
201044
CC BY-SA 3.0
2015-11-25T03:15:43.657Z
Are there any Lateral thinking tests like I.Q. tests, but do not focus on a testing the speed of comprehension and efficiency and speed of processing relevant information.  Tests more about the useful .yet not necessarily fast perceiving of information and the creative 'recombining' of these ideas into a 'useful package' that might help solving a problem.
201044
<intelligence><test>
Can a person be brilliant even though slow at resolving problems?
201044
# Can a person be brilliant even though slow at resolving problems?

(Asked by: username_0 on 2015-06-03)

Can a person be very intelligent, able to solve difficult problems if given enough time, yet really a slow thinker? Especially if nervous. Could such a slow thinking brilliant person get all the questions on an IQ test correct even though they were 20 minutes beyond the required end of the test?

Another way of putting this question is regarding the validity of time limits on IQ tests. How have these been arrived at? Have other (extended) time limits been tested? Have such time limits yielded different (higher) scores?

**Tags:** intelligence, test

> **Comments:**
> **username_1**: The difficulty with this question is finding an operationalized and valid definition of "brilliant" that isn't just "got those questions right", because under that definition the question becomes just "Could a slow-thinking person get all the questions correct even though slow?"  
> **username_0**: Could define 'brilliant' as anyone who can get an I.Q. of 120 or more consistently on the standard I.Q. test.  
> **username_1**: Isn't that question answered in your own text?  You can't score correctly on the questions after the time limit is up.  That doesn't seem like a meaningful question, though.  
> **username_2**: A computer programmer once told me that a good programmer can do in 3 days what a poor programmer cannot do in a lifetime.  Perhaps more on point to your question: Nervousness can cause decrements in performance.  
> **username_0**: Sure a good problem solver can solve something very fast BUT by doing this fast he or she might miss some very clever alternatives. A SLOW but clever problem solver might not need a lifetime to solve something ; he or she might come up wih a very clever solution in a few days if not under a deadline. Some people play tournament level chess by mail or e-mail taking a while for each move..  
> **username_3**: This question doesn't really make much sense. As username_1 said, IQ tests incorporate a time limit, so if you're 20 minutes behind, you will score low, and therefore can't also score high. How this maps on to your idea of 'brilliance' is unclear. You might want to read Ritchie's new lay book on IQ, [Intelligence: All That Matters](http://www.amazon.co.uk/Intelligence-That-Matters-Stuart-Ritchie/dp/1444791877).  
> **username_4**: I've edited the question to formalize it better - see if my suggested edit is in line with the OP's intention.  I think it can be an interesting question, so voting to leave open.  
> **username_0**: One of my points was if a person got everything correct in the test FIRST and then because of an oversight he was found to be 10 minutes overtime  what then??  
> **username_5**: Perhaps the question should be "is the IQ test valid," to which you would probably get several reasons why it is not, this perhaps being only one of them.  
> **username_0**: In terms of some historical anecdotes ; Cantor was obviously a math genius 'discovering' different types of infinities. He was heavily ridiculed initially and had a nervous breakdown. A case of a genius in a state were he can't think to well.  
> **username_0**: Also Kurt Godel ( forgive spelling) was a genius who got extremely paranoid and as a result could't think to well , at that time.  
> **username_6**: A "slow" thinker might not actually be thinking slowly. Perhaps he sees the question from so many different angles that it takes him a longer time to answer from all these different perspective. Hence the answer he derives is more thoroughly thought through than a quick answer. They only way to know it's to understand the person's problem solving process.  
> **username_4**: Related: https://cogsci.stackexchange.com/questions/8944/is-there-a-relation-between-speed-of-executing-a-task-and-ones-intelligence  
> **username_0**: Are there effective I.Q. tests with no time limit ? If so theoretically a brilliant person who 'freezes' at the mention of time limits for whatever reason might do well on such a test. I took the I.Q. that Omni magazine once published. They indicated partly since there was no time limit one could look up relevant information in any resource as the test was designed this way.  
> **username_0**: Are there any Lateral thinking tests like I.Q. tests, but do not focus on a testing the speed of comprehension and efficiency and speed of processing relevant information.  Tests more about the useful .yet not necessarily fast perceiving of information and the creative 'recombining' of these ideas into a 'useful package' that might help solving a problem.  
> **username_0**: I read there are children that are called twice blessed , that is having a high I.Q. but learning disabled. There are also adults like this , who might do terribly at tests yet are brilliant thinkers. People with frontal lobe autism or aspergers syndrome ( forgive spelling) can be brilliant yet terrible at structured tests..  

---

## 2 answers

### Answer by username_8 on 2015-07-21. Score: 5 | Accepted answer

An otherwise 'brilliant' person can be slow at solving certain problems, yes. And no, cognitive performance is not the same thing as running a marathon. A marathon measures your ability to reach a certain point in a certain amount of time. An intelligence test (or any academic test, for that matter) assesses to make sure that you have learned the material well enough that you can correctly answer a subset of questions pertaining to the material within a certain time constraint. The motivations here are completely different.

That being said, I would argue that the ability to answer questions rapidly has less to do with intelligence and more to do with executive functioning. For the sake of argument, I am going to use the word 'genius' to describe what you may otherwise be describing as a 'brilliant' person:

> A genius is a person who displays exceptionally superior intellectual ability, creativity, or originality, typically to a degree that is associated with the achievement of new advances in a domain of knowledge...There is no scientifically precise definition of genius, and the question of whether the notion itself has any real meaning has long been a subject of debate, although psychologists are converging on a definition that emphasizes creativity and eminent achievement.

