"Inductive intelligence" or a "generalist" cognitive bias in human

I googled "inductive intelligence" & hit on John W Edser' post of the
last year. I share his frustration with IQ measures & came up with an
explanation of why real-time tests can't capture a high-level
generalization ability, caused by a longer-range induction. Basically,
induction is a search for matches/patterns, & deduction is an
interactive projection of these patterns.
In neocortex there's a tradeoff between the number of basic units:
minicolumns, & the range of connections between them. Longer range
connections allow for range^2 number of possible comparisons, which
would slow down the learning process but improve quality of matches &
generality of the resulting patterns. Correspondingly reduced number
of minicolumns will decrease represented detail/precision.
So, this is a speed & detail, vs depth & generality tradeoff, & real-
time tests are biased for the former & against the latter. The
tradeoff is somewhat ambiguous in terms modern societal utility:
- On one hand, speed & precision was far more important for survival
"in the wild", which probably explains why apes likely have a
photographic memory, superior to humans.
- On the other hand, the functional differentiation of a modern
society probably rewards specialization & precision more than higher
generalization ability on the opposite end of cognitive diversity
spectrum.

I have more on my blog: "Generalist vs Specialist neuroarchitectural
bias" post: http://scalable-intelligence.blogspot.com/2008/04/analytical-depth-vs-response-speed.html
but it does involve a bit of neuroscience.

.