Multiple Intelligence Theory

[Loki]

For those who don't know what Multiple Intelligence Theory is, it claims that people don't have one form of general intelligence as is innaccurately posited by IQ tests (albeit they're actually testing two or three). A person can be dumb as a doornail when it comes to numbers but be a musical genius, or have horrible language skills but wonderful people skills.

My question regards the number-logic intelligence. I personally am not all too good with numbers, but when logic is applied to language, I feel like I can win any argument by noticing the nuances of definitions.

My ego aside, does anyone else think that logic and numbers aren't connected by necessity?

~ Loki

 

[sgtmac_46]

For those who don't know what Multiple Intelligence Theory is, it claims that people don't have one form of general intelligence as is innaccurately posited by IQ tests (albeit they're actually testing two or three). A person can be dumb as a doornail when it comes to numbers but be a musical genius, or have horrible language skills but wonderful people skills.

My question regards the number-logic intelligence. I personally am not all too good with numbers, but when logic is applied to language, I feel like I can win any argument by noticing the nuances of definitions.

My ego aside, does anyone else think that logic and numbers aren't connected by necessity?

~ Loki

What you are referring to is the difference between logic (numerical logic) and logical reasonining, also called cognitive logic. Cognitive logic and numerical logic are fundamentally different.

Further, the style of argument involving nuances of definitions is semantics.

 

[Loki]

What you are referring to is the difference between logic (numerical logic) and logical reasonining, also called cognitive logic. Cognitive logic and numerical logic are fundamentally different.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't logical reasoning simply the application of logic to any given set of constants and variables? You can logically reason with numbers, words, shapes, sounds...

I've never heard of the term "cognitive logic". Where'd you hear it?

~ Loki

 

[dubljay]

When it comes to number and variables the logic of mathematics is more or less systematic. (though the system for calculus is questionable

i hate that class). I don't know enough about this topic so dont take what I say too seriously.

I think it is faulty to see math logic different from language logic. To me there is logic that is systematical like equations is math, but also like the structure of a sentance or whole essay. If you skip certain parts of the system your answer will be wrong or you essay wont be clear. There is also logic that is beyond me that is more abstract than systematical. I have no examples to support that so... yeah.

Just my opinion and it's probably wrong.

-Josh

 

[loki09789]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't logical reasoning simply the application of logic to any given set of constants and variables? You can logically reason with numbers, words, shapes, sounds...

I've never heard of the term "cognitive logic". Where'd you hear it?

~ Loki

Here is an article summarizing the MT theory from www.newhorizons.org:

[font=Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif]Multiple Intelligences[/font]​

[font=Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif]Articles​

Recommended Reading
Related links[/font]

[font=Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif]In 1983, Howard Gardner introduced his Theory of Multiple Intelligences in a seminal book, Frames of Mind. Based on his work as professor in the Harvard Graduate School of Education, his work as a psychologist researching brain injuries, and his long interest and involvement in the arts, he suggested that intelligence is not a single attribute that can be measured and given a number. He pointed out that I.Q. tests measure primarily verbal, logical-mathematical, and some spatial intelligence. Believing that there are many other kinds of intelligence that are important aspects of human capabilities, he proposed that they also include visual/spatial, bodily/kinesthetic, musical, interpersonal, and intrapersonal intelligences. More recently he added naturalist intelligence to this list and suggested that there may be other possibilities including spiritual and existential.[/font]​

[font=Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif]In 1984, New Horizons for Learning invited Dr. Gardner to present his theory to the world of education at a conference we designed for the Tarreytown Conference Center in New York. Subsequently, all of NHFL's conferences were designed around the Theory of Multiple Intelligences, and Dr. Gardner has continued to write numbers of books expanding on the topic. At the present time educators throughout the world are finding effective ways to implement this theory as they seek to help students identify and develop their strengths, and in the process discover new, more effective ways of learning.[/font]​

Ultimately, MT really only becomes significant when you are trying to learn something yourself/establish study habits or if you are instructing a group of people and want to ensure that you are 'surrounding' a topic from multiple perspectives giving everyone a chance to get a level of comprehension.​

I know for myself, I am a stronger verbal/kinesthetic/visual learner than I am anything else. If someone lectures to me instead of using discussion, I will not learn as much. If I don't get my hands dirty or incorporate some form of movement, I don't learn as much. If I don't have some video/pictoral/graphic organizor type of reference I don't learn as much.​

My wife, on the other hand, is much more text/auditory/kinesthetic. She does well by simply reading/listening/moving combinations.​

People can have learning style strengths that are natural BUT they can also develop, through practice, proficiency at other Learning styles as well - therefore improving other types of MT categories as well.​

Theoretically, if you can enhance your natural MT catagories and train your 'un-natural' MT Catagories you will be able to comprehend, internalize and evaluate/extend any topic more effectively than someone who only stays in their comfort zone.​

 

[loki09789]

As a student or instructor it really can be simplified:

If you are teaching a class a new technique the "layer" your instruction.

