Crystallized Intelligence might be more important than a healthy dose of "fluid intelligence" or "working memory."

[Payman Saghafi]

http://ir.uiowa.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2639&context=etd

Please see the link above in order to view the abstract and the entire paper. 

The traditional approach to Intelligence views "fluid intelligence" and "crystallized intelligence" as relatively separate constructs.  This approach is based on the work of men like Spearman and Cattell.  A high level of fluid intelligence often leads to a high level of crystallized intelligence, but this is viewed as contingent upon the former.

This article mirrors some of my own conclusions regarding general intelligence, fluid intelligence, and working memory.  New research has demonstrated that crystallized intelligence impacts general intelligence both directly and indirectly.  General Cognitive Ability Theory views Crystallized Intelligence as much more than just acquired learning.  For instance, vocabulary competence significantly impacts reading comprehension scores even when all other factors held constant.  Poor vocabulary level is actually a limiting factor making better performance in reading comprehension nearly impossible.  Train someone's vocabulary and his or her reading comprehension scores will increase almost automatically.

General Cognitive Ability Theory is a model that has actually been embraced by many of most well-respected professionals in the field of intelligence research.  Its core concepts are now being used in the analysis of many professional IQ tests that are currently administered.

I firmly believe that if a person significantly improves his or her command of grammar, vocabulary, and general knowledge then his or her "general intelligence"  will increase significantly.  I am not referring to a superficial test increase. Obviously, professional "IQ" scores will increase because the individual has mastered sub-tests like vocabulary and information.  I am arguing that the person will be able to learn a variety of topics more quickly because the cognitive foundations are stronger.

I see this as an increase in both "tested intelligence" and "functional intelligence."

I should also state that I am not referring to "neurological" or "biological" intelligence.  It is definitely true that some people have more potential than others. 

Working memory training, as some people view it, attempts to increase our neurological intelligence.  This is not how I view it.  We can influence how well we use our "working memory" and in some cases maybe even strengthen the "muscles."  If you want the improvements to have some degree of "far transfer" then hard work is required.  You will need to train your working memory in a wide variety of ways.  Asking for far transfer from a limited training program (n-backing only) is quite unreasonable. 

Pay

[Selma Dawani]

What kinds of activities do you suggest to supplement nback?

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Dual N-Back, Brain Training & Intelligence" group.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/brain-training/-/lONcjqo1_S0J.
To post to this group, send email to brain-t...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to brain-trainin...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/brain-training?hl=en.

[Simen]

> I firmly believe that if a person significantly improves his or her command
> of grammar, vocabulary, and general knowledge then his or her "general
> intelligence"  will increase significantly.  I am not referring to a
> superficial test increase. Obviously, professional "IQ" scores will
> increase because the individual has mastered sub-tests like vocabulary and
> information.  I am arguing that the person will be able to learn a variety
> of topics more quickly because the cognitive foundations are stronger.
>

> Pay

No. We (at least I am) are interested in improving our fluid
intelligence, not language skills. Yes, improving your grammar and
vocabulary can increase your test score, but I don't just want to
increase the score itself, I want the increase to happen because of
improved reasoning and spatial skills. That's the reason why we have
cultural-neutral test to track that progress.

[Gwern Branwen]

On Mon, Aug 20, 2012 at 12:58 PM, Payman Saghafi
<payman...@gmail.com> wrote:
> The traditional approach to Intelligence views "fluid intelligence" and
> "crystallized intelligence" as relatively separate constructs. This
> approach is based on the work of men like Spearman and Cattell. A high
> level of fluid intelligence often leads to a high level of crystallized
> intelligence, but this is viewed as contingent upon the former.

> ...

> I firmly believe that if a person significantly improves his or her command of grammar, vocabulary, and general knowledge then his or her "general intelligence" will increase significantly. I am not referring to a superficial test increase. Obviously, professional "IQ" scores will increase because the individual has mastered sub-tests like vocabulary and information. I am arguing that the person will be able to learn a variety of topics more quickly because the cognitive foundations are stronger.

