Louis_Schmier wrote >>� Let me repeat, I haven't seen a real distinction made between an intelligence on one hand and a skill or talent on the other.<<
There is no sharp distinction between metals and non-metals, but there is great value in being able to state unambiguously that copper is a metal and phosphorus is a non-metal. Analogously, though there may be a blurring of the distinction between intelligence and skills/talents, we recognize that Einstein�s development of the theory of general relativity (or Jane Austen�s writing *Pride and Prejudice* for that matter) requires an aptitude that is different in kind from the ability of Rubinstein to perform fireworks on a concert grand, or the skill to �bend it like Beckham� into an opposing team�s goal. (I don�t have to tell Americans that Beckham is the soccer-playing half of �Posh and Becks� [don�t ask!], since that illustrious couple recently visited the States. You didn�t notice? Gosh!) >>� Second, where's the faultiness (sp?) in the research done by Gardiner and Goleman, et al?<< It�s not a matter of the faults in any research done by Gardner or Goleman, but of the validity of extending the concept of intelligence to cover activities for which it is inappropriate to use the term. As Christopher wrote about the attempt �to extend (read: misuse) the word �intelligence� in order to lend historical weight and credibility to their own more questionable projects�: "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 success of those in other domains." 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 > Chris, I agree that going to the roots are lousy ways to approach > contemporary meaning. But, we too often give the image that words are do > precise when any reputable would tell us otherwise. That, however, is the > least of this issue. Let me repeat, I haven't seen a real distinction > made between an intelligence on one hand and a skill or talent on the > other. Maybe, in my layman's terms, some are confusing an inner function > with an outward material manifestation of that function. Not all things, > probably most things, are as easily defined and therefore subject to > observation, definition, and evaluation as we may think. Now, I am not > the best student of language, but I think we too often may be putting too > much faith in words and think they are far stronger and precise than they > are. "Intelligence" is a condition of existence, however uncomfortable > it may be to acknowledge, that is immediately distorted when hemmed in by > words, most of which, Socrates might have said, have a kind of read-into > "oh, you know what I mean" fly-paper quality to which anything can be > stuck. And to make the attempt to create this unnatural condition of > imposed precision may be to create what Huck Finn call "truth with some > stretchers." > > Second, where's the faultiness (sp?) in the research done by > Gardiner and Goleman, et al? > > Some of this reminds me of what someone said, that was we perceive > as truths is a reflection of our acceptances. > > Make it a good day. > > --Louis-- > > > Louis Schmier www.therandomthoughts.com > Department of History www.halcyon.com/arborhts/louis.html > Valdosta State University > Valdosta, Georgia 31698 /~\ /\ /\ > (229-333-5947) /^\ / \ / /~ \ /~\__/\ > / \__/ \/ / /\ /~ \ > /\/\-/ /^\___\______\_______/__/_______/^\ > -_~ / "If you want to climb mountains, \ /^\ > _ _ / don't practice on mole hills" -\____ --- You are currently subscribed to tips as: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
