Herb Coleman wrote: > �� When Allen says Gardner should be using the "right > words" I, too, questioned the statement. As scientists 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.
The above statement of Herb�s might perhaps be taken as an illustration of why we must be careful about how we use words in an academic discipline. Anyone reading the statement would assume that I had written that Gardner should be using the �right words�, but in fact I did not do so. What I wrote was that it was �inappropriate� to extend the meaning of �intelligence� to cover the range of activities encompassed in Gardner�s writings on this subject (citing the reasons given by Christopher Green). I don�t need to emphasise the importance of reproducing quotations of other people�s words accurately in the academic world, but this is not just a quibble. The words �right� and �appropriate� are not synonyms. > � Allen still hasn't shown where Gardners research is faulty� I�ve already answered that point (see TIPS Digest for Aug. 28). (It is irrelevant to the question at issue.) >�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?. It is not a question of how *I* define intelligence, but how it is defined within the discipline. (That is, before Gardner confused the issue by propagating his greatly extended version. Readers of Gardner�s writings will appreciate that a probable motivation is his sympathy with the modern aversion in some quarters to any kind of �discrimination�. Using Gardner�s all-encompassing notion, (almost) all must have prizes.) Definitions of �intelligence� in the field of academic psychology can be ascertained by consulting relevant texts. (A *precise* definition is not relevant to *this* discussion. All that matters is that the concept as used in academic psychology excludes many of Gardner�s �intelligences�.) The other issues in Herb�s questions just quoted are too complex to discuss here (and it really needs a specialist in the field to deal with them adequately and succinctly without having to undertake the time-consuming job of tracking down the relevant literature). But the main point is that an immense amount of thought *has* been given to Herb�s questions by those who have been directly involved with developments in the field. > Why are we wedded to the idea of it being inborn rather than developed? (a) No one in the field takes the extreme view implied in this question (in other words, it is not either one or the other). (b) I suggest that Herb reads the considerable mass of a research material and analysis/discussion in this field that goes way beyond taking a �wedded� view. (See the references in my message (thread �Bias in IQ tests�) in TIPS Digest for Aug 29 for starters.) > 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. This somewhat simplistic view of academically supervised intelligence testing fails to recognize the immense amount of work that has gone into the theory and practice of IQ measurement. My experience with this subject is that it is of such complexity that arriving at an informed opinion (tentative to a greater or lesser degree, so always open to modification) on the issues raised requires an enormous amount of effort to examine the relevant research, literature and debates. 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 Herb Coleman wrote: > �� When Allen says Gardner should be using the "right > words" I, too, questioned the statement. As scientists 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. The above statement of Herb�s might perhaps be taken as an illustration of why we must be careful about how we use words in an academic discipline. Anyone reading the statement would assume that I had written that Gardner should be using the �right words�, but in fact I did not do so. What I wrote was that it was �inappropriate� to extend the meaning of �intelligence� to cover the range of activities encompassed in Gardner�s writings on this subject (citing the reasons given by Christopher Green). I don�t need to emphasise the importance of reproducing quotations of other people�s words accurately in the academic world, but this is not just a quibble. The words �right� and �appropriate� are not synonyms. > � Allen still hasn't shown where Gardners research is faulty� I�ve already answered that point (see TIPS Digest for Aug. 28). It is irrelevant to the question at issue. >�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?. It is not a question of how *I* define intelligence, but how it is defined within the discipline. (That is, before Gardner confused the issue by propagating his greatly extended version. Readers of Gardner�s writings will appreciate that a probable motivation is his sympathy with the modern aversion in some quarters to any kind of �discrimination�. Using Gardner�s all-encompassing notion, (almost) all must have prizes.) Definitions of �intelligence� in the field of academic psychology can be ascertained by consulting relevant texts. (A *precise* definition is not relevant to *this* discussion. All that matters is that the concept as used in academic psychology excludes many of Gardner�s �intelligences�.) The other issues in Herb�s questions just quoted are too complex to discuss here (and it really needs a specialist in the field to deal with them adequately and succinctly without having to undertake the time-consuming job of tracking down the relevant literature). But the main point is that an immense amount of thought *has* been given to Herb�s questions by those who have been directly involved with developments in the field. > Why are we wedded to the idea of it being inborn rather than developed? (a) No one in the field takes the extreme view implied in this question (in other words, it is not either one or the other). (b) I suggest that Herb reads the considerable mass of a research material and analysis/discussion in this field that goes way beyond taking a �wedded� view. (See the references in my message (thread �Bias in IQ tests�) in TIPS Digest for Aug 29 for starters.) > 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. This somewhat simplistic view of academically supervised intelligence testing fails to recognize the immense amount of work that has gone into the theory and practice of IQ measurement. My experience with this subject is that it is of such complexity that arriving at an informed opinion (tentative to a greater or lesser degree, so always open to modification) on the issues raised requires an enormous amount of effort to examine the relevant research, literature and debates. 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 Subject: Re: tips digest: August 28, 2003 From: Herb Coleman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Fri, 29 Aug 2003 09:15:19 -0500 > >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... > > > > > 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? > > 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 --- You are currently subscribed to tips as: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