I have not read the entire thesis, obviously, but from the abstract it
does not seem to show anything like what you think it shows:

> Fluid ability (Gf) represents novel or abstract problem solving capability and is believed to have a physiological basis. In contrast, crystallized ability (Gc) is associated with learned or acculturated knowledge. Drawing on recent research in neuroscience, as well as research on past performance, the nature of work, and expert performance, I argue that compared to measures of fluid ability, crystallized ability measures should more strongly predict real-world criteria in the classroom as well as the workplace.
> This idea was meta-analytically examined using a large, diverse set of over 400 primary studies spanning the past 100 years. With regard to academic performance, measures of fluid ability were found to positively predict learning (as measured by grades). However, as hypothesized, crystallized ability measures were found to be superior predictors of academic performance compared to their fluid ability counterparts.
> This finding was true for both high school and college students. Likewise, similar patterns of results were observed with regard to both training performance and job performance. Again, crystallized ability measures were found to be better predictors of performance than fluid measures. This finding was consistent at the overall level of analysis as well as for medium complexity jobs.

To the extent that Gc measures one's willingness to apply one's fluid
intelligence or is influenced by other traits like Conscientiousness*,
and also to the extent that Gc presuppose Gf, these results do not
seem unexpected.

* We already know that Conscientiousness strongly affects how much
education one gets, which is why investigations of Conscientiousness
vs intelligence usually look into fluid intelligence.

--
gwern
http://www.gwern.net

[Payman Saghafi]

Simen, my friend, I think you might be missing my point.  I am arguing that by increasing your foundation of fundamental knowledge you will become a better learner in multiple ways.  I am arguing that this is definitely important if you want to increase your functional intelligence   I am not limiting this to "language" albeit I will admit that society gives a lot of preferential treatment to those with strong verbal skills.

Let me give you an example.  When you have more core knowledge, you can learn concepts in abstract fields like physics more quickly because you have enough background info to make sense of new info that is thrown at you.  This type of approach has been advocated by research conducted at the 'Core Knowledge Foundation."  If you want to read more, there is a book by E.D. Hirsch on this subject.

Did you know that there are many people with poor "visual spatial skills" that perform well on tests like the Raven Progressive Matrices.  Do you know how they do this?  They do this by using superior verbal stories to keep track of the patterns rather than by manipulating the shapes in their minds' eyes.  There are many ways to skin a cat.

In Cognitive Abilities Theory "general intelligence" (G) is influenced most heavily by several key Stratum II "BROAD SKILL INFLUENCERS."  The list below indicates the main influencers over general intelligence according to Cognitive Abilities Theory.  The article I provided argues that crystallized intelligence impacts (G) more heavily than fluid intelligence.



Crystallized Intelligence directly impacts how much general intelligence you have and how quickly you will learn.

I am arguing that crystallized intelligence impacts how well you perform on

[Payman Saghafi]

Bottom line, improving crystallized intelligence CAN improve reasoning and general intelligence.  That is the whole point of the article!  I posted. 

On Monday, August 20, 2012 1:00:37 PM UTC-5, Simen wrote:

[Payman Saghafi]

Hello, Gwern. 

My beliefs are not based on that article alone.  That article is only part of the story.  It does, however, provide some interesting implications, Gwern.

As you know, the article explains that in a meta analysis it was shown that crystallized intelligence influences academic performance more than fluid intelligence.  It also demonstrates that working memory correlates with general intelligence below below the .5 level.   By itself, this is quite interesting, Gwern.  To get a better flavor for some of the implications, you will need to read the entire article.

I am also drawing on research from E.D. Hirsch.  This year a program was launched in some charter schools based on ideas from the core knowledge foundation which argue that students' reasoning and learning abilities increase significantly when they have deep knowledge to draw from.  2012 results have been quite promising in the charter schools when compared to other schools. 70% of teachers were happy with the results.  Although preliminary results been quite impressive albeit there are some caveats to consider since this is relatively new.  Finally, Hirsch received the 2012 Conant reward from the Education Commission.  I'm basing my thinking on evidence as much as anecdotal experience.

There are other studies that I have read and that I will also try to provide links to in the near future. 

Best Regards,

Pay

[Payman Saghafi]

Selma, I highly recommend dense reading comprehension and logical games.  You can work through old LSAT tests.  Apply your working memory to those activities that are valued most by society. 
Learn the strategies associated with reading, encoding info more efficiently and simplifying problems. You can use "Manhattan GMAT" to learn how to efficiently solve these types of problems and then figure out how you can use your working memory better in real life situations. 

If you are using working memory training then you need to accept that it will probably take a wide variety of practice and a lot of sessions before you see "BROAD IMPROVEMENTS."  It does appear that far transfer from one type of training is highly unlikely.

Also, I highly recommend you make sure your vocabulary, grammar, understanding of proverbs/idioms and general knowledge are up to speed.  For instance, do you know and understand most of the words on this list:  http://www.wordhacker.com/en/article/Barron_gre_list_a.htm?  That list is free. Take a look. To be able to read advanced college material and understand high level communication, you should have a strong vocabulary.

