I was just thinking recently about how much I hate the imposition of time limits on things like this! Although I'm not super interested in figuring out my own or others' IQ, these are a fun set of questions to mull over.
I have always disliked any kind of speed tests, because that parameter becomes the trivial and over-ruling influence on the outcome ... knee-jerk versus mulling. It discriminates against multiple sub-populations, e.g. the very learned, the aged, the ill, and those who hadn't enjoyed a good night's sleep.
I sympathize because I tend to be a slow thinker as well in some ways, but really, how fast one can solve a problem is a feature of how intelligent one is, and bad sleep or illness does decrease one’s ability to think intelligently (and not just in terms of speed).
Who's more intelligent, person A that would score 80% on a test given 30 minutes, and 85% given 60 minutes; or person B that would score 50% given 30 minutes, but 99% given 60 minutes?
Person A might be perceived as quick, have an accurate intuition, and able to come up with a lot of ideas. Person B on the other hand is of the slow and steady kind that will methodically and tirelessly work on a problem until it's solved.
I think this is getting close to the idea of liquid intelligence and crystallized intelligence. The scary thing about valuing the liquid kind is that it’s the one that shrinks with age. Crystallized intelligence grows with age.
Working memory size, processing speed, fluid intelligence (novel problem solving / creativity), and crystallized intelligence (knowledge), are are all different components of intelligence that are pairwise not perfectly correlated.
Some person A can solve problem X in 1 minute and problem Y in 1 hour, while some person B can solve both in 10 minutes, even with the same crystalized intelligence.
Not necessarily. If the problem was solved more easily if one possessed some specific amount of crystallized intelligence, one could say the "tardy" person turns out to have superior fluid intelligence.
