Why I�m bothering after all my good resolutions, I really don�t know. But what the hell� I feel like someone who keeps promising to give up smoking, but gives in just one more time (again). But this really *is* the last time I�m taking Louis�s bait.
Louis Schmier wrote: > Allen, I'm confused on two issues. Words, whether in common usage or > discipline usage, always have their meaning altered within the context of > changing culture and discovery of new information and new understandings. > Merely because Gardner's use of intelligence in a far broader meaning than > that limited to the traditional verbal and logical intelligences is not an > automatic reason for rejection. Any definition or understanding of > "intelligence" is not and never was fixed in stone. Were it to be than > the discipline would stagnate in a state of stasis. The more we learn the > more the meanings change. First, Gardner's extension of the meaning of 'intelligence' is nothing to do with our learning new knowledge, but with Gardner's arbitrary personal choice. Second, even if it were arguable to extend the meaning of intelligence as understood within the main areas of academic psychology (which I don't accept anyway, as to do so makes for confusion, since all previous discussion and research studies in the main areas of academic psychology have been in terms of specific definitions), there would still be no case in favour of a *far* broader meaning. You write as if changes in meaning of key words in an academic discipline are no different from the changes in meaning of words in 'ordinary' life. If you can't see the difference, nothing I can say can resolve our differences. >I'm not sure I understand what you mean by the distinction between your definition of intelligence and that of the discipline.< When I'm discussing 'intelligence' in an academic framework (as against in 'ordinary' life), *I* don't have a *personal* definition. Otherwise no discussion would be possible, since everyone would have their own definition and the discipline would resemble a tower of Babel. It's all yours Louis. But don't expect another response (from me at least). Ping-pong is an enjoyable game, but gets tedious if it goes on too long. 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 > Allen, I'm confused on two issues. Words, whether in common usage or > discipline usage, always have their meaning altered within the context of > changing culture and discovery of new information and new understandings. > Merely because Gardner's use of intelligence in a far broader meaning than > that limited to the traditional verbal and logical intelligences is not an > automatic reason for rejection. Any definition or understanding of > "intelligence" is not and never was fixed in stone. Were it to be than > the discipline would stagnate in a state of stasis. The more we learn the > more the meanings change. > Second, I'm not sure I understand what you mean > by the distinction between your definition of intelligence and that of the > discipline. Did something ethereal and sentient called "discipline" come > up with a defiinition. Someone, another person, had to come up with a > definition of intelligence based on some kind of research. You are the > discipline. Other person are the discipline. The discipline is > non-existent without people. There is no discipline of psychology without > psychologists. In fact, the discipline per se is an invention or creation > of people such as LeMettrie dating back to the 18th century. So, it would > seem to me that psychology is the sum of individual discoveries, theories, > examinations, learnings, teachings, etc, all of which are always in a > state of flux because of the challenges, contributions, additions, and > modifications to understanding. > > Gardner's definition is, if I remember correctly, as he wrote in Frames of > Mind: the ability to solve problems or create products, that are valued > in one or more cultural settings. He also added that intelligence > involves a set of skills need to solve problems as well as the potential > to gather new knowledge to offer solutions to problems. And, as you know, > went on to say that abiility is not limited to computational > and verbal, arguing that reason, intelligence, logic, knowledge are not > synonymous. > > Again, understanding a lot of the objections posed by critics, I ask, > what's your definition of intelligence? > > Make it a good day. > > 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]
