the different types of Intelligence

[cacian]

a) what is intelligence according to you?
and
b)what different types of intelligence are you aware of?


I will start

a) Intelligence is the ability to associate with the environment and people in a positive and sensible manner. It is also an understanding of how life and people function together.
In other word intelligence is a harmonious logical feeling that rejuvinates itself when in contact with other similar feelings.

b) Emotional Intelligence is one type I am aware of.

[JuniperWoolf]

Athletic intelligence is one that people often overlook. Being very physically fit is something that almost anyone can work towards, but having the spacial knowledge to do impressive things in your sport and a mind which reacts quickly to rapidly changing situations is what seperates the Sidney Crosbys from the Ales Hemskys

[stlukesguild]

Athletic intelligence is one that people often overlook. Being very physically fit is something that almost anyone can work towards, but having the spacial knowledge to do impressive things in your sport and a mind which reacts quickly to rapidly changing situations is what seperates the Sidney Crosbys from the Ales Hemskys

Ooh! I actually agree with Juniper.:cheers2: In fact I've posted several times on Howard Gardner's theory of "Multiple Intelligences" and later research into the field. While physical attributes such as height, speed, strength, etc... have nothing to do with intelligence, the differences in these from one athlete to another in no way account for or explain huge differences in ability. As Juniper suggests, Gardner's theory posited an "Athletic Intelligence" which included mental capabilities in the spatial realm as well as the ability to intuitively surmise what an opponent is likely to do and respond accordingly at a far faster rate than a lesser athlete. In other words, Michael Jordan didn't physically dominate the game of basketball and all of his opponents, but rather he out-thought his opponents.

I must admit Juniper's examples (Crosby and Hernsky) left me thinking "Huh! Who?" and running to Wikipedia. Hockey! I suspected as much. Only a Canadian would think Hockey was a real sport... let alone one that anyone outside the Great White North could possibly be familiar with or car about in the very least.

Returning to the OP... Gardner's Theory of Multiple Intelligences... which owes much to his study of the different parts of the human brain... especially those damaged due to stroke... suggests that there are an endless array of "Intelligences" rather than a single Intelligence often thought as being most obviously displayed in abilities in mathematics, science, and verbal (reading comprehension) etc... For years, abilities in music or art or athletics were deemed as "gifts". While this was no doubt intended in a complimentary manner, it often suggests that the musical, artistic, athletic "master" was merely born with some ability toward which he or she didn't really need to labor... and this "gift" had little or nothing to do with intelligence. It is now recognized that Duke Ellington, Richard Strauss, Picasso and Matisse; Proust and T.S. Eliot; Michael Jordan and Babe Ruth were every bit the "genius" as Einstein. Their intelligence merely revealed itself in different areas of thinking.

Gardner's Theory of Multiple Intelligences posited 8 different "Intelligences":

Spatial
Linguistic
Logical-mathematical
Bodily-kinesthetic
Musical
Interpersonal
Intrapersonal
Naturalistic

Further researchers have posited still more areas of intelligence. There are a number of scientists/researchers who dissent from this theory... but then again there is something of a conflict of interest involving those who wish to reserve the concept of "intelligence" solely to that capable of being measured in scientific terms through standardized testing methods.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_multiple_intelligences

[Buh4Bee]

Juniper is right. Not everyone realizes that professional athletes are often very smart when it comes to tasks that require spatial relations. We often quickly assess how smart someone is by how well spoken they are, but this can be misleading. It's very easy to dismiss a capable person.

Just responding to the last 2 posts.

[MarkBastable]

a) Intelligence is the ability to associate with the environment and people in a positive and sensible manner.

This seems to me to be a morally judgemental and intrinsically subjective view of intelligence:


first because it requires some kind of basis for a definition of 'positive',
second because it then requires that it would be by definition unintelligent not to associate in that 'positive' way and
third because what's considered 'sensible' is, unavoidably, subjective, so if you use it as a criterion for identifying or quantifying intelligence, then you're making intelligence subjective too.


Or, to put it the other way round, in Silence of the Lambs, Hannibal Lecter is obviously very intelligent indeed. Although that's fiction, I don't think anyone would say that a person like that could not exist in the real world.

[papayahed]

Or, to put it the other way round, in Silence of the Lambs, Hannibal Lecter is obviously very intelligent indeed. Although that's fiction, I don't think anyone would say that a person like that could not exist in the real world.

