Multiple Intelligence Theory

[heretic888]

A few things here:

1) Sociobiology and evolutionary psychology are far too closely related to be completely teased apart. Implications in one oftentimes can be applied to the other.

2) A tradition of "well-established evolutionary biology" is all well and good, but it means very little as far as psychological theory is concerned. In fact, in some ways, this basis is more of a shortcoming than an advantage in that evolutionary psychology is prone to biological reductionism and, as all reductionisms are inclined, tends to collapse correlation and causation (a big no-no in experimental psychology).

3) One of the major problems with many of the claims of evolutionary psychologists is that they attempt to use natural selection, in a rather ad hoc speculative fashion, as an explanatory principle concerning the development of human behavior and consciousness. The problem is that this is not the context that Darwin's natural selection was intended for. Natural selection, rightly so, refers to the chances of particular genetic traits surviving and being passed onto future generations of a species.

Things like behavior, consciousness, and intelligence, however --- all things studied by psychologists --- are not completely attributable to genetic influence (although genetic predispositions clearly guide, to some degree, all such variables). Especially among our species, much of all this is learned behavior. Furthermore, in many cases, "nature" does not choose what skills are to be learned or what behavior is to be developed --- we do.

Learning to play a guitar may or may not add to the survival ability of our collective species, but its something a lot of us learn to do anyway.

4) In other words, there is an abundance of research and evidence that genetics and biology play an important role in learning and behavior. There is little if any evidence, however, that particular skills or behaviors are "naturally selected" (as opposed to more likely culprits such as "cultural selection" or "social selection" or even the much-feared "individual selection").

5) Garderner's domains (the term he more commonly uses), contrary to what you have claimed, are not "malleable". They refer to specific skills and competencies that manifest themselves in actual behavior. In addition, Gardner has collated neurological evidence in support of his theories.

6) What is accurate is that Gardner, as well as most other like-minded theorists, do not maintain there are "only 8" categories. What they do maintain is that these 8 domains do exist, but we are not limited to just these 8. Massive amounts of research and time would be required to determine just how many "intelligences" the human organism has at his or her disposal.

7) You clearly aren't too familiar with the literature on this subject if you don't think the claim that knowledge and cognitive development is domain-specific has a firm scientific founding. These things have been discussed since the time of Jean Piaget's cognitive constructivism, and were one of the enduring criticisms of his system (which, otherwise, has proven to be quite powerful and time-tested). In fact, the claim that development is domain-specific is pretty much universally accepted in developmental psychology at this point.

For that matter, Gardner's system is really just a revision of Piaget's.

8) It could quite easily be said that your dog, which you used as an example, was exhibiting competency in a particular developmental line or domain --- rather than some vaguely defined and nebulous "g" variable.

9) Personally, I don't have much regard for Chomsky or his work. But, that's just me.

10) The point I was making was not that mathematics and linguistics are unrelated to one another, but instead, that one can be highly skilled in mathematical logic but utterly lacking in linguistic ability. Or, vice-versa. Thus supporting Multiple Intelligence Theory.

11) I would be interested to hear how either evolutionary psychology or "g" theory can explain, say, Savant Syndrome.

Laterz.

 

[arnisador]

Responding by points:

1.) I understand, but feel that the current E.P. folks are taking a sufficiently different, or corrected, direction than the Sociobiology folks that the distinction is worthwhile. I think of it more as the 19702 vs. the 1990s approaches.

2.) How much biology matters to psychology is of course a matter of some debate. This research is based on things known. Too many cognitive theories are spun from whole cloth, or contradict one another, or are woefully incomplete. We proceed in science from the known to the unknown, and from data to theories. Drawing on evolutionary theory can only help...if it isn't overdone, as you correctly warn against. But, you take your caution to an extreme, it seems.

3.) The assertion that some theories in E.P. are "speculative" is one I agree with and one that concerns me. Still, I see it even more so in other areas of psychology. Beyond that, surely all agree that both nature and nurture play a role. I see E.P. as carefully delineating nature's role--however limited it may be--in psychology.

4.) What you call cultural selection certainly exists, and not merely in humans. But, natural selection of behaviors exists too. Imprinting is a very specific behavior, perhaps, but the behaviors that follow--following, mimicing--are less so. Feeding one's young is a complicated series of behaviors. Is some of that learned? I don't need to take a position on that--clearly, much is genetic.

5.) Gardner's domains could each be slightly enlarged, slightly shrunk, and no one could detect a difference. Is singing an activity from musical intelligence? Linguistic intelligence? Bodily intelligence (e.g. because of breath control)? I don't believe that these domains can be teased apart easily--a criticism that also applies to E.P. of course. But the groupings can seem quite arbitrary. I am not familiar with the neurological evidence he wouls cite. From what I know of it in other contexts, including E.P.,a few PET scans showing one area heating up is interesting but not convincing.

6) But is there a fixed number? I say, No. Someone else could shuffle these categories. If I subdivide a category into two parts, could you argue with me? Sometimes, yes. Other times...it would seem like six of one, half a dozen of another.