Have you ever heard an idiom or a proverb and not understood what it meant?  Have you ever been listening to people talk and gotten confused because you didn't know the general subject matter and hence couldn't follow along?  This is a very common problem.  If you don't know what the proverb, "Let them eat cake" means then how can you reason through what a person is talking about?

People need to accept that improving intelligence is hard work.  Promises that you can improve your general intelligence without a little hard work are just dishonest.

I am interested in finding honest ways to help us get smarter.

[Payman Saghafi]

I meant Manhattan LSAT although the GMAT has some good dense problems too. 

[Batman66]

Dear Payman,

 

I have some doubts as to whether some people will be able to improve reading comprehension in any substantial way.  Reading comprehension is one of my core deficits--I can read an entire novel (which these days can take me anywhere from 3 months to a year, depending on difficulty) and generally understand what's going on, but the subtext, symbolism, theme is usually completely lost on me.

 

I'm not sure how one would realistically go about improving reading comprehension.  It has been said RC is a "higher-order" task, and for this reason it's often found lacking in autistic people who perform well with lower-level tasks, but often have trouble with the gestalt/big picture.  As for myself, I just have a tendency for literal thinking.  But there are many other problems that could cause someone to have trouble with RC.  Judging from my own experience, the ability to sustain full attention is chief among them.  But poor short-term memory figures in as well, how can you link what happened in the last paragraph with the next if you can barely remember it?  Certainly this would cause trouble interpreting the author's statement between the lines.

 

I'm of the opinion that reading comprehension is possibly resistant to improvement.  I can't say I've manually tried to improve my RC over the years, but then, that's because i don't know where to begin.  Such a deficit seems to be too complex to address directly with any success.

[Payman Saghafi]

 Hello, Batman. Have you taken a full scale professional IQ test so that you know what your intellectual profile looks like?

Do you have any special medical or mental conditions?  What do you do for a living?  I need more facts before I can really put together a rational response. 

Best Regards,

Pay

[Batman66]

I took a professional IQ test (WAIS 3 I think) when I was 15 years old, and the score was exactly average, at 99.  Might as well round up, eh?  I have never been proud of that score, of course.

 

I don't really remember what the profile looked like, except I believe it was somewhat lopsided.  I did generally well in verbal tests, but poorly in tests that stressed spatial skills, math, and logic.

 

As for mental conditions, I've been diagnosed with an anxiety disorder and ADD, inattentive type.  As for reading rate, it does seem ridiculous that it could take me so long to read a novel, but that's also very situation dependent.  A non-fiction book of 200-300 pages written for a general audience could take me a few days if I have an interest in it.  A fiction book of the same length, if it uses unusual vocabulary and sentence structure, could take me 6 months or longer of reading about 20-30 minutes per day (usually that's only about 2 pages--as long as I can last before I feel "worn out" or tired.)  So it seems that reading which requires interpretation is a major challenge, whereas direct and informative reading goes a lot smoother.  I don't think it's dyslexia, but a problem of attention, slow processing, and poor working memory.  Of course add poor reading comprehension into the mix and you have an explosive recipe for reading problems.

[Batman66]

I would also add that I used to be a faster reader, but I suppose long periods of neglecting the ol' noodle (as opposed to when I was in school and required to think hard about things) has increased the difficulty on tasks I once was able to manage.

[Payman Saghafi]

Hi Batman.  Thank you for your honesty.  That takes guts.  I will return the favor even though I generally hate bringing up my history because I find it embarrassing.   Do you know what I scored on the SAT in highschool? Bad!!
Do you know what I scored on the GRE in college?  I scored 1540/1600.  I got a perfect score of 800 in quant and a 740 in verbal. Let me know if you want to see my official ETS record.  :)

  Do you know why I performed poorly on the SAT in highschool?  Severe anxiety and ADD.  I could never pay attention to anything people said.  I was always

daydreaming and nervous.  I was a foreign kid in the United States that had no confidence.  I suffered from both ADD and OCD. 
I don't know you, my friend, but from just one of your posts I can tell that you were behaving anxiously regarding dual-n-back. 

You got frustrated with dual-n-back 3 far too quickly.  This will not help you.  I struggled with dual-n-back 3 too.   I still got to dual-n-back 9 with a score of over 90% eventually.  I used the name

 "pacman" on cognitivefun.net. I haven't been on that site in a long time but my scores are probably still listed.

