First of all, I am not limiting processing speed to the simple measures on IQ test such as the WISC IV. I am thinking more broadly of processing speed as reflected in daily life.

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.

For example, all other things equal, a brisk processing speed allows a student exposure to a larger wealth of ideas, including vocabulary. 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. 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.

Of course, I don't believe that processing speed is the most important measure of intelligence - only that it makes a significant difference.

I would agree that there are benefits to excellent processing speed. DD9 would be an example. A teacher gave her a chapter book at the end of the day yesterday to read at home. She was finished with it within an hour of arriving home. FWIW, she had an excellent PSI on the WISC, too. I think her processing speed places her at a distinct advantage on timed tests. Also, when she is motivated, she digests material incredibly quickly. She is a very quick study.

While it is often thought to be the measured portion of intelligence testing that is "least" important, being a "quick thinker" definitely benefits DD.

Of course, her WMI isn't that great (although still comfortably above-average), giving her a definite "absent-minded professor" presentation.

I'm actually interested in the interplay between processing speed and working memory. DD never memorizes material, but she ABSORBS it, quickly and deeply. She clearly remembers what is interesting to her, and fortunately, much interests her. I do wonder how being a quick thinker impacts development of memory. I wonder whether DD relies on rote memory less often (and is a result, it is underdeveloped), because her store of knowledge is large due to her curiosity and ability to think quickly.

Interesting find, squishys!

I'm actually interested in the interplay between processing speed and working memory. DD never memorizes material, but she ABSORBS it, quickly and deeply. She clearly remembers what is interesting to her, and fortunately, much interests her. I do wonder how being a quick thinker impacts development of memory. I wonder whether DD relies on rote memory less often (and is a result, it is underdeveloped), because her store of knowledge is large due to her curiosity and ability to think quickly.


This is DD and myself-- to a tee.

It can be a surprising struggle when you run up against something where the brute-force memorization is necessary, however, because you simply lack the skills.

She has a better digit span than I do, for sure-- my digit span is embarrassingly small. About four digits. Seriously.

So both of us have impairments in working memory, but mine are more significant than hers, though they seem focal-- only numeric, not verbal, auditory, or visual. Hers seem to be more global in nature.

Most people NEVER know that, though, because the other elements in our profile more than compensate under normal circumstances.

My PG sib, who is a STEM worker, never "memorized" trig identities, because it was more efficient to re-derive them from the law of sines and law of cosines than it was to brute-force memorize them, and then retrieve them from the arbitrary storage location that would have resulted from rote memorization. My sib does also have an enormous memory span, but apparently decided that processing speed won out over memory on this task. This same sib would undoubtedly score poorly on any measure of processing speed that involved fine-motor dexterity, although silent reading speed has been clocked at ~800 wpm. Needless to say, my mother introduced typing at age 8.

I have another sib who has relatively weaker working memory, and thus poor rote memory, but a very retentive memory for concepts, more like those described upthread. One of my children is like this, too. One of the interesting manifestations of this is that, when performing in drama (or music), there can be verbatim inaccuracies which retain the sense and emotional impact (or chord, melodic, and figural structure, for music) with sufficient quality that only someone who had the script/score in front of them (or who had otherwise memorized it themselves) would be likely to pick up on the alterations.

And, our most commonly-used processing speed measures are, at best, mixed measures.

Is this unusual? I didn't memorize them either, except sin^2+cos^2=1 and the definitions of tan, sec, and csc.

aeh, that is fascinating-- DD has done that paraphrasing trick at full speed with music, mathematics, reading aloud, etc. from the time she was tiny.

DH is one that derives relationships rather than memorizing, too. DD is much like him that way. I'm less extreme, but I still tend to only remember what I actually use a lot, and even then I often rely upon relational constructs and a single memorized core (so I will recall a full equation/relationship, and then collapse it for use in simplified/ideal conditions, say).

It's FAR easier for me to remember single cross-over points in unit conversions, too, and to just do the extended back and forth conversions to get to the crossover point. I only realized that this was an oddball way of doing things once I was teaching Gen Chem students to do unit conversions using a unit/dimensional/factor method-- most of them found it APPALLING that I'd do a fifteen factor calculation just to avoid knowing the conversion between miles and kilometers (my only length unit conversion is cm = in).

I'm not sure that processing speed has that much to do with reading speed. My DS9 has a depressed processing speed in comparison to the rest of his intellectual profile, but reads faster than most gifted adults. He does, however, have a photographic memory. He read the first Harry Potter book during the summer before first grade. I wasn't sure if it was above his reading level or not, so I asked him to tell me what happened in the book. He responded by telling me the title of each chapter from memory and then using that information to tell me about the plot of each chapter. When I realized what he was doing, I started asking him about the chapters in random order and he was still able to summarize each chapter. What I am trying to say is that if you're PG, I'm not sure that processing speed matters as much because you can work around it.

