[Cogito]

The way I talk about this is to frame what people call intelligence as the combination of memory (+ actual memories) and comprehension.

Your ability to 'just see the answers', in this framing, stems from having a lot of data points readily available and the ability to combine them together quickly.

There are definitely people who are better at remembering things, and piecing multiple ideas together quickly, but these are also skills that can be trained. I think it's likely that a lot of 'intelligent' people are simply people who actively (though usually not consciously) train these skills because they enjoy them.

In the same way that many fit people don't have to think about exercising - they do it because they enjoy it or without any particular goal - there are people who see an interesting problem and immediately start thinking about how they might solve it or how it's similar to other problems they've seen.

In the same way that anyone can implement a training regime to improve their fitness I think anyone can implement a training regime to improve the number of data points available to them (read lots!) and their ability to combine that information together (solve puzzles, especially theoretical/not personally applicable ones like "how would I get that boat free?").

[cutemonster]

> I think it's likely that a lot of 'intelligent' people are simply people who actively (though usually not consciously) train these skills

I think it's odd how many people make up their own private theories about these things :-)

When there's research available about how intelligence "happens".

[Cogito]

You find it odd that people think about what intelligence is, or how it presents?

If you’ve got links/references/keywords for research that invalidates (or validates!) these ideas please share them, I’d love to look them up. From what I’ve read the idea “intelligence can be (at least in part) described as having knowledge and being able to apply that knowledge to new problems” is a well trodden one.

I haven’t seen much on the idea that some people may be predisposed to engaging with stimulating situations, so anything you have on that topic would be highly appreciated. I have seen writings on how a stimulating environment is important, and on how encouraging engagement can be effective (for example asking questions of children and allowing them to answer, vs answering for them).

[edit] In my original post I should probably have written “is to frame a lot of what people call intelligence as” - I definitely don’t think this is all intelligence but I do think it has a significant role in what the gp was talking about, this ability to see answers quickly.

[cutemonster]

> [edit] In my original post I should probably have written “is to frame a lot of what people call intelligence as” ...

Ok then i understand better what you mean.

Actually there's a word for that type of intelligence:

Crystallized intelligence.

And I had another type of intelligence in mind:

Fluid intelligence.

I think we spoke past each other (or I spoke past you) thinking about different things.

Anyway, one of those, one can improve eg by reading, getting life experience. But the other one, is fixed (from what I've read) once one is grown up.

If you want to, you could websearch for those words. And also, wikipedia has a section about intelligence and inheritance (hint: life is unfair).

> I have seen writings on how a stimulating environment is important, and on how encouraging engagement can be effective (for example asking questions of children and allowing them to answer, vs answering for them).

That sounds great :-)

From what I've read, those things do work (!), when one is a kid / young. And from what I've read, it also prevents the brain from deteriorating, when one is old (using one's brain reduces the risk for dementia).

(Thanks for the reply)