You mentioned that you struggle with fiction reading.  Let me ask you this.   Do you do any encoding when you read fiction?  Do you read every word on the page?  I have learned to automatically

read the top of the letters and to focus on key words in a passage.  This results in less total info that I need to keep in working memory.  Combine this with a good vocabulary and good general knowledge and reading is MUCH easier.

For instance, look at the following sentences that I just made up:

"John's beloved Mary, a woman whose swanlike beauty could lead men to war, was gone.  Helen of Troy was reborn the day that Mary's eyes sparkled with their first exposure to the sun's rays

.  The vicissitudes of life, always a foe to John's tender soul, had dealt their final blow.  No more could John endeavor to raise his shield against the dark apparition known as life.  The choice was

now simple. The Grim Reaper was John's final calling for any zest to conquer worldy challenges was now laid to rest with Mary."

To completely understand the passage I made up above, you need to:

1)  Have a good vocabulary.
2)  Have enough general knowledge to know who Helen of Troy was.
3) Know what the main points are.

If your vocabulary and general knowledge aren't up to speed then that should be a top priority.

Obviously, I know all the words and I know who Helen of Troy is.  So when I wrote the paragraph, the main words are the ones bolded below.  Everything else is just for flair:

"John's beloved Mary, a woman whose swanlike beauty could lead men to war, was gone.  Helen of Troy was reborn the day that Mary's eyes sparkled with their first exposure to the sun's rays.

The vicissitudes of life, always a foe to John's tender soul, had dealt their final blow.  No more could John endeavor to raise his shield against the dark apparition known as life.  The choice was

 now simple. The Grim Reaper was John's final calling for any zest to conquer worldy challenges was now laid to rest with Mary."

Are you sure you are reading strategically, Batman?  Are you doing things the hard way?

Pay

[jotaro]

i am the opposite

i usually suck at verbal

and visual usually rocks my world.

and I rock its world in return.

if i cant i magine it

it doesnt make sense

and if i can then it does.

:)

[Gwern Branwen]

On Mon, Aug 20, 2012 at 5:43 PM, Payman Saghafi <payman...@gmail.com> wrote:
> As you know, the article explains that in a meta analysis it was shown that
> crystallized intelligence influences academic performance more than fluid
> intelligence. It also demonstrates that working memory correlates with
> general intelligence below below the .5 level. By itself, this is quite
> interesting, Gwern. To get a better flavor for some of the implications,
> you will need to read the entire article.

Which doesn't deal with my points that this seems perfectly consistent
with a one-way causal arrow in which acquiring more Gc does little* to
improve Gf.

Learning more stuff rarely improves one's ability to learn. An example
here would be philosophy, which surely is a 'meta' or
learning-how-reason field if ever there was one. If you look at a
meta-analysis of studies on how much philosophy education improves
critical thinking skills - I've kindly excerpted and discussed it at
length here: http://lesswrong.com/lw/dhe/to_learn_critical_thinking_study_critical_thinking/
- you find that mere philosophy studying has an effect size close to
zero. The only small or moderate effects come from highly targeted
specific critical thinking courses using argument mapping. If this is
true for philosophy, how on earth could general education possibly
feed back in the reverse direction? Hence, it is not surprising when
we read things like
http://www2.ed.gov/about/bdscomm/list/hiedfuture/reports/final-report.pdf
which show general capabilities of reading/writing to be quite low in
college graduates and perhaps even falling; because they were
increasing their Gc in their specific field, and it didn't feed back
into their Gf and from there to general intellectual capabilities.

* I say little because we do have convincing evidence from the Swedish
study that, at least in children/adolescents, schooling vs
no-schooling may be responsible for <5 IQ points.

--
gwern
http://www.gwern.net

[Payman Saghafi]

an Saghafi change)

8:18 PM (less than a minute ago)

Hello, Gwern.  You argue that high G(f) often leads to high G(c), commonly presupposed as such, but that efforts to boost G(c) do not result in increased G(f).  I will read your discussion of philosophy students later.

I do agree with you that G(f) can impact G(c) heavily.  This is self-evident. I also agree that it is more difficult to increase G(f), measured psychometrically, by simply increasing a little bit of G(c).  I do, however, seem to have a much more optimistic view of what this means than you do, Gwern.

  "General cognitive ability theory" considers G(f), G(c), G(y), G(v), G(u), G(r), G(s) and G(t) as broad stratum abilities associated with G and which influence other cognitive abilities.  In addition to G(f), I am interested in looking at the impact of G(c) and other broad stratum abilities on narrow stratum abilities.   How many of the prized narrow stratum abilities can we improve by increasing key aspects of G(c)?

