In response to my writing: > Incidentally, I wish that IQ was discussed in terms of well-constructed > IQ tests > being a measure (albeit imperfect) of *cognitive* intelligence, > rather than �intelligence�. Any comments on this also welcome!
Christopher Green replied: >>Wouldn't this just give the game over to all those who have, of late, attempted to "extend" (read: misuse) the word "intelligence" in order to lend historical weight and credibility to their own more questionable projects (e.g., emotional intelligence, social intelligence, spiritual intelligence, etc.). The word comes from the same root as "intellect." What could be more "cognitive" than that? If there are other mental virtues we want to study (emotional *sensitivity*? social *skill*? spiritual *awareness*?) then let's call them by their right names rather than try to falsely capitalize on the succes of those in other domains.<< I couldn�t agree more with almost all of this! Howard Gardner�s notion of �multiple intelligences� is an abuse of the word �intelligence� � mostly he is writing about talents and skills. And yet� Is there not a genuine use of the word �intelligence� to describe the ability to accurately interpret other people�s behaviour, and to respond to it �intelligently�. I have a vague recollection of a theory that the complex interactions between early humans in groups was a major factor in the rapid development of the brain. (I�m sure someone can help me out on that one!) Is it not arguable that the aptitude for this kind of psychological insight is an aspect of intelligence that is not directly measured by IQ tests. No doubt there is a strong correlation with IQ as measured by intelligence tests, but I suspect that some people with mediocre IQ are highly effective when it comes to psychological insight into other people�s behaviour. If this is the case, it is arguably a valid reason for having reservations about the notion that IQ is a measure of �intelligence� as generally understood in common speech. (I leave aside the far more numerous spurious reasons for objecting to the concept of IQ.) Over to you, Christopher (and others)! Allen Esterson Former lecturer, Science Department Southwark College, London [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.human-nature.com/esterson/index.html www.butterfliesandwheels.com/articleprint.php?num=10 --- You are currently subscribed to tips as: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
