Oh please. And how is that relevant to this discussion?

The fact that you haven"t thought of trivial examples that show that the theory in which you believe is wrong illustrates an error in the underlying model of what IQ happens to be. There are huge gains through physical changes and removing obstacles that keep mental functioning down.

I think you're confused between IQ, learning, and memorization. These three are all different things.

No, I'm not. I don't expect a person who's bad at allocating resources to advance memorization to be good at allocating resources about IQ.

Secondly, if you want to improve IQ than it's useful to have a good model of how human cognition works. Having people with good mathematical skills analyse the massive pile of data behind spaced repetition learning not only provides us with the practical benefit of having better spaced repetition, it also tells us something about human cognition.

If you want at the way of inefficiently smart programmers use their nervous system, look at those programs who have back pain because they tense up the wrong muscles at the wrong time. From a big picture way it's incredibly stupid to tense up muscles in a way that makes your back hurt.

But it happens because those smart people have nearly no awareness or control of what their nervous system is doing.

I see more and more examples of people behavior very far away from optimum because of lack of knowledge/skills.