What Is Crystalized Intelligence?

As students fall behind in school, researchers scramble to find ways to increase intelligence. Individuals’ differences in academic achievement have been linked to differences in intelligence. Students with higher mental ability tend to achieve higher in academic settings and in future career choices (Martinez, 2009). In addition to intelligence, working memory seems to play a significant role in determining learning at all ages (Alloway, Gathercole, Adams, & Willis, Eaglen, & Lamont, 2005). Poor working memory is generally observed in children with educational difficulties. Children with low working memory generally struggle in meeting standards in math and reading and are at greater risk for future academic failures (Holmes & Gathercole,

Various definitions of intelligence have been put forth by scholars and researchers since the turn of the twentieth century. In each definition, several key aspects are explained such as fluid and crystallized intelligence. Crystalized intelligence is the ability to use skills, knowledge, and experience to solve problems (Martinez, 2009). On the other hand, fluid intelligence is the ability to solve novel problems through logical thought (Martinez, 2009). Fluid intelligence is necessary for problem solving through inductive and deductive reasoning. This intelligence is composed of many factors; one of them is thought to be working memory (Jaeggi, Buschkuehl, Jonides, & Perrig,

Fluid knowledge is a cognitive ability underlying all mental aptitudes and is thought to be impermeable to practice. Jaeggi and colleagues (2008) challenge fluid intelligences resilient nature by finding results.

In addition, the popular press article by Hurley (2012) includes the shortcomings of the study and the skeptic view of Jaeggi’s and colleagues (2008). Hurley (2012) cites three major deficiencies with Jaeggi and associates (2008) article: only one reasoning task was implemented, the reasoning task was highly correlated with other measures, and the researches failed investigate whether these gains had transferability to school grades, job performance, real-world gains.

Ethical issues/Slant

Furthermore, the popular press article offered three scholar views that did not agree with the research articles findings. These views offered a limited explanation of their disagreement and offered questionable support. For example Hurley (2012) cites Engle as identifying methodological weaknesses with the research and finding results that did not suppor Jaeggi and colleagues (2008) findings. However, the author failed to identity the specific methodological weakness and instead stated many of these have been addressed in successive articles. Overall the article presents a fair evaluation of the two sides of the