For instance, here are two articles showing that improving vocabulary G(c) can positively influence certain aspects of reading comprehension (a highly valued skill) in modern society:


1)  http://www.deepdyve.com/lp/sage/the-effects-of-vocabulary-instruction-a-model-based-meta-analysis-AJJlkDiZKd
2)  http://www.nmu.edu/sites/DrupalEducation/files/UserFiles/Files/Pre-Drupal/SiteSections/Students/GradPapers/Projects/Hansen_Kristina_MP.pdf


These are studies of people with average levels of motivation.  Consider a person genuinely dedicated to intellectual development over a long period of time and you have something entirely different than what you see in a typical experimental study:

[jttoto2]

Batman66, that is funny, because I am the opposite.  I find fiction much easier to read than non-fiction, as do most people I think.  Have you tried this test yet?   http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/9.12/aqtest.html 

[Batman66]

On Thursday, August 23, 2012 10:07:50 PM UTC-4, jttoto2 wrote:

Batman66, that is funny, because I am the opposite.  I find fiction much easier to read than non-fiction, as do most people I think.  Have you tried this test yet?   http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/9.12/aqtest.html

 

It depends on what type of non-fiction it is.  The type I refer to is written for general audiences with little requirement for previous knowledge, for example a basic self-help book, or a basic book on art history.  I'm talking about "easy reading" books, essentially.  The fact that I can get through these books at a relatively average rate illustrates that my reading problems are not of a mechanical cause such as dyslexia.  Obviously books written by scholars, anything that goes very deeply into the material, philosophy, and so on, anything difficult, that's not what I mean.  Obviously I wouldn't bother with material that's over my head.

 

One way to look at this is if I read an adult-level novel from beginning to end at an average pace, I could tell you only a few basic facts about the plot, and nothing else--almost as if I hadn't read the book at all.  The general problem is with interpretation.  I have difficulty when I'm reading something that requires the reader to do more than acquire dry information.  When you have subtext, metaphor and allegory involved, when you have to figure out the themes underlying a fictional work... that's where I have trouble.  Poetry for example, I have extreme trouble with, I can never figure out what the author is saying.

 

(haven't tried your test)

[jttoto2]

Pay, I've read the meta-analysis and half of the 2nd link and I have some troubles with the research applying beyond young children.  First, elementary reading level is relatively simplistic and relies on a select number of chosen words and laconic sentences.  It also leaves little room for inference or interpretation as chosen passages tend to be direct and concrete, and thus there is very little high-level thinking involved.  In this specific case, it is reasonable to assume that word knowledge would be an asset in interpreting reading passages.

When you reach college level though, things start looking different.  Tests such as the LSAT or GRE purposely choose obscure passages to make sure the test-taker is doing well not because of prior knowledge.  The material is far more abstract. The words are usually known or defined in the passage, but are engineered more obscurely.  A common anecdote in GRE prep forums is that reading comprehension is impossible to improve substantially on, despite the fact that these people are drilling on hundreds if not thousands of vocab words.  

Bringing it back to a point made, if learning broad knowledge can improve cognition, then why don't philosophy students show an improvement?  Why is the reading level of college graduates falling?  To me, once you reach a certain baseline, knowledge does very little to improve valued skills.

[Payman Saghafi]

 

http://www.nmu.edu/sites/DrupalEducation/files/UserFiles/Files/Pre-Drupal/SiteSections/Students/GradPapers/Projects/Hansen_Kristina_MP.pdf

jttoto2,

I see the situation differently.

The meta-analysis I posted above focuses on children because problems with reading comprehension start early, not because vocabulary training is ineffectual for older students.

Also, the meta-analysis specifically discusses research on junior high school students with learning disabilities. I wouldn't define reading as laconic in junior high school. Abstract reasoning skills are very important during this stage of development.

If we go through all the research we can see the implications of vocabulary on reading comprehension for high school students. I might pull more research out later if I have time.

Regarding the philosophy students, I have not read gwern's analysis yet. I most certainly will though. Presently, I can only conjecture confounding variables. I will mention one. Philosophy is a highly abstract subject sought out by deeply intellectual and often highly talented individuals. A single course will not be effective for laggards when they are competing against highly intelligent and highly motivated intellectuals! This is like training normal people trying to improve their fitness against naturally gifted athletes that are highly motivated.

