On 26 Apr 2004 06:59:31 -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Peter Flom) wrote: > Rich Ulrich wrote > <<< > - Just *one* thing? I don't believe there is, though it often is > useful to talk about intelligence that way. > > Have you read Gardner's multiple intelligences? That sounds awkward, > but google gives 39,300 hits for < "multiple intelligences" Gardner > > .>>> > > Yes, I have read Gardner's work. I think it makes an already confusing > term (intelligence) even more confusing by conflating various abilities > and calling them all intelligence. IIRC correctly, he came up with > seven 'intelligences' including interpersonal intelligence, > intrapersonal intelligence, artistic intlelligence, and so on. (I may > have the names wrong - been a while since I read his book). Now, I am > perfectly willing to admit that these other abilities exist - but I > think it helps nothing to call them 'intelligence'. >
Oh, but it helps! What is the 'intelligence' debate about, anyway? Starting with Spearman's g, a vital issue has been whether or not there is a single core underlying 'various abilities.' Mostly, there is not, it seems from his evidence. I thought that his book was overly stringent in applying a set of strict criteria -- I was willing argue for a couple more than the seven he settled on, using his own evidence and discussions. >From a googled web site - "Linguistic Musical Logical-Mathematical Spatial Bodily-Kinesthetic Personal [Intra- and Inter-] "Although he identified these seven intelligences (even more in the meantime), he came to the conclusion that it is perhaps impossible, to attempt to measure a what we might call 'raw' intelligence. ..." The usual IQ tests focus on three of those. The testing itself is mediated by Personal skills, I think: the good testee has to relate with proper enthusiasm to the test situation - a drawback for low-status children - and the testee has to know to assume the appropriate context for the problems or questions that are posed. -- I wonder if those Personal skills might be responsible for the world-wide increase in 'measured IQ' in recent generations... just a thought. What should we educate? evaluate? In the process of educating, what deficiencies do we need to compensate for? or what strengths exist that we can build on? > > I wrote > > > > > As to the difficulty of problems - that can at least be assessed by > > giving the problem to lots and lots of people, and seeing how many > can > > solve it. > > Rich replied > <<< > After that, debrief and check carefully where ever a few of the top > scorers make the same error. Lots of people can be wrong. > >>> > > Absolutely > > > Peter > -- Rich Ulrich, [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.pitt.edu/~wpilib/index.html . . ================================================================= Instructions for joining and leaving this list, remarks about the problem of INAPPROPRIATE MESSAGES, and archives are available at: . http://jse.stat.ncsu.edu/ . =================================================================
