<p>I understand that there are two kinds of intelligence, and I had figured that out even without learning about it in psychology. One that you pick up or learn from your experiences and education etc, and one that coordinates how you pick up that experience and how it shapes your understanding. This is, an intrinsic intelligence inherited from ancestors guides what aspect of the experience of an event is picked up and how we react to it.</p>
<p>That said, I also always believed that the distinction was not concrete. I always thought that it is not possible to tell them apart concretely. Both sort of diffuse into each other or to put it in another way have a fuzzy or changing line that separates the two.</p>
<p>Recently, I've read that the two kinds of intelligence - Fluid and Crystallized - are there. The former is independent of experience and learning while the latter is not.</p>
<p>Is this something (the distinction) that can be established concretely?</p>
<p>How can we say that the problem solving sort of intuitive skills are truly independent of experiences or learning?</p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2021-02-21T16:23:30.627Z
well its tricky to question because what you "acquire" is dependent on either your inherent intelligence or your new understanding and its difficult to differentiate what part comes from (pre-trained behaviour from millions of years of evolution) and what part comes from newly learned stuff. So in your example "problem solving" could be your natural predisposition to act in certain way or perhaps you saw your dad solving it in certain way and your picked it up! I
gfdsal
CC BY-SA 4.0
2021-02-21T17:02:00.133Z
Exactly! Isn't it misleading to say then that fluid intelligence involves reasoning and abstract problem-solving which is minimally reliant on learning? This is mentioned in wikipedia and other places. To me there seems to be no clear way to clearly distinguish between fluid and crystallized intelligence and therefore no clear way to associate mental tasks to them. ( like reasoning to fluid intelligence)
Lost
CC BY-SA 4.0
2021-02-21T20:32:14.633Z
yes correct, but also remember the termininology arises from theories/experiments. Eventhought we cant concretely say what part of the problem solving skills falls between the two, but I can imagine a hypothetical experiment where two twins or siblings are seperated say decades apart and one could analyse the problem solving traits to see what is inherited from ancestral genes and what is acquired from experience
gfdsal
CC BY-SA 4.0
2023-03-02T23:12:47.203Z
Possible duplicate of: [Isn't fluid intelligence necessarily influenced by crystallized intelligence?](https://psychology.stackexchange.com/q/27899/7001)
Arnon Weinberg
<learning>
Fluid Intelligence vs Crystallized Intelligence
Lost
# Fluid Intelligence vs Crystallized Intelligence

(Asked by: username_0 on 2021-02-21)

I understand that there are two kinds of intelligence, and I had figured that out even without learning about it in psychology. One that you pick up or learn from your experiences and education etc, and one that coordinates how you pick up that experience and how it shapes your understanding. This is, an intrinsic intelligence inherited from ancestors guides what aspect of the experience of an event is picked up and how we react to it.

That said, I also always believed that the distinction was not concrete. I always thought that it is not possible to tell them apart concretely. Both sort of diffuse into each other or to put it in another way have a fuzzy or changing line that separates the two.

Recently, I've read that the two kinds of intelligence - Fluid and Crystallized - are there. The former is independent of experience and learning while the latter is not.

Is this something (the distinction) that can be established concretely?

How can we say that the problem solving sort of intuitive skills are truly independent of experiences or learning?

**Tags:** learning

> **Comments:**
> **username_1**: well its tricky to question because what you "acquire" is dependent on either your inherent intelligence or your new understanding and its difficult to differentiate what part comes from (pre-trained behaviour from millions of years of evolution) and what part comes from newly learned stuff. So in your example "problem solving" could be your natural predisposition to act in certain way or perhaps you saw your dad solving it in certain way and your picked it up! I  
> **username_0**: Exactly! Isn't it misleading to say then that fluid intelligence involves reasoning and abstract problem-solving which is minimally reliant on learning? This is mentioned in wikipedia and other places. To me there seems to be no clear way to clearly distinguish between fluid and crystallized intelligence and therefore no clear way to associate mental tasks to them. ( like reasoning to fluid intelligence)  
> **username_1**: yes correct, but also remember the termininology arises from theories/experiments. Eventhought we cant concretely say what part of the problem solving skills falls between the two, but I can imagine a hypothetical experiment where two twins or siblings are seperated say decades apart and one could analyse the problem solving traits to see what is inherited from ancestral genes and what is acquired from experience  
> **username_2**: Possible duplicate of: [Isn't fluid intelligence necessarily influenced by crystallized intelligence?](https://psychology.stackexchange.com/q/27899/7001)  

---

## 0 answers

