> Some of Gardner's intelligences are unproblematic, such as linguistic,
> logical-mathematical, and spatial intelligence, which have long been used
> as parts of IQ tests.
They also likely have somewhat different neural substrates, even if they
of course share some systems too.
> When he gets into musical, bodily-kinesthetic,
> and naturalistic intelligences (the last defined as "the ability to
> understand, relate to, categorize, classify, comprehend, and explain
> the things encountered in the world of nature. People such as farmers,
> ranchers, hunters, gardeners, and animal handlers may exhibit developed
> naturalistic intelligence.") it gets much more questionable IMO.
I think the problem is that there is no good distinction between a skill
and specialised intelligence. A well learned skill allows the skilled
person to generalise to new situations.
As for naturalistic intelligence, I read a fun paper demonstrating that
general knowledge of and language use of terms related to trees has been
in a steadily decline since the industrial revolution. So if one accepts
naturalististic intelligence, then it has likely decreased.
-- ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Anders Sandberg Towards Ascension! asa@nada.kth.se http://www.nada.kth.se/~asa/ GCS/M/S/O d++ -p+ c++++ !l u+ e++ m++ s+/+ n--- h+/* f+ g+ w++ t+ r+ !y
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Mon May 28 2001 - 10:00:03 MDT