 |
| |
|
|
Flubber
|
|
With a view of the Rockies
Aug 2000
time: 22:27
|
|
I can't vote accurately as I cannot accurately judge how smart other apolytoners are. Common sense would dictate that people that choose to type on a computer would be more likely to be the more studious and literate types and therefore would do better in school and on standardized tests than the average population. Heck, a proportion of the average poulation is unable to read and write so we know that poly, at the very least, is made up of from the subset of people that can read and write . . . although some poster's habit of totally missing the point of contrary posts makes one question their reading skills.
The question of course is what you define as a measure of "smart". I believe that a true evaluation would consider many things that I break down into 3 elements
Book smarts
This is what most standardized testing is all about. The group here knows all about these so further comment in unnecessary.
Social smarts
If you have no friends or significant other and this fact makes you unhappy, can you really be all that "smart"? Having the ability to navigate relationships is, to me, a very important skill .
The person with the "A+" average and a lonely miserable existence is in many ways much less "smart" than the "A-" or "B+" student that is happy with a wide circle of friends. How smart are you really if you cannot master basic social skills ? The most arrogant would say that that they will not "hide" their intelligence in order to be more popular but the smartest manage to be both intelligent and somewhat popular.
Practical smarts
These are again hard to measure but many people have great practical skills. Can you fix things, assemble toys and furniture according to the "easy-to-follow" instructions" or handle the million little jobs that life may send your way?
Do you do stupid things like drink and drive or have unprotected sex with multiple partners ? Do you handle your finances well? Do you get sucked in by pranks? Are you so involved with theoretical physics or philosophy that you are oblivious to the world or let your health suffer ?and on and on . . . .
------------------------------------
In assessing myself, I know that I have great practical smarts. . . I handle all sorts of daily matters with ease. In the social smarts area, I had a rocky time for a while in elementary school ( could not avoid getting bullied a little until I figured things out) but always had lots of friends and went out with my first girlfriend at age 14. I am now very happily married and with a baby on the way and an excellent circle of friends and a great job. I like to think that I am pretty "smart" on these counts.
And for those of you that need an objective measure or think I raise the other issues because I do poorly on standardized testing . . . think again. My most recent test of this type was the GMAT. I scored in the 99th percentile. As this test is usually taken by college graduates who think they have a hope of making it into the MBA program, you are probably starting with a pretty "smart" subset.
So where do I rank? Ego and the way I have chosen to assess things would result in a very high ranking. But since I know too little about the comparison group AND others would likely dispute my assessment methodology, it is impossible to say with much accuracy.
Logic, ego and humilty conflict here but unless there is a generally accepted measure, any self-ranking somewhere near the top is pure bs. I therefore choose banana in the tradiition of apolyton.
As for the many that place themself at the very top, I only hope that your brilliance exceeds your arrogance.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
TCO
|
 |
Richmond, VA
Jan 1970
time: 00:27
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Flubber
I can't vote accurately as I cannot accurately judge how smart other apolytoners are. Common sense would dictate that people that choose to type on a computer would be more likely to be the more studious and literate types and therefore would do better in school and on standardized tests than the average population. Heck, a proportion of the average poulation is unable to read and write so we know that poly, at the very least, is made up of from the subset of people that can read and write . . . although some poster's habit of totally missing the point of contrary posts makes one question their reading skills.
The question of course is what you define as a measure of "smart". I believe that a true evaluation would consider many things that I break down into 3 elements
Book smarts
This is what most standardized testing is all about. The group here knows all about these so further comment in unnecessary.
Social smarts
If you have no friends or significant other and this fact makes you unhappy, can you really be all that "smart"? Having the ability to navigate relationships is, to me, a very important skill .
The person with the "A+" average and a lonely miserable existence is in many ways much less "smart" than the "A-" or "B+" student that is happy with a wide circle of friends. How smart are you really if you cannot master basic social skills ? The most arrogant would say that that they will not "hide" their intelligence in order to be more popular but the smartest manage to be both intelligent and somewhat popular.