Notice how this definition capitalizes on creativity, originality, and an understanding of a domain of knowledge to the point where he or she can advance the field forward. Notice how there is no mention of cognitive speed or processing speed outlined here. However, take a look at the definition of executive functioning:

> Executive functions (also known as cognitive control and supervisory attentional system) is an umbrella term for the management (regulation, control) of cognitive processes, including working memory, reasoning, task flexibility, and problem solving as well as planning and execution.

Sounds like executive functioning plays a large role in one's ability to rapidly solve problems. And this makes sense.

Consider "wonder drugs" (amphetamines, Modafinil, even caffeine) that typically boost cognitive performance and processing speed. One can take a drug to become more focused, and to increase their executive functioning. Amphetamines in particular (such as Vyvanse, Adderall, Ritalin) are drugs that are commonly administered to children and adults who struggle with ADHD -- a disorder caused by "significant problems with executive functions."  [1](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attention_deficit_hyperactivity_disorder)  These drugs work by increasing norepinephrine and dopamine in the brain, thus temporarily boosting cognitive performance. Would you call a medicated adult with (ordinarily) poor executive functioning 'brilliant', as opposed to the unmedicated adult? To do so wouldn't make sense, unless we are to assume that one's intelligence is malleable based on the drugs that they take -- in which case, perhaps IQ tests (and achievement tests in general) are worthless.

I would reject the definition for 'intelligence' given earlier

> The ... capacity of the individual ... to deal effectively with his environment

because it can be used to refer to a multitude of things. The 'capacity of the individual to deal effectively with his environment' would more easily fit the stereotype of the salesman than that of the absentminded college professor. Take this description of Albert Einstein:

> [Einstein] was forgetful, could never find his keys and often seemed oblivious to his surroundings.

And take this description of Isaac Newton, taken from the Oxford Press:

> Quarrelsome and quirky, a disheveled recluse who ate little, slept less, and yet had an iron constitution, Isaac Newton rose from a virtually illiterate family to become one of the towering intellects of science.

None of these descriptions leave me with the impression that these otherwise-intelligent men had a knack for 'deal[ing] effectively with his environment'. Is the environment not external -- the antithesis of mental?

> **Comments:**
> **username_0**: Einstein said something like ,imagination is more important than intelligence. So maybe I.Q. tests are not a good measure of intelligence potential....  
> **username_8**: IQ tests are typically looking for one 'right' answer (a 'convergent' solution) to a problem, whereas creativity (by loose definition) capitalizes on one's ability to produce a novel and often brilliant solution to the same problem (a 'divergent' solution). In fact, those who struggle with convergent thinking often compensate with an extraordinary ability to think divergently. I believe that Einstein was one of these men. Neither method is incorrect, and both have contributed to the advancement of scientific reasoning.  
> **username_0**: I think I.Q. tests really measure how fast one can efficiently process information and thus creativity-potential might not be considered. Although if one uses creative ' leaps'  or ' cleverness' one could probably 'see' shortcuts to useful answers faster than just processing relevant information quickly..  

---

### Answer by username_7 on 2017-01-15. Score: 4

Even though this is an old post, I'll post what I found online. I found the accepted answer to be missing something. For me, the definition of intelligence includes (even) more than either processing speed, or

> "creativity, originality, and an understanding of a domain of knowledge",

the points Sydney names. There's also the ability to understand difficult concepts with ease, for example.

So, I understood the question as "Are there people who understand difficult concepts very easily, but take longer than others to solve simpler problems / understand simpler concepts?" (While these others might not manage to understand the difficult concepts at all, or at least take much longer until they do).

I found only annectotal evidence that "brilliance" while being slow could be possible:
- In his [post](http://lesswrong.com/lw/lpf/the_truth_about_mathematical_ability/), Jonah Sinick writes that *"They referred me to a school psychologist, who found that I had exceptionally high reasoning abilities, but only average short term memory and processing speed:[...]"*

At least it seems that processing speed can be separated from other factors of intelligence:

* In their book "Information Processing Speed in Clinical Populations", J. DeLuca and J. Kalmar describe (in chapter 1, paragraph "Processing speed in the assessment of intelligence", ~p.12-14 - I could read it on google books), how they added another factor "processing speed" to the "Wechsler adult intelligence scale - III" because they found it to be an indepentent factor. (Other "indices" are verbal comprehension, perceptual organization, working memory. Don't know whether there are more.)
* In an [article](http://journal.frontiersin.org/article/10.3389/fpsyg.2014.00107/full) on childhood math skill development: *" Findings suggest that EC [they mean 'executive capability'] and processing speed are tightly intertwined in early childhood. As EC becomes progressively decoupled from processing speed with age, it begins to take on unique, discriminative importance for children's mathematics achievement."*

I'd say

1. Processing speed definitely is a part of intelligence (as other
   posts say).
2. It's not the only factor, and an IQ test should make it possible to measure other factors separately.

There's different IQ tests out there, I don't know how much they separate this factor from others.

---

**Edit:** Regarding the 'Wechsler adult intelligence scale' IQ test:

According to Wikipedia, in WAIS-III and WAIS-IV, there are only the mentioned four secondary indices. And WAIS-IV seems to separate a category not depending on neither working memory, nor processing speed; it's called "General Ability Index".


---

