Ah, I think I see where we're having a bit of a disconnect.

I totally get your point, my friend. From my perspective, what you're referring to is essentially "muscle memory."

When someone solves a complex math problem, they aren't consciously walking through every single step in detail. Instead, they're relying on a kind of "mental muscle memory"—a series of learned shortcuts and patterns that allow them to move through the problem efficiently.

This kind of muscle memory is built from thousands of micro-repetitions, rooted in subjects or activities that a person is genuinely interested in. When we see a "smart" person at work, what we're really seeing is the end result of countless hours of repeated engagement with topics that fascinate them.

For example, as we're talking right now, I'm learning to draw. Over the last few years, I've had to sketch different line combinations thousands of times. Each one of those repetitions is a building block for my overall skill, but they happen mostly unnoticed.

However, there's something missing here: we don't have an intelligence researcher attaching a brain monitor to observe how my brain processes each sketch in real time, nor do we have anyone watching my current environment to understand the stimuli that shape my learning at this moment.

So, when people take tests—whether it's an IQ test, ACT, or SAT—those scores are just a snapshot of what "muscle memories" they've accumulated up to that point.

Where we seem to disagree is on the idea that speed of thought is fixed. I don’t believe it is. To me, speed of thought is just the result of muscle memory, built through repeated micro-memories and practice. It's like autopilot—the more often you engage with something, the quicker and more intuitive it becomes.

A person who seems "smart" has simply had thousands of repeated thoughts, experiences, and practices that no one else has witnessed. Those repetitions have laid the groundwork for what looks like effortless thinking.

I hope this makes more sense now.