>>13468910We may be getting bogged down with conflicting definitions here, so I’ll rephrase.
Ones intelligence, or base cognitive ability, is genetically determined and structurally fixed. In this sense it really is like the CPU of a system, the fixed architecture wherein all the magic takes place.
What people casually refer to as “general intelligence” is more like a measure of the overall performance of the system. This is constrained by the limitations of the CPU, but also takes in to account peripheral components and software.
A specific skill set, language proficiency for example, would be software in this analogy. That software has to be able to run on the CPU, but how effective it is will depend largely on the quality of the code. Better software, better output.
So to mix it all up. You could have a genius running shitty software, and a midwit running exceptional software, and on a particular task their “general intelligence” might appear evenly matched.
So running with these definitions, when you suggest that behavioural changes (I’d call that new software, or a software update) can result in improved “general intelligence”, I’m in complete agreement.
I would even go so far as to say that because relatively few people put in the effort to optimize their behaviour and hone their skills (because it’s hard and a pain in the ass quite frankly), the resulting boost in “general intelligence” should make them competitive with folks who have higher base cognitive ability but less focus and determination.