Practical smarts
These are again hard to measure but many people have great practical skills. Can you fix things, assemble toys and furniture according to the "easy-to-follow" instructions" or handle the million little jobs that life may send your way?
Do you do stupid things like drink and drive or have unprotected sex with multiple partners ? Do you handle your finances well? Do you get sucked in by pranks? Are you so involved with theoretical physics or philosophy that you are oblivious to the world or let your health suffer ?and on and on . . . .
------------------------------------
In assessing myself, I know that I have great practical smarts. . . I handle all sorts of daily matters with ease. In the social smarts area, I had a rocky time for a while in elementary school ( could not avoid getting bullied a little until I figured things out) but always had lots of friends and went out with my first girlfriend at age 14. I am now very happily married and with a baby on the way and an excellent circle of friends and a great job. I like to think that I am pretty "smart" on these counts.
And for those of you that need an objective measure or think I raise the other issues because I do poorly on standardized testing . . . think again. My most recent test of this type was the GMAT. I scored in the 99th percentile. As this test is usually taken by college graduates who think they have a hope of making it into the MBA program, you are probably starting with a pretty "smart" subset.
So where do I rank? Ego and the way I have chosen to assess things would result in a very high ranking. But since I know too little about the comparison group AND others would likely dispute my assessment methodology, it is impossible to say with much accuracy.
Logic, ego and humilty conflict here but unless there is a generally accepted measure, any self-ranking somewhere near the top is pure bs. I therefore choose banana in the tradiition of apolyton.
As for the many that place themself at the very top, I only hope that your brilliance exceeds your arrogance. |
It's a tricky thing to get a handle on any psycholkogical quantity. And there are political overtones. So lots of people who want to cloud the issue definitionally. I think of "smart" as roughly meaning "puzzle-solving ability". BTW, I don't think of "smart" as "good". Nor do I think of it as including all talents. That's why I don't need a special definition for "social smartness". I'm willing to accept such a thing exists, is important, etc. But it is different from "smart" in the puzzle-solving sense.
Same deal with "kinesthetic smartness". Just call it athletic ability, already! Don't get so caught up in the wrangling over postive/negative connotations that one loses the opportunity to think insightfully about aspects of human psychology.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Flubber
|
|
With a view of the Rockies
Aug 2000
time: 22:27
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by GP
It's a tricky thing to get a handle on any psycholkogical quantity. And there are political overtones. So lots of people who want to cloud the issue definitionally. I think of "smart" as roughly meaning "puzzle-solving ability". BTW, I don't think of "smart" as "good". Nor do I think of it as including all talents. That's why I don't need a special definition for "social smartness". I'm willing to accept such a thing exists, is important, etc. But it is different from "smart" in the puzzle-solving sense. |
How is exploring how "smart' is defined, clouding the issue? We agree that there are different types of "smart" so why is it wrong to think that a truly "smart" person would have abilities in multiple areas ?
I simply see problem solving , in the "book problem" sense, to be a very limited test of smartness. I believe that the truly smart person is one that can apply their intelligence not only to an abstract problem but the realities of life around them.
quote:
Originally posted by GP
Same deal with "kinesthetic smartness". Just call it athletic ability, already! Don't get so caught up in the wrangling over postive/negative connotations that one loses the opportunity to think insightfully about aspects of human psychology. |
Was this paragraph aimed at my quoted passage ?
I did not use the term "kinesthic smartness"( nor would I) nor did I make any value judgements. I do not see athletic ability as being any sign of intelligence (an intelligent athlete will do better than a non-intelligent one with the same physical skills but the physical element is the overriding factor).
