IQ, or Multiple Intelligence?

about twenty five years ago or something like
that in the early eighties there was a minority of psychologists not affiliated necessarily
but independently said look enough we don’t really think there’s enough theory
behind IQ tests which is really a major criticism of IQ tests is there really isn’t
much there they were developed as we’ve been talking about because of historical circumstance so howard gardner %uh is really the most prominent of these and he’s
the fellow who started starting at the %uh early nineteen eighties came up with this
idea of multiple intelligences and i think in the beginning he had seven nine might get up
to nine or something like that but they really they’re far broader than what the traditional psychologists
view was so it would include %uh interpersonal intelligence intra %uh personal
intelligence and musical intelligence bodily kinesthetic so %uh the old guard of psychology can’t
stand the idea still of course because what they’re interested in is something that
they called g which stands for general intelligence IQ tests don’t work obviously if there are
multiple intelligences there has to be just one if they want to rank all six billion of
us they’ve got to have this test and intelligence that is just one thing that operates regardless of what you’re doing or
where you are so if you’re figuring out a complex physics problem it’s the same intelligence that’s
operating if you’re having a difficult conversation with your mother or whatever it would be the same
gardner would say I couldn’t do either hahahaha you know gardner would say they’re different kinds
of intelligence and you’re good at some maybe and bad at others that we’re far more varied what’s interesting about gardener’s he’s not %uh i wouldn’t
imagine he’s particularly pro test he didn’t he didn’t do this to devise tests so as we’ve been talking about this a lot of
what’s going on is the it’s the institutions that use IQ tests in the SAT’s and stuff like
that so institutions haven’t grabbed onto howard gardner’s version of what intelligence is how could they who the people who grabbed onto howard gardner are
the educators this excerpt is brought to you by the massachusetts
school of law

Author Since: Mar 11, 2019

  1. This is nonsense.
    Can anyone provide even a single article from a serious journal or a paper from a juried conference that documents a link between the use of MI in school and improved performance? Im talking about real observations of real school children.

    Schools have paid thousands of dollars to self-proclaimed educational consultants mainly uninformed school-hustling, pedagogy pimps – who have claimed MI can help schools. Can anyone show me ANY VALID evidence?

  2. The so-called "theory of multiple intelligences" is not a scientific theory at all. It's armchair psychology, and it is woozy to a fault. To the extent that it differs from mainstream intelligence theory, it's not backed up by any proper empirical research. According to "multiple intelligences", people tend to excel in one kind of intelligence or another, but that's just wrong. In fact, if people excel in one domain of intelligence, they tend to be above average in most other areas, too.

  3. To put it another way, the "theory" of multiple intelligences hints that different "kinds" of intelligence (such as "verbal-linguistic" and "logico-mathematical") are negatively correlated with one another, directly contradicting decades of evidence that shows that these various expressions of intelligence are positively correlated. I think the motivation for this "theory" is transparent: it is to give false comfort to the slow kids: "Bad at arithmetic? Never mind, you're probably good at art."

  4. If you simplify it. what it says is 'some people are good at somethings and some at other things'. But obviously!!!
    Because of all the silly need to provide facts to prove a theory "logical", academics cannot believe where it is not proved.

  5. What this theory says, then, is that someone possessing skills in several of the 7 (or 9, or whatever) proficiencies would be astronomically rare; since there is no correlation between any of them, and since each ability is itself very rare, combining the rarity of each of these would lead to a statistical impossibility. This is not found in practice.

  6. In other words, what if there is a correlation between two (or more) abilities? Surely, we see that there are some people who ARE good at more than one thing; in fact, you might find someone who is good at what appears to be EVERYTHING! What can MI say of this individual?

    I make this point to demonstrate that there ARE correlations and that there IS a common factor measured when testing for intelligence, namely 'g'. The old guard of psychology wasn't off the mark, after all.

  7. What about the individual that's good at only ONE thing but horrible at almost everything else?

    Albert Einstein was brilliant in math and physics but wasn't very skilled in english or history.

  8. The correlation I've mentioned does not preclude individuals from having uneven intelligence profiles, In fact, nearly every one has abilities to differing extents. This is entirely possible in the 'g' model of intelligence.

    On the other hand, this is the only scenario acceptable to MI, and by virtue of this pretense the theory sharply discords with reality, namely that general intelligence exists.

  9. @ZzDe0 Why would you write that Einstein "wasn't very skilled in english or history"? He published papers in scientific journals and even in his field this requires far more linguistic skill than the average person possesses. If he were unskilled in history why was he offered the prime ministership of Israel?
    Most importantly, why cite a single person in discussing a theory of intelligence? Single instances tell us nothing, this is elementary reasoning.

  10. @chrismca It's just an example. But maybe it wasn't the best example because Einstein is far from what you'd consider "normal".

  11. @Ejexion No, because 'g' is suggesting that different abilities all correlate with each other. So by definition someone that excels in one ability should also excel in everything else; witch we know is not true. Some people are just plain bad at math but average in everything else or whatever. It's also entirely possible for someone to excel in EVERYTHING with MI.

  12. @ZzDe0 : There is a statistical figure you have left out of your argument that renders it ineffectual, and that is 'significance'. Any correlation implies a causal relation, with a probability inversely proportional to its significance. Therefore, there is an underlying cause for high scores over several abilities in one individual, namely 'g'. That there are people who don't 'fit this' precisely is merely due to the significance, which this theory accounts for.