I'm actually a little confused about what processing speed really means. DD learns fast but her work tempo is slow. Her memorization skills are incredible, but she is absentminded and off task more often than I'd like. It takes her forever to get out of the house, but she always completes tests on time. She goes off on tangents but is highy accurate. She reads very fast with great comprehension, but takes a while to produce beautiful writing. So...?? (I have no numbers for her on processing speed as she took the RIAS.)

Wait, are you talking about my child? LOL, that is an EXACT description of my DD.

I am also curious about this, considering my DD's two highest scores are PSI and WMI. We expected her to have a high working memory IQ, just from knowing her and how she operates, but the PSI was a bit of a surprise.

She has always been an incredibly fast reader, from the time she taught herself to read at 4, but I have never correlated that to PS. More recently, she has really started to enjoy timed activities, and she does seem to have a distinct advantage in that area that I would attribute to her PSI.

She also both absorbs, and memorizes, most of the auditory instruction in the classroom. Many times, she will tell me about a topic they are discussing as a class (Eleanor Roosevelt, human body, etc), and I can tell that she is repeating word for word the way it was told to her. Months....years later, she has still retained those facts the way it was first presented to her. Which makes it extremely hard on the rare occasion that a teacher tells her something that isn't 100% accurate!

On the other hand, her VSI is much lower, at 106 (she is in the 140s for everything else).

I imagine high processing speed also helps in building a conceptual meta structure and forming associative networks in long term memory. If you can see the forest for the trees quickly when a lot of new information is coming at you, you can categorize it appropriately (perhaps along multiple dimensions) and trigger spreading activation (that is, you can prime associative linkages between closely related concepts). With a wider associative network and more neural connections, we would expect the learning to be reinforced more frequently in long term memory for individuals with higher processing speed, potentially setting off a virtuous cycle of processing speed and encoding over time.

Add me to the list of derivers, too. I don't always trust my memory, but I trust my ability.

I am finding this discussion fascinating, because I have 2 children with high reasoning scores, but very different index profiles.

FWIW, both are excellent readers. DD is a FAST reader, though. DS could possibly get there when he is her age.

DS often DOES learn by memorizing - and his memory is pretty amazing. Not photographic, but he recalls details DD and I would easily forget. Poor DD seems to have inherited my penchant for devouring concepts, with a poor memory for numerals (yep - the phone numbers; I don't even TRY to remember them and always write them down). Add some letters to the combo and DD and I instantly have a better memory.

DS learns extremely well, but I often call him my "deep thinker." Unlike DD, who always has a quick answer for everything (euphemism intended), DS speaks less often, but many of his observations are profound. I believe he is a slower (although not slow) processor, but with a better memory - I do see this in real life. The WISC measured him this way, too.

In terms of paraphrasing, I was a thespian in high school and I am embarrassed to admit that I often ad libbed, without intending to...which can work to a point...until you get a role in a Shakespearean production and realize that you probably shouldn't be paraphrasing The Bard.

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.


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.


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.



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.


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

Now I'm going to throw another angle on processing speed into the mix: what we think of as visual-motor processing speed of the WISC/WAIS/WPPSI coding/symbol search variety is probably more of a measure of efficiency with rote skills (though other kinds of processing speed strength are likely to bleed over). There are some other cognitive skills which we might consider processing speed as well, but which are somewhat distinct from the PSI-type, and include varying levels of reasoning.

For example, on the WJ, there is a subtest called decision speed. Visually and motorically, it's very similar to symbol search and its WJ analog, visual matching, but instead of simple matching of visual forms, one has to identify conceptual matches (albeit simple ones) quickly.

Retrieval fluency can also be considered a type of processing speed: timed object, letter, number, or word naming tasks, with or without visual cue.

This conversation has been fascinating. I've nearly started a similar thread myself recently. I did a lot of thinking about processing speed and working memory after reading a book recommended here called something like "Bright Kids Who Can't Keep Up". Also after reading my kids recent SB5 reports and giving a lot of inexpert thought to the differences between the SB5 and WISC.

Is processing speed actually processing speed or is it at least partially visual working memory? Is working memory actually auditory/verbal processing speed? Are these constructs as different as they tend to be described? Are they facets of the same thing?

Two of my kids qualified to gifted composite scores on the SB5 due to lower working memory scores, I was fascinated that as well as removing their two lowest scores the GCS also removed their single highest or equal highest score - Non Verbal Visual Spatial Processing is a major strength of my kids, working memory is not, though the SB5 at least tests NV WMI, which is stronger in all three of my kids than verbal...

