[Question] Is there a simple parameter that controls human working memory capacity, which has been set tragically low?

Here’s the kind of thing I mean by “hu­man work­ing mem­ory ca­pac­ity” be­ing “set trag­i­cally low”: A 100-word sen­tence in­tro­duc­ing a new con­cept is of­ten an­noy­ingly hard to wrap one’s head around, com­pared to a longer and more “gen­tle” ex­pla­na­tion.

The con­cept of work­ing mem­ory seems like a use­ful re­duc­tion of part of what makes in­tel­li­gence work:

Most of us here think hu­man in­tel­li­gence can one day be in­creased a lot, be­cause there doesn’t seem to be a fun­da­men­tal limit to in­tel­li­gence lo­cated any­where near hu­man-level, but that’s a non-con­struc­tive re­duc­tio type of ar­gu­ment.

On the other hand, it seems like there’s an ob­vi­ous con­struc­tive ar­gu­ment to why work­ing mem­ory should be able to be in­creased: Take what­ever set of struc­tures en­code the cur­rent short-term brain’s work­ing mem­ory con­tents, and an­a­lyze how big they are, like how many copies of some lower-level stor­age unit they have, and imag­ine ar­chi­tect­ing the brain to have more such copies of those sys­tems en­cod­ing more mem­ory con­tents.

Get­ting back to my ques­tion...

We all wish we were smarter, but we sus­pect that there are no eas­ily-tweak­able pa­ram­e­ters that would yield a big in­crease in in­tel­li­gence, or nat­u­ral se­lec­tion would have already tweaked them.

But doesn’t it feel like work­ing mem­ory is an eas­ily-tweak­able pa­ram­e­ter, and nat­u­ral se­lec­tion just didn’t tweak it be­cause it was good enough rel­a­tive to the rest of the brain and the needs of the species, but it could ac­tu­ally be tweaked pretty eas­ily in a cou­ple thou­sand gen­er­a­tions if there were the se­lec­tion pres­sure to do it?

The rea­son it might make sense to say our small work­ing mem­o­ries are par­tic­u­larly tragic is if there is, as I sus­pect, a smaller coun­ter­fac­tual dis­tance to them be­ing larger and much more use­ful for mod­ern life.