Talk about it'
Demonstrate it'
Reference a training manual'
Have them take notes'
Have them 'tell it back to you'
Have them do it'
.....basically what happens in some fashion in most decently run martial arts classes.

Knowing which of these approaches you learn the most from is definitely helpful for developing your own practice/study strategies.

 

[sgtmac_46]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't logical reasoning simply the application of logic to any given set of constants and variables? You can logically reason with numbers, words, shapes, sounds...

I've never heard of the term "cognitive logic". Where'd you hear it?

~ Loki

In reality, it doesn't work that way, as evidenced by the fact that they are both tested differently on IQ tests. In fact, you might say there are three types of reasoning, verbal reasoning, numerical reasoning, and abstract reasoning. If logical reasoning were simply the application of logic to any given set of constants and variables, we should expect to see the same results across the board with any given set of logic questions, from math reasoning to verbal. In reality, we observe very diverse test results, with some people being very skilled in verbal reasoning, for example, and those same people having a very low level of proficiency in numerical and abstract reasoning. The subject is extremely complex because it involves how the human brain works to solve problems, much of which we don't understand entirely. The lines that differentiate different types of reasoning, however, are sometimes arbitrary as it seems that some overlap does exist.

 

[Feisty Mouse]

The whole concept of "g" (overall intelligence - what the IQ test supposedly captures) is hooey.

Glad to see more people talking about different skills and different ways of learning.

 

[loki09789]

The whole concept of "g" (overall intelligence - what the IQ test supposedly captures) is hooey.

Glad to see more people talking about different skills and different ways of learning.

hooey...Is that a technical term?

 

[Feisty Mouse]

hooey...Is that a technical term?

lol - it should be!

 

[sgtmac_46]

The whole concept of "g" (overall intelligence - what the IQ test supposedly captures) is hooey.

Glad to see more people talking about different skills and different ways of learning.

Wouldn't exactly call it "hooey" but it certainly is myopic. IQ tests are heavily weighted toward numerical reasoning and verbal reasoning.

 

[shesulsa]

My oldest was tested with two approaches - performance IQ and verbal IQ. His performance IQ was a little over 100. His verbal was 40-something. So this averages out to 67 overall IQ which qualifies him as retarded. He can absorb and learn and comprehend, but he cannot verbally express what he knows, thus, he is deemed retarded.

How do ya like them apples?

 

[Feisty Mouse]

My oldest was tested with two approaches - performance IQ and verbal IQ. His performance IQ was a little over 100. His verbal was 40-something. So this averages out to 67 overall IQ which qualifies him as retarded. He can absorb and learn and comprehend, but he cannot verbally express what he knows, thus, he is deemed retarded.

How do ya like them apples?

Sounds like some pretty odd apples, there, shesulsa! One of the reasons I'm not crazy about the IQ test overall. It's just not that complete, and it's impossible to sum up one person's abilities or potential into one number.

 

[Rich Parsons]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't logical reasoning simply the application of logic to any given set of constants and variables? You can logically reason with numbers, words, shapes, sounds...

I've never heard of the term "cognitive logic". Where'd you hear it?

~ Loki

Cognitive Logic and terms like Cognitive Reasoning are used in topics in Artificial Intelligence as well as Philosphy and Psychology. Where one might argue about the application of something, the other might argue the merit of the discussion and or the application while the third would discuss or argue about the impact to the person or to socety.

Sorry not much time nor at home and able to look up some of my books.
:asian:

 

[heretic888]

To be a bit more specific, Howard Gardner maintained there were at least 8 distinct forms of intelligence:

1. Linguistic intelligence: i.e., poetry
2. Logical-mathematical intelligence: i.e., what Jean Piaget looked for
3. Musical intelligence: sensibility to sound patterns
4. Spatial intelligence: i.e., visual artists
5. Bodily-kinesthetic intelligence: i.e., surgeons, dancers, martial artists
6. Interpersonal intelligence: social intelligence and sensitivity to the thinking of others; i.e., psychologists and salesmen
7. Intrapersonal intelligence: sensitivity to what you're thinking and feeling
8. Naturalist intelligence: i.e., herbalists and trackers

So-called “cognitive development” and "cognitive intelligence" usually refers to the line of logical-mathematical intelligence, which Jean Piaget studied.

Gardner also made it clear that by no means did he maintain these 8 were the only forms of intelligence out there, they're just the ones that stood out. Philosopher Ken Wilber, for example, maintains there are roughly 24 distinct developmental lines (or "intelligences"), including the 8 used by Gardner (as well as the psychosexual "line" studied by Freud, the psychosocial "line" studied by Erikson, the self-needs "line" studied by Maslow, the moral reasoning "line" studied by Kohlberg, the self-identity "line" studied by Gebser, the values-system "line" studied by Graves, and so on).

Gardner pointed out that each "intelligence" follows its own distinctive path of development (i.e., you could be very "highly developed" in one intelligence, but mildly "retarded" in another, as we see with savant syndrome). Gardner also suggested each of the intelligences correlate to distinct structures within the brain, each with their own distinctive neurological path of development, as well.

