No, worth can be drawn simply by applying the model I outlined above. References may add more worth if you're looking for verification (which I don't blame), but it's also a daunting task to compile such lists. Your comment on the other hand, could've just asked me for sources and that would've been productive, but instead you chose to just dismiss the entire argument cynically with a single statement; that literally doesn't add any value for anybody. I wish downvotes would be justified more deeply than this.
However, since it is useful, here are some resources to begin learning about what intelligence and cognitive research have to say about the matter:
There are plenty more resources out there, and I'm sure there are much better ones too. But the implication of all this is that learning is a skill, and that you can learn how to learn better. We may not yet thoroughly understand how generalized learning takes place in the brain, but it does seem to be a function of working memory and motivation, which can be improved. Generalized learning is segmented more finely than how I described it originally, but it still functions the same way (e.g. learning to juggle may not help you learn a new language better, but learning to play a musical instrument may help you to learn the other two more easily, since it incorporates language skills through music, and motor skills through playing). Making an argument against this model would place the burden of proof on that side, because as I mentioned before, there is no known mechanism that would lead to the outcome outlined by the 'fair'/balanced model, and it would have to explain away phenomena like neuroplasticity that seem to directly oppose it.
However, since it is useful, here are some resources to begin learning about what intelligence and cognitive research have to say about the matter:
http://www.amazon.com/The-Talent-Code-Greatness-Grown/dp/055...
http://www.amazon.com/The-Genius-All-Us-Insights/dp/03073873...
http://healthland.time.com/2012/12/26/motivation-not-iq-matt...
http://www.cogmed.com/impact-working-memory-training-young-p...
http://www.cogmed.com/working-memory-but-not-iq-predicts-sub...
http://www.cogmed.com/working-memory-training-generalize-imp...
http://www.owlnet.rice.edu/~antonvillado/courses/09a_psyc630...
http://reports-archive.adm.cs.cmu.edu/anon/ml2009/CMU-ML-09-...
http://jabba.edb.utexas.edu/it/enhancingCognitiveSkill.pdf
There are plenty more resources out there, and I'm sure there are much better ones too. But the implication of all this is that learning is a skill, and that you can learn how to learn better. We may not yet thoroughly understand how generalized learning takes place in the brain, but it does seem to be a function of working memory and motivation, which can be improved. Generalized learning is segmented more finely than how I described it originally, but it still functions the same way (e.g. learning to juggle may not help you learn a new language better, but learning to play a musical instrument may help you to learn the other two more easily, since it incorporates language skills through music, and motor skills through playing). Making an argument against this model would place the burden of proof on that side, because as I mentioned before, there is no known mechanism that would lead to the outcome outlined by the 'fair'/balanced model, and it would have to explain away phenomena like neuroplasticity that seem to directly oppose it.