Multiple Intelligences Theory

Multiple Intelligences Theory
Mellissa
Newbie

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Sep 03, 2003

Total Topics: 10
Total Posts: 0
#1 - Quote - Permalink
Posted Sep 20, 2003 - 7:53 AM:

Maieutic wrote:
This is off-topic, so I'll keep it brief...

Emotional intelligence is a misnomer designed by those that think emotion deserves some equal status with real intelligence. It's something the politically-correct Howard Gardner used to pander to the emotions of a subclass of people that never did have enough smarts. And, as science would have it, he has absolutely NO empirical data concerning his "interpersonal" and "intrapersonal" intelligence theories.


While I realize that the intrapersonal and interpersonal are the weakest of his intelligences, but to say that it is for a subclass of people that never did have the smarts runs contrary to the entire theory. It's not a matter of trying to fit these individuals into our current paradigm of intelligence, rather it is shifting the paradigm to illuminate other areas that we've never thought of as being relevant with regard to intelligence. Do you even realize the impact the theory has on intrinsic motivation?

I'm going to start a new thread with this.

For those of you unfamiliar with Gardner's theory...let me know. I'll explain it. Of course, I'm currently working with his group on a paper involving its application, so I'm biased.
Mellissa
Newbie

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Sep 03, 2003

Total Topics: 10
Total Posts: 0
#2 - Quote - Permalink
Posted Sep 20, 2003 - 7:55 AM:

Gardner's theory has nothing to do with emotions or the importance of emotive quotient. Intrapersonal and interpersonal are aptitudes. It's not the ability to be emotionally intuitive that is the issue, it's the skill of interacting and self reflection that is the focus.
Maieutic
Newbie

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jun 24, 2003

Total Topics: 27
Total Posts: 0
#3 - Quote - Permalink
Posted Sep 20, 2003 - 7:57 AM:

If you consider a fistful of anecdotes as hard evidence, then I could see how Gardner's theory might be appealing. The "g" factor is by far the most documented, quantified explanation of intelligence we have as of yet. Comparing the work of Gardner and Jensen is like comparing the work of Monet and Einstein.
Maieutic
Newbie

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jun 24, 2003

Total Topics: 27
Total Posts: 0
#4 - Quote - Permalink
Posted Sep 20, 2003 - 8:00 AM:

http://www.prometheussociety.org/articles/multiple.html

This link provides a concise coverage that the average reader might prefer over a book.
Maieutic
Newbie

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jun 24, 2003

Total Topics: 27
Total Posts: 0
#5 - Quote - Permalink
Posted Sep 20, 2003 - 8:07 AM:

It's not a matter of trying to fit these individuals into our current paradigm of intelligence, rather it is shifting the paradigm to illuminate other areas that we've never thought of as being relevant with regard to intelligence. Do you even realize the impact the theory has on intrinsic motivation?


To paraphrase Antony Flew, "You can't make silk purses out of sows' ears."
Mellissa
Newbie

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Sep 03, 2003

Total Topics: 10
Total Posts: 0
#6 - Quote - Permalink
Posted Sep 20, 2003 - 8:09 AM:

Maieutic wrote:
If you consider a fistful of anecdotes as hard evidence, then I could see how Gardner's theory might be appealing. The "g" factor is by far the most documented, quantified explanation of intelligence we have as of yet. Comparing the work of Gardner and Jensen is like comparing the work of Monet and Einstein.



O.k., you made a great analogy with Monet and Einstein, but you are still working within the traditional framework of intelligence. Exactly what do you consider intelligence? The ability to reason? The ability to solve puzzles on an IQ test. Simply because that might be one's intellectual strength, does not grant it anymore validity than say visual arts.

Scoring well on an exam full of puzzles and patterns is not the only way to be considered intelligent. I would consider a great work of art as another measure. The theory is testable.

Art, music, self reflection...they all require a great deal of thought and ability. Here's where Dennett might agree with Gardner. It's simply giving credit to other areas of apptitude than just puzzle solving.

And that superior attitude of most people who are highly intelligent by current standards is just protecting their territory. Lord forbid anyone sneak through the door of that exclusive club.

I happen to fall into the area of being highly intelligent according to the traditional model, but everyone who knows me, knows that I'm a complete airhead. I'm just trying to illustrate that our traditional way of viewing intelligence is more a measure of how well people do analyzing than anything else. Are we limiting intelligence to that?
Mellissa
Newbie

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Sep 03, 2003

Total Topics: 10
Total Posts: 0
#7 - Quote - Permalink
Posted Sep 20, 2003 - 8:10 AM:

Maieutic wrote:
http://www.prometheussociety.org/articles/multiple.html

This link provides a concise coverage that the average reader might prefer over a book.


Thanks for the link for those needing background.
Mellissa
Newbie

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Sep 03, 2003

Total Topics: 10
Total Posts: 0
#8 - Quote - Permalink
Posted Sep 20, 2003 - 8:12 AM:

Maieutic wrote:
To paraphrase Antony Flew, "You can't make silk purses out of sows' ears."


quite a gross oversimplification

still need to break out of the box
Maieutic
Newbie

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jun 24, 2003

Total Topics: 27
Total Posts: 0
#9 - Quote - Permalink
Posted Sep 20, 2003 - 8:23 AM:

Mellissa wrote:

And that superior attitude of most people who are highly intelligent by current standards is just protecting their territory. Lord forbid anyone sneak through the door of that exclusive club.


The exclusiveness you mention is the very reason why Gardner's "g" factor theory is the most sophisticated at present. Exclusiveness presupposes a hard standard, and frankly that is nonexistent when dealing with "art, music, and self-reflection." It would be a litotes to say that philosophers and the general public still have not synthesized a clear definition of "art," which music is subsumed under. It amuses me how you criticize the supposedly lopsided, traditional view of intelligence by citing alternatives that are far more Protean.
fantasy pony
Newbie

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jun 20, 2003
Location: CA

Total Topics: 4
Total Posts: 0
#10 - Quote - Permalink
Posted Sep 20, 2003 - 8:54 AM:

Maietiuc-
regarding your response in the battle of sexes thread: I didn't base my statement on Gardener and your response had no relativity to the female genetic makeup as Wanderer initially claimed to be so. While my statement wasn't based on the following link, I have browsed through it which in turn has developed my opinion about emotional intelligence:

http://eqi.org/index.htm

I find it hard to understand that anyone would actually need a "G theory" or any person outside of themselves to realize that emotional intelligence IS an element to a "well rounded" or honorable intellect worth identifing. Even if you were truely a person who recognized nothing as important unless of coarse you had seen it in writing, I'm certain you accept that written laws or theories have the probability to change over time. Given that change is a constant, the disregard for unacceptable evidence on your behalf is a bit circumvented from reality.

Perhaps you are a male? For the record, as a female, I found much stability in understanding hormonal fluxuations that take place (lucky us) every month can and actually do have an effect on how I react in certain circumstances. Understanding those emotions as they took place enabled me to ground my state of mind and prohibit natural response (or coping) behaviors that may have otherwise seemed irrational.

I hope that philosphers of tomorrow actually depend on their own sense of self to determine theory rather than wrap themselves up in simply the teachings of others.
locked
Download thread as
  • 0/5
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5



This thread is closed, so you cannot post a reply.