I can very much relate to the fast/slow child syndrome described, and also both terrible and amazing aspects to their memories... Such a complex thing.

AEH - my DD with Aspergers did a computerized test once that included making decisions about what emotion was indicated by a photo of a person's face. She was fast all the emotions, and quite accurate at about half of them and quite mixed up with the other half, she was slower at deciding the ones she wasn't as good at, but still fast... I seem to recall she was quite good and quite fast at identifying angry :-).

If and when I help DD study for a science test, I find that she can recite much of the chapter they're in word for word. Admittedly, the book is easy, but I know she hasn't consciously tried to do this. It's a bit spooky. I've told her she could do beautifully in something like medicine because her memory for material that she reads (especially of interest--she loves science) is out of this world. When she was in a lengthy play at age 7, she memorized the other actors' lines unintentionally.

DD had a 60 point gap between her PRI and PSI scores on the WISC (PSI being lower), yet she is a fast and fluent reader. I worked with kids struggling with reading, and I could see some of them had processing issues, as they read very slowly but accurately. One boy read the same slow speed no matter what reading level I gave him. And he never seemed to speed up no matter how many times we read the same paragraph over and over again. I'm not sure how he would have done on other processing tasks (like coding on the WISC) but I think processing speed can vary wildly depending on the specific type of task.

That is another thing DD does! She was in two musicals last year. Poor thing always gets cast as a narrator because they know she can memorize long stretches of dialogue. She was the kid (and the youngest, to boot), who was helping out the other kids by whispering their lines to them. She will take the script and read it every night for enjoyment, she usually has the entire musical/play memorized within two weeks just by reading it for fun.

I agree with polarbear. Processing speed is only really useful in rote memory situations in school and would have little bearing on real world situations. My daughter has a rather slow processing speed and I have a relatively fast processing speed in comparison. However, she is a deep thinker and really delves deeply into what she is working on. She asks and answers the hard questions. Asking the hard questions is what drives discovery and invention! A fast processing speed may help you skip quickly through learning about what others have done, it doesn't help you arrive at original thought.

This is also assuming that someone who can quickly scan through large amounts of material is able to commit any of it to long term memory. I tend to think that processing speed is a very poor measure of intelligence. Can it help you fill in more bubbles on a scantron sheet? Yes...but it doesn't make you better able to understand the material presented.

I am chiming in a bit late, but I have a daughter with a very fast processing speed. DD11 has always been told to SLOW down by all her teachers because she goes through everything so fast. Her quality of work goes down a little by her speed, but not by much (careless mistakes). We had her tested 2x, once at 6 and once at 8. We saw a dip in the processing speed at 8, but it was still high. Her only relative weakness is implied comprehension, which tends to slow her down because she does not think the way everyone else does, and hates all the poorly worded and obscure questions. In our case, it seems like my DD's high processing speed ties more to achievement. For example, she had a 160 on both math and writing on the WIAT-II, but lower on reading comprehension.

On the achievement tests at school, she will typically be at the top of the district scores on anything math or writing related because she can process those items very quickly. Writing is very quick for her because spelling is memorized, so she just has to concentrate on ideas. She has both speedy typing and handwriting skills, so that helps. Math is high because she can process information quickly and intuitively. She went through three grades in math last year in school.

Therefore, I think her processing speed really works to her advantage in school, so she gets through assignments quickly, and then has time to work on other things. The fast/accurate profile = a perceived higher intelligence and a definite advantage in school.

Well, let's be fair. Some real world situations (and jobs) require a great deal of rote memory. For example, a physician needs great rote memory, as I mentioned earlier.

I don't think so. Life is too short to memorise six formulae when one would do.

Just pointing out that we are talking about faster acquisition of facts or processing speed, and not overall knowledge. Assuming that a fast processing speed medical school student and a slow processing speed medical student both learn the same material, they both would be doctors at the end of the day. Rote memorization can be accomplished by both sets of students.

To respond to the original post, I think it makes a difference in certain situations and not others. I would rather go to a doctor or lawyer that has good abstract reasoning ability than one who is speedy. I would rather go through the checkout line at Target with the person who has fast processing speed than good abstract reasoning ability, unless I'm arguing about whether something is really on clearance or not or whether my manufacturer's coupon is valid. Ideally, a person has both, but in some situations or professions it doesn't matter too much. A person with fast processing speed might read 5 books in a day, but if they are not thinking as deeply as the person who is reading slowly, or drawing as many meaningful conclusions, it's not really beneficial.