Take away the deranged lunatic killer part did anybody else find Hannibal Lector a charming and sexy man?

[Scheherazade]

a) Intelligence is the ability to associate with the environment and people in a positive and sensible manner. It is also an understanding of how life and people function together.
In other word intelligence is a harmonious logical feeling that rejuvinates itself when in contact with other similar feelings.Is this your own definition, Cacian, or quoted from another source?

Take away the deranged lunatic killer part did anybody else find Hannibal Lector a charming and sexy man?So, we are not supposed to say we found him charming and sexy because of his... his "killer" qualities?

I sometimes find all this a little too far fetched (rotten tomatoes to my right, eggs to my left, please). Isn't this another way of saying "talented"? Being talented in arts or languages or maths or sports?

[stlukesguild]

I sometimes find all this a little too far fetched (rotten tomatoes to my right, eggs to my left, please). Isn't this another way of saying "talented"? Being talented in arts or languages or maths or sports?

Does anyone refer to the physicist or the biologist or the engineer, mathematician, or professor of literature specializing in medieval German literature as "talented". It is commonly a term used to refer to artists, musicians, athletes, etc... As I suggested above, while referring to a musician, artist, or athlete as "talented" may in most cases have been intended in a complimentary manner, it has a subtle inference that somehow these abilities are not the product of "intelligence". The stereotype of the "dumb jock" is certainly far more prevalent than the stereotype of the dumb physicist or college professor... yet how many academics have we come across who appeared socially stunted and incapable of even throwing a ball straight? If we accept the concept of multiple intelligences, we can recognize that while a musician or athlete might be rather limited in their abilities with regard to language or mathematics, that in no way is any more proof of a lack of intelligence than the physicist or PhD. in medieval studies who is completely lacking in the ability to relate to others or any athletic "skill".

This whole question hearkens back to the question concerning whether a poet is born with his or her ability... "talent"... or whether it is the product of learning... practice. Nature or Nurture? The concept of Multiple Intelligences would posit the possibility that we are born hard-wired with the ability or aptitude to grasp and master certain concepts/skills more rapidly and with a greater fluidity than others. Some individuals are born with abilities to grasp and master certain concepts/skills to a degree well beyond the norm. It would seem that we can only refer to this as a "genius". Real achievement within any discipline, however, would seem to be the result of a combination of talent/aptitude/intelligence and effort/practice... although the balance is in no way always the same from one individual to the next.

I've always thought Paul Cezanne was an interesting case. He should be the artistic poster child for the Protestant Work Ethic. Cezanne grew up with Emil Zola in the South of France. Zola eventually moved to Paris and rapidly established himself as the urbane, sophisticated, and cultured man of the arts. His social circle was made up of painters, poets, novelists, sculptors, composers, actors and actresses, and beautiful women well-versed in the arts. Cezanne eventually followed Zola to Paris... but he exhibited a complete lack of any social skills. Indeed, he was almost intentionally anti-social. He would sit taciturnly at gatherings not saying a word. If asked for an opinion on a given topic, he might burst out in profanity or merely let off a belch or a fart.

His painting didn't display much more ability. He lacked anything approaching the ability to draw:

http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8158/7463254108_a231a1bb65_t.jpg (http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8158/7463254108_a231a1bb65_c.jpg)

There is nothing even vaguely suggesting the sort of fluidity and mastery of drawing exhibited by an artist such as Degas... who could render in the most academic manner:

http://i1245.photobucket.com/albums/gg581/StlukesguildOhio/th_Holistic-Massage-Life-Alignment-Therapy_50520_image.jpg (http://s1245.photobucket.com/albums/gg581/StlukesguildOhio/?action=view&current=Holistic-Massage-Life-Alignment-Therapy_50520_image.jpg)

Or could capture the form, gesture and even personality in but a limited number of marks:

http://i1245.photobucket.com/albums/gg581/StlukesguildOhio/th_Edouard-Manet-Standing-circa-1866-1868-Musee-d-Orsay-France.jpg (http://s1245.photobucket.com/albums/gg581/StlukesguildOhio/?action=view&current=Edouard-Manet-Standing-circa-1866-1868-Musee-d-Orsay-France.jpg)

http://i1245.photobucket.com/albums/gg581/StlukesguildOhio/th_Degas-Edouard_Manet_Seated.jpg (http://s1245.photobucket.com/albums/gg581/StlukesguildOhio/?action=view&current=Degas-Edouard_Manet_Seated.jpg)

http://i1245.photobucket.com/albums/gg581/StlukesguildOhio/th_dancer_by_degas.jpg (http://s1245.photobucket.com/albums/gg581/StlukesguildOhio/?action=view&current=dancer_by_degas.jpg)