Regarding the GRE, I strongly disagree with you here. Many of the passages taken from the GRE utilize general knowledge and advanced vocabulary. Names like Virginia Woolf and themes involving global warming and star nebula come to mind. Please look at this sample reading comprehension paragraph taken directly from the ETS web site. This is the very first sample paragraph posted on the ETS web site!

_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Quetions 1 to 3 are based on this passage.

"Reviving the practice of using elements of popular music in classical composition, an approach that had been in hibernation in the United States during the 1960s, composer Philip Glass (born 1937) embraced the ethos of popular music in his compositions. Glass based two symphonies on music by rock musicians David Bowie and Brian Eno, but the symphonies' sound is distinctively his. Popular elements do not appear out of place in Glass's classical music, which from its early days has shared certain harmonies and rhythms with rock music. Yet this use of popular elements has not made Glass a composer of popular music. His music is not a version of popular music packaged to attract classical listeners; it is high art for listeners steeped in rock rather than the classics."

________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

There are several things to notice:

• Rock musicians David Bowie and Brian Eno are mentioned
• Composer Philip Glass is mentioned
• Classical composition is discussed
• Symphonies are mentioned
• Classical music is mentioned
• Popular music is mentioned.
• The word ethos is used.

Now, most of us on this web site know what ethos means. I guarantee you that a very large portion of college students don't! The paragraph even mentions "popular music" which assumes a certain level of basic familiarity. If you have some familarity with the subject matter in this paragraph it is far easier to understand.

Now look at this text completion question also taken directly from the ETS site:

Vain and prone to violence, Caravaggio could not handle success: the more his (1)__________ as an artist increased, the more (2)__________ his life became.

Answer choices for question
Blank (1)		Blank (2)
temperance		tumultuous
notoriety		providential
eminence		dispassionate

If you don't know what the words "eminence" and "tumultuous" mean then there is no way you can answer the question. For many of us on this web site these words may all look pretty basic, but this certainly isn't how they look to other people!

Pay

[Batman66]

As jtotto and others point out, it's not really possible to improve reading comprehension.  I've always felt that way, and I'm not embarrassed to admit that my scepticism about improving RC, as well as other cognitive abilities, has led me to a despondent state of mind--not happy with the grip poor intellect has on my life, not willing enough to try and improve it, because so much evidence says you can't.

 

You either have cognitive skills, or you don't.  There's no way to build that which you don't have; there's no middle ground.

[Payman Saghafi]

This is taken directly from wikipedia:

"In addition to stress, perceptions of intelligence can also play a negative role in cognitive development. A study at Columbia University showed entity theorists, or people with a belief in fixed intelligence, showed less improvement on cognitive testing after receiving initial feedback than incremental theorists, or people with a belief in malleable intelligence. Entity theorists focus on performance goals and proving their intelligence, which makes them vulnerable to negative feedback and failure. This is in contrast to incremental theorists, who focus on learning goals and rebound well from occasional failure or feedback. Incremental theorists focus on challenging tasks to expand intelligence instead of working to prove their own intelligence.^[14] Thus, a variety of psychological factors can inhibit one's propensity to expand his intelligence."

[jttoto2]

To clarify, I didn't say reading comprehension couldn't be improved, but I am skeptical of education's current "drill it till you get it" mindset.  I am still of the opinion that once you reach a certain base of knowledge executive function (including WM, cognitive control, etc.)becomes the limiting factor.  More promising avenues to improve RC include:  exercise, diet, and drugs.  

[Gwern Branwen]

On Thu, Aug 23, 2012 at 9:18 PM, Payman Saghafi <payman...@gmail.com> wrote:

  "General cognitive ability theory" considers G(f), G(c), G(y), G(v), G(u), G(r), G(s) and G(t) as broad stratum abilities associated with G and which influence other cognitive abilities.  In addition to G(f), I am interested in looking at the impact of G(c) and other broad stratum abilities on narrow stratum abilities.  This has functional intellectual value.  Which of the prized narrow stratum abilities can we improve by increasing key aspects of G(c)?

For instance, here are two articles showing that improving vocabulary can positively influence certain aspects of reading comprehension (a highly valued skill) in modern society:

So to phrase it in the vocabulary we use here more often, you are not arguing for far transfer from any _gc_ to _g_ or _gf_, but just near transfer between various forms of _gc_? Well, I guess I can't dispute that.

(Although with any argument that a particular form of _gc_ is worth training because it will near transfer to a more valuable form of _gc_, one must be skeptical that it's really a net time or effort saver because after the initial training one still has to learn the actual target material.)

--
gwern
http://www.gwern.net