Skip to comments.Theories of Multiple Intelligence
Posted on 05/02/2009 5:59:31 PM PDT by coloradan
click here to read article
Please note that this article was written in 1988. Things might well have changed since then. However, I found the article laden with gems, especially including his shredding of the pop-culture “multiple intelligences” guy, Gardner.
Yeah right. The use of extended vocabularies is often to exclude those who are not in the ‘inner circle of knowledge’. This is the kind of crap that passes of ‘real science’. Linguistic specialties, game theorists, educators, politicians ....they all love to sound much brighter than any of them really are. None of them could find their rear end with both hands in their back pockets.
Things may have changed??? SUch as their definnition of terms. It is not as if they discovered a new particle or a frequency that had not been measured before. This is all smoke and mirrors pretending to be’a hard science’.
Ah, as I have long suspected, and you have now proven, the immeasurable property of sarcasm does not exist. I shall proclaim the truth of your profound insight to four corners of the world!
Attention one and all! Sarcasm ain't real! It can't be measured and doesn't exist!
I will now devote the remainder of this day's studies to the hopeful detection, by weight or volume, of humor.
Congratulations, you have achieved a 6.3 out of a possible 10.0 sarcasm score.
Things related to which criteria Mensa uses for admission may have changed - that’s what I was talking about. Psychometrics hasn’t changed much in that time, so far as I know.
You write as if you have an axe to grind. It’s my experience that smart people tend to have larger vocabularies than others, not because they want to be exclusive, but because (1) they just happen to know more words off the tops of their heads than others do, and (2) they are often more exact in what they say, and they choose words carefully to convey the precise meanings they intend, drawing from their large vocabulary.
Science is the process in which different people can get reproducible results, if the science is sound. Psychometrics may be an inexact science, but it is still a science.
It sounds like one of the tests was more standard and the other more weird. Unfortunately the weird test probably has less correlation to other tests than the other one. The three higher-level societies require high performance on standardized tests.
The bear was white.
The only place you can walk 5 miles east, 5 miles north, and return to camp is at the North Pole. (Spherical geometry versus planar geometry). At the North Pole, the bear would have to be a polar bear, and I believe they are white.
I think this is a trick question.
I’m sure you’re right.
I’m certainly not as smart as the wierd test would imply.
If the higher level societies have as high a proportion of wierdos as Mensa, I wouldn’t be interested anyway.
I have no ‘ax to grind’. I WAS a MENSA member. Drifted away to do more productive things with my life. I have an a sufficiently large vocabulary that I read the article and comprehended it without having to open another reference source. Precision is not the issue. More often than not the word choice is associated with their specific field (usually in a derived and jargon based fashion). This happens in all fields and is in fact a sign that you have failed to fully communicate with the rest of your audience. Inexact science is indeed and oxymoron.
I thought it was said that IQ is defined as whatever it is that IQ tests measure. Intelligence is a concept temporally and logically prior to the IQ test.
Aren’t intelligence tests limited by the intelligence of the people who create them?
It’s not a trick question, it’s an insight question. And yes, the bear was white.
No science is exact, that's reserved for mathematics. There are errors in any physical measurement, so you give "error bars" and statistical interpretations, even when what you are trying to measure is elementary, e.g. distance, weight, or energy. Essentially all the fundamental physical constants are themselves uncertain.
Going deeper, the quantum uncertainty principle states that your knowledge of some things are limited by your knowledge of others; fundamentally, you cannot know both the momentum and position of a particle, and neither can you know the energy associated with and the time of occurrence a certain event. Quantum mechanics is steeped with mystery and "paradoxes" (which merely depend on violating your preconceptions of how the world works to be mysterious or paradoxical). Are you going to argue that quantum mechanics is not science? The laws of QM can be written down, and different people get the same (statistical) answers to the same questions. Let me put it another way: please state something you consider to be an exact science and I will try to show that it isn't.
A reasonable criticism of Mensa is that its members spend an inordinate time doing puzzles, instead of spending their intellect on useful problems - actually this criticism was launched by the founder of Mensa.
Air pressure is what pressure gauges measure, and pressure gauges measure air pressure. But, “air pressure” as an entity in and of itself existed prior to the invention of pressure gauges, and there is nothing circular about the logic of air pressure gauges. Now, maybe the gauges aren’t all calibrated correctly, and some might be sensitive to temperature in addition to pressure, but that doesn’t invalidate the concept pressure nor of pressure gauges.
Consider a Rubik's cube: You can mess it up in a few moves a lot more easily than you yourself can solve it, in the same number of moves. How many moves deep can you solve it, using only that many moves? (That is, if it's three moves deep, can you solve it in three moves only?) Anyone can give the cube twenty random moves, but very, very few people could solve it in 20 moves, or say "This configuration is exactly 20 moves from the start."
There's more to intelligence than Rubik's cube, but I myself have thought about your question before, and I find it interesting.
Triple Nine has a pretty good discussion list.
To declare by fiat that this number is and henceforth shall be the measure of what we call intelligence isn't the idea at all, I would hope.
Intelligence isn’t as concrete a concept as “the distance between to points” or “the frequency of this signal” which have clear, objective definitions. Indeed, the whole point of the article I posted is that there are in fact several different kinds of intelligences (but which aren’t the ones popularized by Gardner).
I don’t think anyone claims that if you take a single IQ test, that the resulting numerical score is the end-all, say-all final word on the subject. Mensa, for example, accepts certain minimum scores on some 200 tests, and all you need is a qualifying score on one of them - you could fail 199 of the tests and still be admitted. The other societies, except possibly Mega, also accept a number of different tests.
Even beyond this point, some IQ tests (e.g. the WISC) gives several distinct numerical scores, with different names and interpretations (”verbal,” and “reasoning” IIRC).
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.