His paintings are even worse... crude and lumpen... built up in endless layers... showing a complete lack of understanding of form and space:

http://i1245.photobucket.com/albums/gg581/StlukesguildOhio/th_Paul-Cezanne-XX-Portrait-of-the-Painter-Achille-Emperaire-1868.jpg (http://s1245.photobucket.com/albums/gg581/StlukesguildOhio/?action=view&current=Paul-Cezanne-XX-Portrait-of-the-Painter-Achille-Emperaire-1868.jpg)

http://i1245.photobucket.com/albums/gg581/StlukesguildOhio/th_cezannefather.jpg (http://s1245.photobucket.com/albums/gg581/StlukesguildOhio/?action=view&current=cezannefather.jpg)

Anything involving the nude was even worse... perhaps the result of his own ingrained prudery:

http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7138/7463254138_b430520a10_t.jpg (http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7138/7463254138_b430520a10.jpg)

After some years in Paris, Cezanne returned to the South and France and was nearly forgotten. But there he continued to labor away. The dealer Ambrose Vollard speaks of Cezanne spending years on a single canvas... building up layer after layer, then scraping it all away... often exploding in anger and throwing the painting out the window where endless canvasses hung from the trees. And yet with time... his persistence and determination resulted in an art of unique genius. The paintings were still build up in layer after layer... and they still exhibit his absolute lack of ability to convey clear form and spatial relationships... but these "failings" eventually take on a genius of their own... and ultimately suggest some of the distortions that will give birth to Picasso's Cubism:

http://i1245.photobucket.com/albums/gg581/StlukesguildOhio/th_StillLifewithPeachesandPears.jpg (http://s1245.photobucket.com/albums/gg581/StlukesguildOhio/?action=view&current=StillLifewithPeachesandPears.jpg)

http://i1245.photobucket.com/albums/gg581/StlukesguildOhio/th_houses-at-the-l-estaque-1880.jpg (http://s1245.photobucket.com/albums/gg581/StlukesguildOhio/?action=view&current=houses-at-the-l-estaque-1880.jpg)

http://i1245.photobucket.com/albums/gg581/StlukesguildOhio/th_cezannestilllifewithapples.jpg (http://s1245.photobucket.com/albums/gg581/StlukesguildOhio/?action=view&current=cezannestilllifewithapples.jpg)

One suspects that Cezanne is far from being a unique situation... although honestly I prefer the artists who are much more fluid... much more "natural"... who were seemingly born with an unbelievable talent/aptitude/intelligence for rapidly mastering the concepts and skills involved in painting.

[cacian]

Quote:
Originally Posted by cacian

a) Intelligence is the ability to associate with the environment and people in a positive and sensible manner. It is also an understanding of how life and people function together.
In other word intelligence is a harmonious logical feeling that rejuvinates itself when in contact with other simila
feelings.



Is this your own definition, Cacian, or quoted from another source?

Hi Scher this is my own definition.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

We're some of you trying to suggest that being an athlete makes one smart, or did I misunderstand something? I'm not in any way suggesting that all athletes are dumb, but imdontmsee how being athlete somehow imorovesmonesmintelligence, at least outside of that person's sport. The jocks I went to school with were, for the most part,minions. Amd have you seen some football and basketball players talk? It's not a matter of just not being well spoken--some of them are downright incoherent. And even if they are intelligent in their sport, like Michael Jordan . . . so? Plenty of people are intelligent in their respective fields. I don't see why athletes should be held on a higher platform than anyone else.

[JuniperWoolf]

Ooh! I actually agree with Juniper.:cheers2:

:p We should both mark this day down in our calenders.


I must admit Juniper's examples (Crosby and Hernsky) left me thinking "Huh! Who?" and running to Wikipedia. Hockey! I suspected as much. Only a Canadian would think Hockey was a real sport... let alone one that anyone outside the Great White North could possibly be familiar with or car about in the very least.