Are you referring to the limited skill tested on IQ tests? Otherwise, I'm going to strongly disagree. We live in a resource-constrained world, particularly those of us in professional services. By necessity, faster processing speeds translate into higher output for human capital intensive work where time is the hard stop on productivity, all else equal.

Beyond productivity arguments, simply being able to perform a task well in a shorter period of time than a competitor means, in many contexts, winning a zero sum game. Examples that come to mind are:

- Fighter pilots engaging in dog fights.
- Traders and investment bankers responding to rapid fluctuations in value.
- Lawyers presenting arguments in trial or in negotiations.
- Consultants presenting strategic recommendations to clients responding to fluctuating inputs and push-back.
- Diagnosticians identifying and treating time-bound diseases.
- Journalists jockeying to release the first well written coverage of an event.

The list goes on.

That would be a refreshing change.

/snark

And it would indeed be a first.

I'm going to put in an endorsement of memorizing. IMO, it's helpful in some situations (especially for beginners at a subject). For example, when learning a new idea, it's easy to have trouble seeing the big picture because of all the details. If you've memorized a chunk of important information, you don't have to think about it. This gives your working memory that much more space to analyze whatever idea you're struggling with. Alternatively, if you derive something, you have to shift your focus from, say, seeing the big picture of the problem to deriving something that's a small part of it. Sometimes it's hard to get back on track. More concretely, if you've memorized the definition of integer, you don't have to look it up when the problem asks for integer solutions to a particular equation. Again, the distraction factor is reduced.

Different people have different neural circuitry. For some, deriving may be more efficient. For people like me, memorizing can definitely has its advantages.

So I don't see this question as an either/or proposition.

I found a definition of processing speed (it has a lot of references, too):

You guys need to read The Economist and The Atlantic more. You'll feel better about journalists.

/end unrelated hijack

NO! The hijacking isn't over until MY demands are met!

I do read The Atlantic, and a couple of other good sources. They are well-written, but they are never first.

Loy58, you just described my 2 kiddos; they are so similar! DD had gifted processing speed and above average wm. She also makes careless mistakes and answers quickly and rather impulsively. DS is a deep thinker and has an exceptional memory. He has average processing speed. She is a big picture thinker and he notices every single detail.

/end unrelated hijack

I can take over the hijack from here.

I kind of got tired of the Economist. Stopped being useful for me.


The Atlantic is a good read.

It really depends on the journalist. You have to know who you are reading.

Hmph.

It's quite clear that nobody is considering my idiosyncratic needs here at all.

{stamps foot}

I feel deeply chagrined that you've carried on like this without me being involved. It's a natural law that I must be involved in any thread-jacking that happens in a forum of which I'm a member.

Now I have to reevaluate my entire theory of everything. Gosh, thanks. At least with my processing speed, and the simplicity of my model, that shouldn't take long.

Your model is wrong.

Faster processing speed will only enable you to get to a wronger answer faster.

Well, I never said that it was right-- or even correct, necessarily. Just that it needed to be reevaluated, and that as you note, faster processing speed means that it won't take long.

Clearly, since I am not at the center of the universe, it must be the earth as a whole, which is incredibly puzzling to me...

Great discussion as usual. Some of us will just have to agree to disagree. Polarbear was correct that level of ability among other issues factor into the end result. However, I was simply looking at the big overall picture/trend. For the record, I was not limiting processing speed to reading speed, but that is one of the most basic measures that everyone can easily witness. I was not claiming that processing speed was MORE important that verbal/perceptual reasoning ability. Furthermore, given a number of the posts that did not find value in processing speed, I should emphasize that I was looking at high ability and fast, not moderate ability but fast. DS was not an example of fast processing speed coupled with relatively lower verbal/perceptual reasoning ability. If anything, his verbal/perceptual reasoning ability exceeds his processing speed. My point was that his fast processing speed is a gift that keeps on giving, by continually giving him a leg up. Reading quickly also does not mean that you will fail to understand, retain, or synthesize the information just as reading slowly does not guarantee that you will understand, retain or synthesize the information.

I can think of many careers where slow processing speed would not be an impediment. However, based on my own particular career choices, processing speed has definitely been an asset even if it has not been the most important one. Sometimes the one who gets in the first word also gets in the last word and wins by default. Sometimes the first one who offers a good solution gets all the credit.

Anyhow, the effects of high processing speed amazes me. For example, DS at age 6 was able to read Harry Potter fluently with comprehension while still unable to reliably differentiate his b/d and p/q. His teacher who had just completed her training as a reading specialist, thought that DS was speed reading in a faster but less common way by processing information in halves instead of thirds.