That being said, he also acknowledges fairly universal 'stages' or 'structures' that each line of intelligence passes through (although in a different form for each intelligence) in a hierarchical fashion.

Interesting discussion. Thanks for starting the thread.

 

[arnisador]

I find Gardner's work interesting and have done some reading on it. It fits with experience. More interesting to me is evolutionary psychology, which I also find better researched and supported.

Yet, I believe that g, the general intelligence that allows us to solve novel tasks, possibly leading via evolution to new, specialized subunits in the brain, exists (but not necessarily that an IQ test is a good measure of it).

Skill at linguistics--formal linguistics, not just being "good with words"--is often linked with skill at mathematics. I don't know. Representing differnt abilities makes sense to me, but do they represent separate intelligences? I'll await word from the evolutionary psych. people, who approach the question in a very strict scientific manner. Gardner's approach seems a bit more of the "I posit that..." variety.

 

[Simon Curran]

Not an expert or anything so this is just based on my opinion and observations, my girlfriend does not score well in IQ tests, because she simply isn't mathematical, on the other hand she is linguistically very skilled (plus some other talents...)

I, on the other hand, usually do score quite well on IQ tests, but there are some things which I consider myself to be bordering on retarted with... (I am pretty much tone deaf)

 

[heretic888]

I find Gardner's work interesting and have done some reading on it. It fits with experience. More interesting to me is evolutionary psychology, which I also find better researched and supported.

Yet, I believe that g, the general intelligence that allows us to solve novel tasks, possibly leading via evolution to new, specialized subunits in the brain, exists (but not necessarily that an IQ test is a good measure of it).

Skill at linguistics--formal linguistics, not just being "good with words"--is often linked with skill at mathematics. I don't know. Representing differnt abilities makes sense to me, but do they represent separate intelligences? I'll await word from the evolutionary psych. people, who approach the question in a very strict scientific manner. Gardner's approach seems a bit more of the "I posit that..." variety.

M'kay, let's get something straight for the moment...

Gardner's Multiple Intelligence Theory is, scientifically speaking, on much firmer and surer ground than Evolutionary Psychology.

Evolutionary Psychology is, at root, a form of reconstructive methodology trying to "figure out" what has taken place in humans in the past be looking at "traces" in the present. And, as is inherent with all forms of reductionism, make a hell of time in collapsing correlation and causation.

Multiple Intelligence Theory, on the other hand, is based on data made available in the present --- both phenemonological and neurological. We can freely "see" cases of, say, Savant Syndrome where a mentally "retarded" individual can exhibit works of genius in other knowledge domains (say, in music) --- which, by the way, Evolutionary Psychology descriptions of human intelligence cannot account for. We can also freely "see" different lines of development progressing at relatively independent rates (such as martial arts masters that can barely string together two sentences).

We cannot, however, freely "see" the process of natural selection resulting in genetically-determined psychological behaviors present among humans. This assumes, first off, that genetics somehow "determine" behavior (Assumption 1) and that natural selection has anything to do with human psychology (Assumption 2).

Genetics, naturally, guide and influence behavior. And, of course, natural selection has more than a hand in determining which genetic dominances will survive into future generations. Evolutionary Psychology, however, tends to overstep its boundaries in its presumptions.

As for the idea that there still be might be somd kinda g?? Nope, sorry. What you seem to be referring to is the phenomena in which certain "intelligences" or "lines" are required for certain other "intelligences" or "lines" to develop. For example, one cannot develop to, say, Kohlberg's sociocentric level of moral reasoning until one has first, say, developed into Piaget's concrete-operational level of cognition. This is why the caveat that the intelligences are relatively independent is noted.

Linguistics, by the way, has nothing to do with mathematical skill. Death to reductionism!!

 

[Tgace]

[good natured humor][/good natured humor]

 

[arnisador]

Gardner's Multiple Intelligence Theory is, scientifically speaking, on much firmer and surer ground than Evolutionary Psychology.

I disagree. (Your argument applies better to the Sociobiology of the 1970s.) Evolutionary psychology is admittedly relatively new, but borrows on a long tradition of well-established evolutionary biology. It's on solid ground. Gardner's categories, though suggested by observations of current data, are clearly malleable.Are there Seven Deadly Sins, or Eight? Same thing. Both are heading toward the same ideas, but I don't need to take a position on the "blank slate" to see that the E.P. people are working on a firm foundation while Gardner is giving plausible arguments to divide the mind up. Freud said Ego, Id, Super-ego, Gardner has his list (directed at intelligence more than behavior, but still the same idea)...one needs a scientific base from which to start if one is to find "the" right subdivions.

I'm not an expert in the area, but g is very plausible to me. My dog solves simple, but novel problems...I say, g.

Linguistics, by the way, has nothing to do with mathematical skill.

Tell Noam Chomsky. The two are linked in modern practice by the logical analysis of sentences using exactly the same concepts as used in the foundations of mathematics. I say again, I am speaking of formal linguistics, not of people who are "good at public speaking" or "have a way with words" or some such.

The philosophy of mathematics and of languages are closely related as well, and for similar reasons.