<p>I spent quite a bit of time philosophizing about what intelligence <em>actually</em> (as in function-wise is) and I came to the conclusion that it consists of two (or so) properties</p>
<ul>
<li>Number of operations per unit time or &quot;processing speed&quot; (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)</li>
<li>The ability to pay sustained attention or simply <em>attention</em> (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 &quot;reference&quot; for this is also the Visual Motion Intelligence test: <a href="http://www.quantumday.com/2013/05/visual-motion-intelligence-test-to.html" rel="nofollow noreferrer">http://www.quantumday.com/2013/05/visual-motion-intelligence-test-to.html</a></li>
</ul>
<p>(You could maybe decouple the sustainability of attention and information cancelling from attention in sub-modules but that is just more philosophizing)</p>
<p>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?</p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2021-07-01T19:58:18.587Z
Biological brains don't work like computers, so thinking about "processing speed" is pretty meaningless.
Bryan Krause
CC BY-SA 4.0
2021-07-02T07:50:56.457Z
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.
RexxiA
CC BY-SA 4.0
2021-07-02T13:00:46.673Z
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).
blazg_7S
CC BY-SA 4.0
2021-07-02T20:14:56.087Z
@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.
Bryan Krause
CC BY-SA 4.0
2021-07-02T23:37:26.607Z
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: https://math.stackexchange.com/questions/2851586/problem-of-a-slow-thinker
Feryll
CC BY-SA 4.0
2021-07-03T10:27:25.453Z
@Bryan Krause But I think he is credible in that specific part, as he specialized in psychometrics in part, and his work as a clinician gave him experience and positive reputation in intelligence testing. If you read the article mentioning attention, you could also refer to it as "noise cancelation" if that makes more sense than "attention". Bill Gate's ADHD can still contain "attention" on his internal terms, he loved skimming through books he liked in primary school, where that type of "noise cancelation" is applied during the reading process.
blazg_7S
<intelligence><cognitive-modeling><iq>
A primitive model or way of describing the "functionality" of intelligence
blazg_7S
# A primitive model or way of describing the "functionality" of intelligence

(Asked by: username_0 on 2021-07-01)

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?

**Tags:** intelligence, cognitive-modeling, iq

> **Comments:**
> **username_1**: Biological brains don't work like computers, so thinking about "processing speed" is pretty meaningless.  
> **username_2**: 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.  
> **username_0**: 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).  
> **username_1**: @username_0 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.  
> **username_3**: 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: https://math.stackexchange.com/questions/2851586/problem-of-a-slow-thinker  
> **username_0**: @username_1 But I think he is credible in that specific part, as he specialized in psychometrics in part, and his work as a clinician gave him experience and positive reputation in intelligence testing. If you read the article mentioning attention, you could also refer to it as "noise cancelation" if that makes more sense than "attention". Bill Gate's ADHD can still contain "attention" on his internal terms, he loved skimming through books he liked in primary school, where that type of "noise cancelation" is applied during the reading process.  

---

## 0 answers