Hey! Russia and the Nordics like it too! I mean come on, flying around at 45 km/h in sub zero temperatures with knives strapped to your feet? That's way more badass than men bumping into each other over a brown leather ellipsoid.


Take away the deranged lunatic killer part did anybody else find Hannibal Lector a charming and sexy man?

Yes, he was my literary childhood crush. I was willing to overlook the eating of people as long as he kept it fictional.


We're some of you trying to suggest that being an athlete makes one smart, or did I misunderstand something?

You did, the argument isn't that "being an athlete makes one smart," it's that being a good athlete incorporates many mental capabilities which must be considered intelligence, since they are not physical. These markers of athetic intelligence include keen spacial awareness, the ability to predict your opponent's moves, and the ability to react quickly to rapidly changing situations.

[The Comedian]

I'm quite familiar with Gardner's multiple intelligence theory too. It's fine, I guess. But I don't really believe it, though many other people do.

I'm not going to pretend I'm psychologist or neuroscience expert, though. Anyway, here's what I raise my eyebrow at, regarding multiple intelligences: it feels like the awards ceremony at a YMCA youth basketball league -- an "everyone gets a medal" feel, a "we're all winners" feel that rings false (or at least embellished) to me.

I see it used to say, "this person is smart because of her Y intelligence". . . . "and you, well you're so M intelligence". . . ."and wow! did you see his C intelligence? Momma must be proud". . . ."not too many people have her A intelligence. Neat-o!" And so on. . .everyone gets a certificate saying how smart he or she is in his or her own special way.

But maybe it's true. Who knows.

[Buh4Bee]

We're some of you trying to suggest that being an athlete makes one smart, or did I misunderstand something? I'm not in any way suggesting that all athletes are dumb, but imdontmsee how being athlete somehow imorovesmonesmintelligence, at least outside of that person's sport. The jocks I went to school with were, for the most part,minions. Amd have you seen some football and basketball players talk? It's not a matter of just not being well spoken--some of them are downright incoherent. And even if they are intelligent in their sport, like Michael Jordan . . . so? Plenty of people are intelligent in their respective fields. I don't see why athletes should be held on a higher platform than anyone else.

I hear what you are saying MM, I was saying that they are smart when it comes to doing tasks that require spatial relations. Juniper, already remarked on this. They may be good trainers, because they have such a sharp understanding of the body in space. An athlete may be a very good carpenter, which takes a lot of coordination. So when you listen to an athlete speak and they are not well spoken, it is easy to dismiss them as stupid. However, this person may be one hell of a trainer or landscaper- whatever the talent is that is not expressed through language. And I agree that there are a lot of meat heads out there. Hope that clarifies my point.

[Buh4Bee]

I'm quite familiar with Gardner's multiple intelligence theory too. It's fine, I guess. But I don't really believe it, though many other people do.

I'm not going to pretend I'm psychologist or neuroscience expert, though. Anyway, here's what I raise my eyebrow at, regarding multiple intelligences: it feels like the awards ceremony at a YMCA youth basketball league -- an "everyone gets a medal" feel, a "we're all winners" feel that rings false (or at least embellished) to me.

I see it used to say, "this person is smart because of her Y intelligence". . . . "and you, well you're so M intelligence". . . ."and wow! did you see his C intelligence? Momma must be proud". . . ."not too many people have her A intelligence. Neat-o!" And so on. . .everyone gets a certificate saying how smart he or she is in his or her own special way.

But maybe it's true. Who knows.

I so agree with you Comedian. We elementary teachers like the theory, because we are so desperate to get all the kids to understand math, reading, and writing. We'll teach curriculum in a mutli-modal approach. This theory is more applicable to teaching younger children, because they lack the metacognitive strategies to control their learning. But on your level, college students need to adapt to their learning environment, not the other way around as happens in elementary school.

[Hawkman]

Intelligence is basically an ability to make connections between knoweldge gained by experience, circumstances and possible outcomes. It has a lot to do with solving problems. To a certain extent it is trainable as practice speeds up thought processes and reaction time. Some people's minds are naturally better at this than others. Physical coordination between hand and eye doesn't necessarily equate with intellecual ability though, so although a carpenter may be skilled, if he doesn't know anything else except how to work wood, he may not necessarily qualify as "intelligent." Likewise, skill in interpersonal relationships isn't something which I would connect with intelligence. Mostly it's down to good manners, and/or the appearance at least, of empathy or concern for the feelings of others. The ability to manipulate other people might be considered intelligence, but because people tend to do this to their own advantage it is often placed in the catergory of "Low Cunning."