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Flubber
|
|
With a view of the Rockies
Aug 2000
time: 22:27
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by GP
My point is that peopl tend to think of smartness (book smartness) as some overriding factor. I don't see any need to add "different kinds of smartness". Just talk about different types of ability. |
and MY point is that I agree that book smartness should not be overriding and thats precisely why you should consider other aspects of intelligence. The categories I used were not meant to be absolute or even comprehensive but were an attempt to categorize various aspects of intelligence that go beyond the "book smartness" aspect
When you talk about other "abilities" I start thinking of a much broader range of things . . . many have nothing to do with intelligence
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Flubber
|
|
With a view of the Rockies
Aug 2000
time: 22:27
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by MikeH
I think social skills are the most important type.
If you can get on well with people, make friends, get them to trust you and do stuff for you you don't need the other forms. |
"needing" now thats a whole other matter . . . If you are rich enough you probably don't need to be overly bright either-- as long as you are not so dumb as to lose your riches
I agree that being intelligent in your interpersonal relationships is HUGE It is amazing what you can get people to do if you are "smart" enough to figure them out
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Flubber
|
|
With a view of the Rockies
Aug 2000
time: 22:27
|
|
I am not familiar with the doctrine of 7 intelligences but the one you cited had nothing to do with brainpower which is obviously your point.
I have no problem with testing for and rewarding book smarts and problem solving ability. In fact I would encoutrage it to ascertain and encourage aptitudes.
All I was doing was trying to point out that some standardized testing will never determine the "smartest" person on apolyton except with respect to the taking of such tests. To be smart I think a person should be
1.smart with the books and paper
2. smart with people and
3 smart with things and real situations ( in many ways this is simply problem solving in practice)
I believe you agree with me but you seemed to be responding to some perceived bias against standardized testing that I do not hold.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
TCO
|
|
Richmond, VA
Jan 1970
time: 00:27
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Drogue
GP: What is "bodily kinesthetic"? Are there recognised ways to measure the 7 of them? |
I kinda gave what I knew.
Here are some links:
http://dir.yahoo.com/Social_Science...ardner__Howard/
This is a good one from there:
http://www.ed.psu.edu/insys/ESD/gardner/menu.html
Here is a list of the different types of intelligence:
quote:
Psychologist Howard Gardner identified the following distinct types of intelligence. They are listed here with respect to gifted / talented children.
1. Linguistic
Children with this kind of intelligence enjoy writing, reading, telling stories or doing crossword puzzles.
2. Logical-Mathematical
Children with lots of logical inteligence are interested in patterns, categories and relationships. They are drawn to arithmetic problems, strategy games and experiments.
3. Bodily-kinesthetic
These kids process knowledge through bodily sensations. They are often athletic, dancers or good at crafts such as sewing or woodworking.
4. Spatial
These children think in images and pictures. They may be fascinated with mazes or jigsaw puzzles, or spend free time drawing, building with Legos or daydreaming.
5. Musical
Musical children are always singing or drumming to themselves. They are usually quite aware of sounds others may miss. These kids are often discriminating listeners.
6. Interpersonal
Children who are leaders among their peers, who are good at communicating and who seem to understand others' feelings and motives possess interpersonal intelligence.
7. Intrapersonal
These children may be shy. They are very aware of their own feelings and are self-motivated.
|
-----------------------------
Those give you the theory of Multiple Intelligences in the words of the theory proponents. Might also want to look at some criticism of it. Don't have a good link, but you could probably find some stuff yourself from googling.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
TCO
|
|
Richmond, VA
Jan 1970
time: 00:27
|
|
Here are a couple criticisms of Gardner and his theory. One an Amazon review (3 stars):
quote:
17 of 23 people found the following review helpful:
Good, Bad, Interesting, and Important, July 18, 2002
Reviewer: A reader from USA
Perhaps every good book has some axe to grind. In any case, knowing why it was written often helps more than anything else to understand what a book is about. In this case, the book is supposed to help deflate books like "The Bell Curve," and Arthur Jensen's seminal "The g Factor," which together argue that intelligence exists, is sociologically fateful, and highly heritable (i.e., that if everybody had the same genes for it, most of the variation presently observed in intelligence would not exist).
