[lachlan_gray]

I think part of the message is that speed isn't a free lunch. If an intelligence can solve "legible" problems quickly, it's symptomatic of a specific adaption for identifying short paths.

So when you factor speed into tests, you're systematically filtering for intelligences that are biased to avoid novelty. Then if someone is slow to solve the same problems, it's actually a signal that they have the opposite bias, to consider more paths.

IMO the thing being measured by intelligence tests is something closer to "power" or "competitive advantage".

[Jensson]

> Then if someone is slow to solve the same problems, it's actually a signal that they have the opposite bias, to consider more paths.

No this isn't true, most of the time they just don't consider any paths at all and are just dumb.

And the bias towards novelty doesn't make you slow, ADHD is biased towards novelty and people wouldn't call those slow.

[lachlan_gray]

What I meant is, assuming that they do find solutions. If they're not doing anything of course that's different.

In the article, "speed" is about reaching specific answers in a specific window of time, the bane of ADHD.