A good memory, coupled with the ability to make connections as stated above, would certainly be indicative of intelligence in my book. A good ability to function in a wider context than a narrow field of expertise, giving one the ability to converse with a wider sphere of acquaintances in all walks of life, without looking like an idiot by stating fallacy as fact or missing the point, would seem to me to indicate a reasonable level of intelligence. Sometimes the ability to recognise when to say nothing is the highest level of intelligence - lol.

[cacian]

I sometimes find all this a little too far fetched (rotten tomatoes to my right, eggs to my left, please). Isn't this another way of saying "talented"? Being talented in arts or languages or maths or sports?

Does anyone refer to the physicist or the biologist or the engineer, mathematician, or professor of literature specializing in medieval German literature as "talented". It is commonly a term used to refer to artists, musicians, athletes, etc... As I suggested above, while referring to a musician, artist, or athlete as "talented" may in most cases have been intended in a complimentary manner, it has a subtle inference that somehow these abilities are not the product of "intelligence". The stereotype of the "dumb jock" is certainly far more prevalent than the stereotype of the dumb physicist or college professor... yet how many academics have we come across who appeared socially stunted and incapable of even throwing a ball straight? If we accept the concept of multiple intelligences, we can recognize that while a musician or athlete might be rather limited in their abilities with regard to language or mathematics, that in no way is any more proof of a lack of intelligence than the physicist or PhD. in medieval studies who is completely lacking in the ability to relate to others or any athletic "skill".

This whole question hearkens back to the question concerning whether a poet is born with his or her ability... "talent"... or whether it is the product of learning... practice. Nature or Nurture? The concept of Multiple Intelligences would posit the possibility that we are born hard-wired with the ability or aptitude to grasp and master certain concepts/skills more rapidly and with a greater fluidity than others. Some individuals are born with abilities to grasp and master certain concepts/skills to a degree well beyond the norm. It would seem that we can only refer to this as a "genius". Real achievement within any discipline, however, would seem to be the result of a combination of talent/aptitude/intelligence and effort/practice... although the balance is in no way always the same from one individual to the next.

I've always thought Paul Cezanne was an interesting case. He should be the artistic poster child for the Protestant Work Ethic. Cezanne grew up with Emil Zola in the South of France. Zola eventually moved to Paris and rapidly established himself as the urbane, sophisticated, and cultured man of the arts. His social circle was made up of painters, poets, novelists, sculptors, composers, actors and actresses, and beautiful women well-versed in the arts. Cezanne eventually followed Zola to Paris... but he exhibited a complete lack of any social skills. Indeed, he was almost intentionally anti-social. He would sit taciturnly at gatherings not saying a word. If asked for an opinion on a given topic, he might burst out in profanity or merely let off a belch or a fart.

His painting didn't display much more ability. He lacked anything approaching the ability to draw:

http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8158/7463254108_a231a1bb65_t.jpg (http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8158/7463254108_a231a1bb65_c.jpg)

There is nothing even vaguely suggesting the sort of fluidity and mastery of drawing exhibited by an artist such as Degas... who could render in the most academic manner:

http://i1245.photobucket.com/albums/gg581/StlukesguildOhio/th_Holistic-Massage-Life-Alignment-Therapy_50520_image.jpg (http://s1245.photobucket.com/albums/gg581/StlukesguildOhio/?action=view&current=Holistic-Massage-Life-Alignment-Therapy_50520_image.jpg)

Or could capture the form, gesture and even personality in but a limited number of marks:

http://i1245.photobucket.com/albums/gg581/StlukesguildOhio/th_Edouard-Manet-Standing-circa-1866-1868-Musee-d-Orsay-France.jpg (http://s1245.photobucket.com/albums/gg581/StlukesguildOhio/?action=view&current=Edouard-Manet-Standing-circa-1866-1868-Musee-d-Orsay-France.jpg)

http://i1245.photobucket.com/albums/gg581/StlukesguildOhio/th_Degas-Edouard_Manet_Seated.jpg (http://s1245.photobucket.com/albums/gg581/StlukesguildOhio/?action=view&current=Degas-Edouard_Manet_Seated.jpg)

http://i1245.photobucket.com/albums/gg581/StlukesguildOhio/th_dancer_by_degas.jpg (http://s1245.photobucket.com/albums/gg581/StlukesguildOhio/?action=view&current=dancer_by_degas.jpg)

