From: Mike Lorrey (retroman@turbont.net)
Date: Fri Feb 25 2000 - 17:46:03 MST
john grigg wrote:
> http://edweb.cnidr.org/edref.mi.hist.html
>
> Gardner explains that there is far more to the human intellect then the
> logical/analytical part which is of course, is very important but not
> everything.
>
> These are the forms of intelligence that he recognizes, (from his website)
>
> Musical Intelligence
Which is musical ability. Nothing wrong or demeaning about it, I admire great
musical ability, there's a good bit in my family, but I won't call it
'intelligence'.
>
> Bodily-Kinesthetic Intelligence
Which was once called dexterity and co-ordination (or athletic ability). Nothing
wrong with that ability, but its not intelligence.
> Logical-Mathematical Intelligence
> Linguistic Intelligence
> Spatial Intelligence
These are what were once considered the core abilities of our mind, and they are
what the majority of our higher brain functions work on, and can be assigned to
specific areas of the brain. The first is a left brain function and the other
two are a right brain function.
> Interpersonal Intelligence
Social skills. Not intelligence.
> Intrapersonal Intelligence
Emotions. Not intelligence.
Using the example that Nadia posted about the children learning the earth's
structure their own way, there is no way a person of any dominant ability is
going to 'feel' their way to understanding plate tectonics, organic chemistry,
or to writing great literature. There is no way a person can socialize their way
to acheiving any of these either. You can't build a building with a sonnet, or
by dancing a jig, or by crying your eyes out.
The reason for this 'multiple intelligence' scam is exactly what I say it is:
Because all of the great permanent material acheivments in western civilization
and technology are the result of real intelligence, and the modern 'outcome'
based educational system seems to think that in order to make children without
high or above average levels of real intelligence feel 'good' about themselves,
they need to call all human abilities 'intelligences'. Just because I feel that
way does not mean those other abilities are not worthwhile.
> Gardner has never ruled out the possibility that additional intelligences
> may also exist, for MI research is still in its infancy. Recently, he added
> an eighth intelligence to the list: the Naturalist Intelligence.
oh goody, tree hugging now has its own Olympic event. Confirmation of what I say
is true: pure PC crap.
> There's
> also been some consideration of a ninth intelligence - existential
> intelligence - but the jury is still out on that one. Besides, for now at
> least, a great deal of new understanding may be found from within these
> eight faculties.
You mean if I feel that I am more here than others that I'm much smarter in my
'existential intelligence'?
>
> (end)
>
> Gardner continues...
> Regarding the conventional theory of intelligence, Gardner wrote:
> WHEN ONE IS ASKED to consider the question "What makes a person
> intelligent?," the most common responses will often note a person's ability
> to solve problems, utilize logic, and think critically. These typical
> traits of intelligence are sometimes lumped together under the lable of "raw
> intelligence."
>
> A person's intelligence, traditionally speaking, is contained in his or her
> general intellect - in otherwords, how each and every one of us comprehend,
> examine, and respond to outside stimuli, whether it be to solve a math
> problem correctly or to anticipate an opponent's next move in a game of
> tennis. Our intelligence, therefore, is our singular, collective ability to
> act and react in an ever-changing world.
> (end)
I would posit that the seven 'intelligences' that Gradner defines are more
accurately compared to I/O channels to the individuals core intelligence. To
compare to computers, one computer may use a scanner better because it has a
faster SCSI card, while another may use a CCD camera better because its video
card is better, etc. This concept is supported by the fact that most people who
are very capable in one of these areas, is typically relatively equally capable
in other areas as well, and those with very poor areas tend to not have any high
areas as well. It is a rare case where you get savant behavior, in which only
one I/O channel functions extremely efficiently with a genius mind, but the
other channels are stunted to uslessness and impairment.
>
>
> I look forward to further discussion on this topic.
>
> sincerely,
>
> John Grigg
>
> ______________________________________________________
> Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 15:27:02 MST