This is related to "Herrnstein's syllogism" which says: intelligence significantly determines social status, and is also highly heritable, therefore, under equal opportunity in a free and fair meritocracy, social status will still be significantly heritable. This, of course, is considered politically unacceptible by many if not most Americans today (although Thomas Jefferson apparently accepted it, cf. his "natural aristocracy"), and so Gardner has been warmly received as a foe of it.
Gardner's tactic is simple: he denies that intelligence exists, or at least that IQ tests measure intelligence. Instead he postulates "multiple intelligences," such as "kinesthetic intelligence" (physical/athletic coordination/skill), and "social intelligence" (social grace/ability). Musical talent too gets a re-name, but I forget what it is.
So as you can see, all this, while certainly interesting (since all these various talents are certainly interesting to explore and very valuable) basically amounts to what an ordinary person with common sense usually calls a "purely semantic argument."
In other words, Gardner does not show that there is anything wrong with Herrnstein's heresy besides a choice of words. Remove the term "intelligence," and plug in the term "IQ test score," and the same politically heretical conclusion follows, thus: IQ test score significantly predicts social status, IQ test score is highly heritable, therefore in a free and fair meritocracy social status will be significantly heritable. Gardner has done nothing to forestall the dreaded heresy. He has, however, allowed people to believe that he does, and thus enjoyed an unearned boost from the forces of political correctness, as other reviews will show.
How many legs does a dog have, if you call a tail a leg? Four. Calling a tail a leg doesn't make it one. Neither can calling athletic ability, musical talent, and social grace "multiple intelligences" do anything to change the biological heritability (or lack thereof) of socioeconomic status.
The meaning of a word depends on how people actually use it. If most ordinary English speakers call athletic ability, musical talent, and social grace "talents" rather than "intelligences," then that's what they are. Conversely, if IQ tests do measure what most people do call "intelligence," then IQ tests measure intelligence. To the extent that these things are true, they're just true by definition.
When it comes to the facts behind the words, Gardner's "intelligences" may themselves be just as heritable, if not more so, than traditional IQ test scores, and thus may even add to the expected biological heritability of social class. Gardner's work on the nature of various talents may be interesting, but his reputation as an ally of political correctness is a sham. The only thing politically correct about the MI theory is its capricious abuse of language in the service of an Orwellian attempt to alter reality by changing what things are called.
(As if to confirm, by reductio ad absurdum, the political motivation behind Gardnerism, I noticed posted on the wall of my kids' nursery school the other day, a new addition to the quiver of Gardnerian "intelligences." This latest one is called "environmental intelligence," or something like that, and is supposed to be----what else?----the ability to appreciate the natural environment. Obviously this sort of thing can go on to infinity, with each passing political whim giving birth to new Gardnerian "intelligence." No doubt we shall soon discover "democratic intelligence," which is the measurable variation in the natural ability of different children to appreciate the truth of the social-democratic worldview.)
However, if you're just looking for a good book on these various human talents, go for it. |
------------------------
and one by a fellow academic (Massachusetts Psychologist magazine):
quote:
A new spin on the definition of intelligence
(January 2000 Issue)
By Ruth Propper, Ph.D.
"Intelligence Reframed: Multiple Intelligences for the 21st Century"
Howard Gardner
Basic Books, 1999
In "Intelligence Reframed: Multiple Intelligences for the 21st Century" (Basic Books, 1999), Howard Gardner attempts to expand on his original criticism of traditional views of intelligence and elaborate on his own theory of intelligence first presented in "Frames of Mind," published in 1983.