His paintings are even worse... crude and lumpen... built up in endless layers... showing a complete lack of understanding of form and space:

http://i1245.photobucket.com/albums/gg581/StlukesguildOhio/th_Paul-Cezanne-XX-Portrait-of-the-Painter-Achille-Emperaire-1868.jpg (http://s1245.photobucket.com/albums/gg581/StlukesguildOhio/?action=view&current=Paul-Cezanne-XX-Portrait-of-the-Painter-Achille-Emperaire-1868.jpg)

http://i1245.photobucket.com/albums/gg581/StlukesguildOhio/th_cezannefather.jpg (http://s1245.photobucket.com/albums/gg581/StlukesguildOhio/?action=view&current=cezannefather.jpg)

Anything involving the nude was even worse... perhaps the result of his own ingrained prudery:

http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7138/7463254138_b430520a10_t.jpg (http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7138/7463254138_b430520a10.jpg)

After some years in Paris, Cezanne returned to the South and France and was nearly forgotten. But there he continued to labor away. The dealer Ambrose Vollard speaks of Cezanne spending years on a single canvas... building up layer after layer, then scraping it all away... often exploding in anger and throwing the painting out the window where endless canvasses hung from the trees. And yet with time... his persistence and determination resulted in an art of unique genius. The paintings were still build up in layer after layer... and they still exhibit his absolute lack of ability to convey clear form and spatial relationships... but these "failings" eventually take on a genius of their own... and ultimately suggest some of the distortions that will give birth to Picasso's Cubism:

http://i1245.photobucket.com/albums/gg581/StlukesguildOhio/th_StillLifewithPeachesandPears.jpg (http://s1245.photobucket.com/albums/gg581/StlukesguildOhio/?action=view&current=StillLifewithPeachesandPears.jpg)

http://i1245.photobucket.com/albums/gg581/StlukesguildOhio/th_houses-at-the-l-estaque-1880.jpg (http://s1245.photobucket.com/albums/gg581/StlukesguildOhio/?action=view&current=houses-at-the-l-estaque-1880.jpg)

http://i1245.photobucket.com/albums/gg581/StlukesguildOhio/th_cezannestilllifewithapples.jpg (http://s1245.photobucket.com/albums/gg581/StlukesguildOhio/?action=view&current=cezannestilllifewithapples.jpg)

One suspects that Cezanne is far from being a unique situation... although honestly I prefer the artists who are much more fluid... much more "natural"... who were seemingly born with an unbelievable talent/aptitude/intelligence for rapidly mastering the concepts and skills involved in painting.

Stlukes great pictures indeed I have never seen these paintings/sketches before they are very interesting...your knowledge is commendable!!

[stlukesguild]

...the argument isn't that "being an athlete makes one smart," it's that being a good athlete incorporates many mental capabilities which must be considered intelligence, since they are not physical. These markers of athetic intelligence include keen spacial awareness, the ability to predict your opponent's moves, and the ability to react quickly to rapidly changing situations.

I'm quite familiar with Gardner's multiple intelligence theory too. It's fine, I guess. But I don't really believe it, though many other people do.

I'm not going to pretend I'm psychologist or neuroscience expert, though. Anyway, here's what I raise my eyebrow at, regarding multiple intelligences: it feels like the awards ceremony at a YMCA youth basketball league -- an "everyone gets a medal" feel, a "we're all winners" feel that rings false (or at least embellished) to me.

I see it used to say, "this person is smart because of her Y intelligence". . . . "and you, well you're so M intelligence". . . ."and wow! did you see his C intelligence? Momma must be proud". . . ."not too many people have her A intelligence. Neat-o!" And so on. . .everyone gets a certificate saying how smart he or she is in his or her own special way.

But maybe it's true. Who knows.

The alternative to the theory of Multiple Intelligences is to suggest that there is a single "Intelligence" and that it exhibits itself best in areas such as language, reading comprehension, mathematics, etc... the abilities, knowledge, and skills most linked with academia. Outstanding ability and achievement in music, art, sports, etc... employs many different mental capabilities. Are we to assume that these cannot be considered a measure of "intelligence", while the mental capabilities employed by the individual exhibiting outstanding ability and achievement in physics, biology, medicine, literature, mathematics, etc... are measures of intelligence?

