I know that some people, including Dr. Reynolds (RIAS), do not believe that processing speed has a place in measuring intelligence. However, after close encounters with both super fast and profoundly slow as well as fairly normal speeds in my own kids, I cannot but conclude that processing speed has a definite, lasting and cumulative effect on achievement as well as the development of intelligence.
Quantum, I am going to answer this (the first time through at least lol!) without reading the replies already posted, so that what you'll get is my initial response to your OP. My initial reaction to what you are pondering is that there is a wide variation in what people consider to be both "processing speed" and "intelligence" and even "achievement" so this is going to be one of those questions where the answer depends on how the person answering defines the question.
I personally don't believe that processing speed is related to actual intellectual ability or the development of it. I do believe that processing speed is tied in with how a person approaches problem-solving.
For example, all other things equal, a brisk processing speed allows a student exposure to a larger wealth of ideas, including vocabulary.
Not necessarily. I have a daughter with an amazingly fast processing speed and high working memory, yet she is not an efficient reader. She's what you'd probably consider an extreme case or an exception, but for her, I have seen the fast processing speed in action, but at the same time, in the same person, I have also seen a huge impact of not being able to read up to par (or ahead of the game) in vocabulary development. She's just one person and no two people are going to be alike, but in her case, high processing speed does not equate to large vocabulary acquisition, and difficulties with reading correlate to not acquiring vocabulary at pace with intellect and peers.
One reason why DD11 is significantly behind DS11 in standard measures is that DS can fit so much more into the same hours in the day.
This is counter to what I've seen with my own small subset of children, if your reference to "standard measures" refers to achievement testing. My EG ds has what would be considered a relatively "low" processing speed, yet he consistently scores at the top on achievement tests. My dd with the sky-high processing speed doesn't. She can finish her work and a test quickly, but the super-fast processing speed doesn't guarantee that she's absorbed and collated knowledge in the same way her brother has.
He can easily finish reading several books on a single day whereas DD may read one or two on a good day. If you multiply that by even five to ten years, the difference is tremendous.
Yes, the difference in *learned* knowledge (facts) might be tremendously different, but would this directly equate to a difference in how your two children analyze the facts they learn, make inferences, and use that information in creative ways? And I would also point out that reading 5 books in one day vs reading one book in one day doesn't mean that the person who read 5 books on that one day has made such a leap in knowledge that they are reading at a higher level the next day which will equate to a level that the slower-reading person won't get to until the end of the fifth day.
Of course, I don't believe that processing speed is the most important measure of intelligence - only that it makes a significant difference.
To be honest, the place I've seen it make a *significant* difference is in the school system in the US - fast processing speed is an advantage in some situations at school. I can't say that I've seen it have any tremendous advantage in the working world I've been a part of (I'm a scientist). So no, I don't think it's a significant difference, just a difference.
When I have some time, I'll be back to read what other people posted… it's an interesting thought to ponder!
polarbear