Reformulating his 1983 definition, intelligence is, according to Gardner, "a biopsychological potential to process information in a cultural setting to solve problems or create products that are of value in a culture." In order to determine what, exactly, constitutes an intelligence, Gardner rejects traditional factor analytic approaches and instead suggests that "a faculty must meet eight criteria in order to be considered an intelligence" and these are:
The potential for isolation by brain damage
An evolutionary history and evolutionary plausibility
An identifiable core operation or set of operations
Susceptibility to encoding in a symbol system
A distinct developmental history along with a definable set of expert and end-state references
The existence of idiot savants, prodigies and other exceptional people
Support from experimental psychological tasks
Support from psychometric findings
This last criterion is a strange inclusion, since the bulk of Chapter 1 consists of a refutation of the psychometric approach.
Based on his criteria for and definition of intelligence, Gardner very briefly describes his original seven intelligences: linguistic, logical-mathematical, musical, bodily-kinesthetic, spatial, intra-personal and interpersonal. However, in order to more clearly demonstrate the application of the criteria to the determination of an intelligence, Chapters 4 and 5 consist of consideration of the possibility of additional intelligences, specifically of a naturalist intelligence, a spiritual intelligence, a moral intelligence and an existential intelligence. Although the discussion follows the criteria reasonably well, concrete examples and references are lacking. Instead, Gardner tends to rely on declarations that include the words "clearly" or "obviously" without offering support for such statements. For example, while Gardner states "It is clear that primates have an incipient sense of right and wrong " he offers no evidence or references in support of this notion.
Chapter 6 consists of discussion of what Gardner believes are "myths" about MI theory, while Chapter 7 contains in question-and-answer format answers to frequently asked questions about the theory. Although covering some interesting topics, these chapters do not do justice to the theory and tend to deal with relatively superficial issues.
Chapter 8 is a discussion of the differences between creativity, leadership and intelligence. It is again unclear if Gardner is merely pontificating or if he is offering scientific definitions. On the one hand, he offers a precise interpretation of creativity, stating that "people are creative when they can solve problems, create products or raise issues in a domain in a way that is initially novel, but is eventually accepted in one or more cultural settings," while on the other hand he offers such uninspired generalities as "The wise adult knows about the frailty of humanity and the difficulty of bringing about enduring changes."
Chapters 9, 10 and 11 provide a framework for the application of MI theory in schools, museums and businesses. It is in these chapters that the author shines and the purpose of the book becomes clear. Here, Gardner discusses each intelligence and its usefulness in many "real-world" settings. Furthermore, he outlines several means by which the intelligences can be stimulated and illustrates situations where the various intelligences may be more or less valued, giving specific examples and descriptions. At the same time, Gardner stresses the uselessness of classifying individuals based only on the strengths of one or two particular intelligences, thereby rejecting traditional notions of intelligence testing. Additionally, he emphasizes the importance of a multiple representational approach in learning -- and in life -- suggesting that only through the application and stimulation of many different intelligences will an individual's potential be revealed.
One of Gardner's most important contributions to the study of psychological functioning consists of his refutation of the psychometric model of intelligence. According to Gardner, intelligence is not a single monolithic "capacity," "thing" or "gift." Instead, "intelligence" consists of a set of dispositions and is thus multiple rather than unified. In this way, Gardner offers a successful critique of the reified notion of intelligence as a general "ability."
However, we must ask: How far does Gardner's alternative to traditional conceptions of intelligence take us? In addressing this question, we are left with a seeming contradiction in Gardner's understanding of intelligence and its assessment. Gardner defines an intelligence as a type of potential rather than an ability. While it is useful to know that different
people have different potentials to process information in different domains and social contexts, one might suggest that it is more important to understand the ways in which potentials are turned into actual operations in real social contexts.
From this view, it is easy to concur with Gardner's assertion that "what matters is the uses of intelligences we should be assessing people's success in carrying out valued tasks that presumably involve certain intelligence." Such assessments would bring us closer to a conception of intelligences as "actual live operations in the world" rather than latent potentials in the brain
Ruth Propper, Ph.D., is a Research Fellow in Cognition and Neurophysiology at Harvard Medical School. |
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:27.
Apolyton Time is 00:27. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
30-04-2003 17:47
That helps a lot.
|