I don't think the Theory of Multiple Intelligences can be seen as being akin to politically-correct, feel-good teaching approaches in which everyone is a winner. Gardner's studies on the brain simply uncovered the fact that various parts of the brain seem to regulate or control different mental capabilities, and that the degree to which these are developed varies within each individual so that one may have an incredible mastery of language and yet be tone deaf and incapable of drawing a straight line. This does not preclude differences between individuals or suggest that everyone is above average... let alone "genius" in some area. It does suggest, however, that yes, Mozart and Michael Jordan may actually have been far more intelligent than the average PhD. student.

http://www.ted.com/talks/ken_robinson_says_schools_kill_creativity.html

[JuniperWoolf]

Also, theories of multiple intelligences arise from clumping, which is a mathematical method. This kind of science isn't nearly as simple as people imagine it, the "types" of intelligence don't come first, no one uses imagination on any of this stuff, testing for "artistic intelligence" or whatever and having that in their focus when they go into their study. It's results-driven, bottom-up, from decades of repeated testing.

I'll try to explain the nuts and bolts. You present a test to a group of students and then you find that "hey, everyone who got 7 correct tended to almost always get 11, 25, 29, & 30 correct, there must be some correlation there, whereas they almost always got 19 wrong, whereas people who answered 19 correctly tended to get 7, 11, 25, 29, & 30 incorrect and answered 8, 12, 14, and 21 correctly." If you were to graph those results, you'd see two obvious clumps clumps (these clumps are 'categories' or 'types' if you prefer, but they're literally graphing clumps), with people who got 7, 11, 25, 29, & 30 correct in one clump, and people who got 9, 12, 14, 19, and 21 in the other clump.

After they notice that the clumps exist once they've preformed the exam on many, many people, then they name them. A scientist might say "huh, clump one seems to have a lot to do with word familiarity so let's call that that the 'vocabulary' catagory, and group two seems to have something to do with logic, so let's call that simply the 'logic' catagory," and there you have it: people who do well in group one are said to posess vocabulary intelligence and people who do well in group two are said to have logical intelligence, ie. it requires a certain kind of brain power to answer the questions in group one correctly, and a different kind to answer the questions in group two correctly. The name IS NOT what they're testing for, they don't go into it testing for "vocabulary intelligence." Many people put a lot of stock into the names, but the names themselves are unimportant. They arise from testing, the testing exists first and from this we notice the trend.

So, "types" of intelligence aren't just random guesses by some guy, they're mathematical, they incorporate rigerous study from dozens of universities over the span of decades, and they're bottom up: aggregating groups questions answered correctly or incorrectly arise from repeated testing (seriously, we're talking millions of people), and then they're plotted on a graph, and the clumps of correctly or incorrectly answered questions are given a name which symbolizes the "type" of brainwork it requires to correctly answer those questions, that is, the "type of intelligence." My example was highly simplified, there isn't just one identical test given to everyone, and the tests aren't just looking for two clumps at a time, and it really isn't nearly so clean-cut and easy; rarely do people just get one type of question correctly, and then you have to imagine that there are actually eight or nine clumps for any given test, and then you have to examine which questions were answered incorrectly as well as correctly and imagine that clumping incorrect answers are also a catagory that requires a certain kind of brainwork which of which the subject is deficient - it's complicated stuff, sifting through all of this is requires advanced math and computer work. The catagories themselves have been altered for decades: new information is presented over time, scientists argue, and alterations are made. That this clumping trend exists is trufax all the squabbling is about what the cactagories should be called, and what this all indicates, and how it can be used, and which clumps actually exist, ie. maybe in my example, group two, 'logic' is actually two seperate groups, 'problem solving' and 'numbers' which are simply highly correlated.

That took longer to describe than I thought it would.

Oh also, the idea that there's "one intelligence" has actually already been settled. It turns out that there's a base intelligence as well, which applies to all types. So, if your highest group of intelligence is very high, then the others will also be relatively high, and if your lowest type is very low then the others will also be relitively low. The exception is savants.

[cacian]

I woud have imagined that where are different types of people there are different types of imagination and intelligence.
I tend to link imagination with intelligence and feelings. They are intangibely related and rely on each other for rejuvination.
However all intelligences lead to one and that is, regardless of our various differences in personalities and views, we must all share one type in common and that is of emotional intellect.