Re: Can't hack it as a gym rat anymore....


"Dawn Alguard" <meremove@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:47tf0rFh85haU1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Simon Isbister wrote:

Its not her definition. More importantly, it isn't a single definition
of "intelligence". Howard Gardner's theory of multiple intelligences
dates back to the early '80s.

OK, I Googled it and I've got to completely disagree with this guy's
definition. He's got atheletic ability in there for heaven's sake.

No, he doesn't. He has kinesthetic intelligence, which you are taking as a
euphemism for athletic ability. I agree that the two are very closely
linked. The latter is a result of the former, perhaps, but they are very
different things. I have met many students who learn subjects like math and
English better if it can be presented to them in a manner that appeals to
their kinesthetic learning style. Many of them happen to be very good
athletes, as well.

He's thrown every possible talent or personality trait in one big pot and
called it different kinds of intelligence. I'll maybe give you linguistic
vs. math since most people have a lean in one direction or another but the
rest of that list is rubbish. Interpersonal?

Hasn't a major portion of this thread involved a discussion about very
intelligent people who have weak interpersonal skills (even if they
themselves seem to write it off as other people simply being put off by
their intelligence)? A con-man's success (and a poker player's, likely)
hinges on his ability to read people, and manipulate them. If that ability
(which can be either learned, or a natural gift) isn't a type of
intelligence, then I don't know what is.

Spatial perception, IMO, is what divides the very smart from the geniuses.
It's not a separate intelligence; it's the next higher one. I'd like to
believe it was an optional talent, since I haven't got it, but all the
obvious geniuses I know do have it and in spades.

I understand having an issue with the difference between one scale of
intelligence, and separate scales, but the two ideas don't have to be
mutually exclusive. The "next higher" level of intelligence would be in
someone who is high in many different areas of intelligence. Someone who
has a high spatial intelligence is not necessarily a genius, as you seem to
imply. Perhaps it just makes them good at parallel parking. Or, perhaps it
is combined with numerous other areas of exceptional strength, to give
someone an edge in almost any endeavour (including tests which are designed
to measure intelligence).

You also seem to be focusing on geniuses, and how this theory applies to
them. But really, taking the top percentile of our population and
attempting to measure and rank their respective levels of intelligence is a
somewhat tedious endeavour best left to Jeopardy or WWTBAM. After all, most
methods of measuring intelligence are a bit like the V-scale; just fine if
you are Fred Nicole, but a little useless if you are attempting to tell the
difference between V0-, and V0--. You can't take a student with reading
difficulties, sit him down in front of the WAIS-III, and expect that the
results are a true measure of his intelligence, rather than a reflection of
his reading disabilities. This year I am teaching a 16 year old who meets
the ministry testing requirements for both Gifted, and Learning Disabled.
Try fitting him into a nice neat little definition of intelligence.

Besides, Gardner was never attempting to measure intelligence; he wanted to
understand it, in a way that could be applied to education. And to that
end, he has been quite successful (you are about a quarter century too late
to voice opposition- multiple intelligence theory is fairly widely accepted
in the educational field, even if educators do a poor job of applying the
ideas in their classrooms). If you keep in mind that this isn't about
measuring intelligence, your accusations of political correctness aren't
really on the mark, either. Its not about finding the inherent value in
underachieving students, so that they can feel good about themselves. Its
about understanding that everyone learns differently, and understanding why
this is the case (every knows that different people learn differently, but
Gardner does the best job of explaining why this is so). Unfortunately, in
most schools in North America we still see 95% of the material delivered in
roughly the same style. Now how intelligent is that?


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Cant Read Music
    ... >> Many believe that being trained gives you musical ability but they're ... > emotions musically and communicate with other musicians. ... But the Beatles did not bend or break any "rules" of harmony, ... > limited by their lack of training and education, ...
    (rec.music.beatles)
  • Re: gifted programs in your area
    ... DS1's school arrange things differently -- they cluster children with similar ability, then make sure that every class has several clusters that span the full range of ability. ... I look back now and pity the poor teachers who took the bottom classes at my primary school -- imagine having to help *30* strugglers! ... if there are students who have really serious ...
    (misc.kids)
  • Re: Harshman says successful reproduction is natural selection
    ... Bob Casanova posted: ... in talk.origins, posted by Damaeus ... not to an increase in ability. ... Interesting that about the age of six is when formal education starts, ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Taking stock of what you know and how far youve come
    ... I am not so far removed from beginner status that I can't remember back, ... Here are some things most of us take for granted, but beginning students ... * ability to keep time internally and not speed up or slow down ... * being able to integrate your picking hand with your fretting hand to ...
    (rec.music.makers.guitar.jazz)
  • Re: Clue bats
    ... certainly been the case that all the language teachers I ... ability, not difference in teaching methods, as the major ... think that one method is best for all students, ... teaching than with specific choices of teaching *methods*. ...
    (rec.arts.sf.composition)
Loading