RJ, I'm try in to understand what exactly offended you here. I have to agree with Louis. When Allen says Gardner should be using the "right words" I, too, questioned the statement. As scientist we all use operational definitions. The "right words" depend on how you define and measure them not how Webster or Oxford determine they should be used. Allen still hasn't shown where Gardners research is faulty or illustrated how he is operationally defining intelligence or talents. This, I think, is the biggest problem with the measure of intelligence. Do we define it based upon processes or outcomes? Why is certain types of thinking considered more intelligent than other types? Why are we wedded to the idea of it being inborn rather than developed?
Subject: MI-Schmier campaign From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Thu, 28 Aug 2003 10:55:55 EDT
I am offended by the tenor of your response to Allen's well worded response. It seems obvious that you are itching for another argument on semantics when the distinctions being discussed are central to the definition of intelligence in our field. ...
Please be more professional in your responses...
Ultimately it seems to me that "intelligence testing" comes down to game playing. The test maker sets up the rules and the test taker has to respond in a way that shows s/he figured out the rules and this is what we define as intelligence. Any deviation is discounted. We don't consider alternative interpretations or points of view as valid responses.
At least that has been my experience.
--
Herb Coleman
IT Manager, Rio Grande Campus
Adjunct Psychology Professor
Austin Community College
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
512-223-3076
*********************************************
* Every action has a connected and directed * * pre-action. *
*********************************************
-Herb Coleman after seeing "Bowling for Columbine"
--- You are currently subscribed to tips as: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
