I listed Gardner's
> > eight criteria or 'signs' of
> > an intelligence:
> >
> >     Potential isolation by brain damage.
> >     The existence of idiots savants, prodigies and other exceptional
> > individuals.
> >     An identifiable core operation or set of operations.
> >     A distinctive development history, along with a definable set of
> > 'end-state' performances.
> >     An evolutionary history and evolutionary plausibility.
> >     Support from experimental psychological tasks.
> >     Support from psychometric findings.
> >     Susceptibility to encoding in a symbol system.

Michael Smith wrote:
> Yeah, but what's the basis for all these "criteria"? Isn't it
> just a way of ginning up an apparent general faculty or
> faculties whether or not they actually exist? Posing the
> question in this elaborately way guarantees the answer.
> Have you stopped beating your wife? Yes or no!

It's not a "question." Gardner used these as criteria in _empirical_
research (going beyond the study of Latin and the OED). For example, a
human ability isn't a kind of intelligence if it can't be lost due to
brain damage. These criteria were needed, as I understand it, to keep
the number of different kinds of intelligences down, so that they
actually contribute something to our knowledge.

me:
> > If one is teaching, it's good to have
> > some guidance for the different dimensions of human skills.

Michael Smith:
> It's not good enough for a teacher to know what his inmates,
> er students, are good at, and what not? How does the teacher
> gain from this "dimensionalization" of skills? Is there any real
> pedagogical payoff here?

well, we don't want to go from the empirical all the way to the
empiricist. Actual experience with real-world students is very
important to teaching. But it helps to have a broader framework. To my
mind, it makes the most sense to go back in forth -- in a dialectic,
if you will -- between the concrete and the abstract, rather than
being caught up in either total observation of "facts" or total
abstract theorizing.
--
Jim Devine /  "The trick for radicals has been and will be to make of
earth a heaven, but without blind faith." -- Mike Yates.

Reply via email to