  13. I think it would be "logical" to make 1 intelligence up out of the average of the different kinds of intelligences? Then everyone is happy? I think for sure there is qui some variety on "kinds of intelligences". If you are, let's say very manipulative, and are able to make people do things for you, I think this is a 'social" kind of intelligence that is most often not found in very "mathematical" minds.Kind of male IQ vs female

    this isa very 'feminine' trait that I would call a certain kind of

  14. A very high IQ=Multiple Intelligence=Understanding a process=The ability of the brain to understand not just one process of a subject or problem but many.

  15. @73elephants Though when it comes to Autism you do see a very clear distinction between ability's. I get what you're saying though.

  16. @73elephants The notion that a simple written / multiple choice test can determine a person's level of intelligence or mental ability is ridiculous. M.I. theory while not perfect is a far better explication of "Intelligence" than an IQ test, IMHO. The fact is people with high IQ tests or often terrible at reading human body language and chemistry, while others excel at it naturally. Same goes for the ability to interpret rhythms (both musical and physical). Furthermore, creativity…

  17. @73elephants Creativity is nearly impossible to measure with an IQ test, but is to me the truest form of intelligence…there are simply far too many variables and easy arguments against IQ tests. M.I. theory at least puts a more realistic, wider frame on the definition.

  18. @hops111 Creativity requires some intelligence, but it is not intelligence. An IQ test is a test of intelligence, NOT a test of creativity.

  19. @hops111 No, it's not ridiculous, one can test a very wide range of aptitudes using pencil and paper tests — e.g., mechanical aptitude. On the other hand, some aptitudes have nothing to do with what, in every day parlance, we normally call intelligence. Someone who cannot solve 12 x 7, remember a five-item shopping list, or name the capital of France, but is quite good at dancing, is not normally called intelligent.

  20. @73elephants If your definition of intelligence is a person's ability to perform every day tasks and have a firm grasp of common knowledge than yes, an IQ test can measure it…If we are speaking in strictly technical terms I would agree. My definition of intelligence is far broader and complex than the one you are choosing to use. Furthermore, the fact that one can simply train themselves to become good at IQ tests without actually gaining intelligence makes IQ tests invalid IMHO.

  21. @73elephants A person with average "Intelligence" and above average Creativity is far more intelligent than a person with above average "Intelligence" but lacking in Creativity…I'd be happy to debate this with you via PM, but I must tell you: 99% of the points I will make are my own thought out opinions, and if you choose to regurgitate things you've learned from a book or school without your own input we'll get nowhere 🙂

  22. @hops111 I see what you're trying to say, but you're not being very logical. Someone of above average intelligence is more intelligent than someone of average intelligence by definition. In the 70s and 80s, people tried to measure creativity. They found it correlated strongly with intelligence, so "creative stupid person" is a bit of an oxymoron. BTW, while thinking for yourself is a good thing, ignoring what is already known is not so good, as it forces you to waste time reinventing the wheel.

  23. Let us define creativity- Creativity is the capacity of the brain to coordinate and use most if not all of its intelligences to a certain end. Never discount creativity with high IQ, enhanced by adequate education.Creativity is the trait, which harnesses all mental faculties and acquired knowledge to produce new theories, symphonies, artworks, architecture, software, etc. PS- Missy Elliot, hip- hop singer,writer, producer has an IQ of 163. So much for juxtaposing creativity and inrelligence….

  24. Let us define creativity- the capacity of the brain to coordinate and use most if not all of its intelligences to a certain end. Never discount creativity with high IQ, enhanced by adequate education.Creativity is the trait, which harnesses all mental faculties and acquired knowledge to produce new theories, new symphonies, new artworks,architecture, software,etc. PS- Missy Elliot, hip- hop singer,writer, producer has an IQ of 163. So much for juxtaposing creativity and intelligence….

  25. It is simple (IQ is not based on anything real–and if it's not based on anything real then it is a concept. It was dreamed up in some office by a few academics in the ministry of enlightenment in Europe and the US.) And anyone who is human with a perfectly working brain can manage complicated tasks; people do this every day in all parts of the world at every hour. Just dealing with bureaucratic systems requires a completion of complicated tasks.

  26. I have really high scores in multiple areas but I'm very weak with mazes. Very odd how we can be nearly genius in some areas and terrible in other areas. The human brain is fascinating.

  27. @73elephants: And compared to people such as Leonhard Euler and Einstein, you could be considered slow at math. I don't think that MI theory is correct, but Intelligence is not as black and white as you think.

  28. In the academic world it all comes down to what you can get funding for. You can get all the funding you want for "research" on "MI"; quotes, because it's bullshit. And you're completely accemptable on TV, etc. etc. for the simple reason that you're providing the propaganda for oficial lie. America gave up when the tribesmen burned down Los Angeles, and just said, ok, ok. you're equal. Nothing else is mainstream acceptable. Read "The Bell Shaped Curve" if you want to find out the real facts.

  29. The problem with people who claim that iq tests are flawed is that they use the theory of multiple intelligences against it. For example, a recent study claimed to demonstrate that you need to measure 3 intelligences. What these people don't realize is that most IQ tests these days measure at least three intelligences, so their argument is simply invalid.

Related Post