7) I'm not quite sure how you mean this. I acknowledged subdivisions, that is, regions within the brain (or mind?) that do certain things, certain tasks. I thin it's reasonable to talk about an emergent g while recognizing that it emerges from lots of little problem-solving units. (I don't like Gardner's computational paradigm for what's happening here.) Clearly, children have a language-learning module of some sort that is suited--evolved?--for learning language, and this module can be damaged (in cases of mental retardation, say).

8) True. I could say the opposite. Stalemate? Until Gardner states just how many domains there are and what they are, this argument applies.

9) One needn't respect Chomsky to be aware of the fact that logical analysis of language is standard, and is closely related to logical formulation of mathematical statements.

10) I think we're using "linguistic ability" to mean two different things. It's not important to me to clarify the matter.

11) I don't think g is relevant here. As to E.P., it also posits specialized abilities--domains--that could function independently. Similar idea, but with an evolutionary base rather than developing catgeories by observation and subjective grouping.

I wish I had the time to be as well-read on this as you. I always enjoyed psychology very much, but went another way.

 

[rmcrobertson]

J.P. Guilford, dude. "Three Faces of Intellect." BEFORE Gardner.

The real issue with this stuff isn't multiple intelligence--of course IQ (Binet, for the French Army, circa 1914) and Galton's "G," (circa what, 1860?) were always reductivist ways of discussing intelligence, or measuring it. And let's not forget sexist/racist piggery, even if much of the original purpose of the SATs was to identify smart working-class and poor kids.

The real issue is this: why, in this moment in history, is, "multiple intelligence," coming into vogue among certain of the intellectual/ideological structures associated with education in advanced capitalism?

Especially since, despite all the BS, our society does not pay off on all kinds of intelligence, particularly those which (stereotypically, no doubt) are associated with minorities and women.

And oh, by the way, the fact that a topic has been discussed does not establish it as real in science. ("You clearly aren't too familiar with the literature on this subject if you don't think the claim that knowledge and cognitive development is domain-specific has a firm scientific founding. These things have been discussed...")

Is it just me, or is, "Heretic," adopting my haughty tone about matters intellectual?

 

[heretic888]

In response to Arnisdor's post:

1) The problem with much of evolutionary psychology, at least as I perceive it, is that there is really no way to scientifically test (or falsify) many of the claims that are made. A good deal of the theories are little more than historical reconstructions grounded in a priori presumptions about human beings and reality.

As one example, I can point to the claim popular in some circles of evolutionary psychology, that a belief in "moralizing gods" is an evolutionary adaptation that arose in response to natural selection. Outside of the obviously problematic issue of assuming that metaphysical beliefs can somehow be genetically inherited, there is just no real way of testing as to whether a belief in "moralizing gods" can be attributed to naturally selected survival pressures. There is just no way of falsifying (a la the Popperian paradigm) the claim that a belief in "moralizing gods" in any way contributes to the survivability of our species in a past environmental niche. Its pure untestable conjecture.

This is just one example, and many of the theories put forward in evolutionary psychology are of a similar sort.

2) As to what role biology and genetics plays in psychological phenomena, I have much more confidence in cognitive science and psychobiology than I do in evolutionary psychology. Both of the aforementioned fields deal explicitly in presently existing phenomena, structures, and states. They are not attempting a historical reconstruction.

3) My own position concerning the nature/nurture debate is that of the epigenetic perspective --- namely, that the entire idea of teasing "genetic" and "environmental" influences to two different realms is kinda, well, silly. Environmental factors cannot play a role without a genetically-conditioned "conduit" for them to flow into, and genetic traits cannot manifest themselves without a proper environmental niche to grow within (both physical and social)

4) The bulk of the loopy cognitive theories I have come across come from the psychoanalytic school --- most notably, these are Freudians and neo-Jungians. Of course, there is the opposite trend, where we find the tradition of exclusively privileging the psychometric approach to consciousness. Also quite loopy.

5) Once again, I must reiterate that Gardner's intelligences are far from "malleable". You couldn't modify any of his categorizations and stay true to his theory unless you adhered to the criteria he established for an independent intelligence:

- the potential for brain isolation via brain damage,
- its place in evolutionary history,
- the presence of core operations,
- susceptibility to encoding,
- a distinct developmental progression,
- the existence of idiot-savants, prodigies, and other exceptional people,
- support from experimental psychology, and
- support from psychometric findings.

These criteria are detailed in-depth in Gardner's Intelligence reframed: Multiple intelligences for the 21st century, published in 1999. The criteria I think should be emphasized the most is that which outlines a distinct developmental progression.

6) I feel I should amend an earlier statement I made, in which I mistakenly collapsed domains and intelligences. In Gardner's theory, an intelligence and a domain are entirely different structures. A domain, in his system, is defined as "a culturally relevant, organized set of activities characterized by a symbol system and a set of operations". Singing or dancing would both be characterized as domains (not intelligences), in that they both make use of more than one intelligence. In addition, domains and disciplines do not meet all of the aforementioned criteria I detailed in Point 5.

7) As I outlined in Point 5, the neurological evidence in support of Gardner's theory is much more explicit than a PET scane showing part of the brain "light up" (although such evidence shouldn't be casually brushed off, either).

8) It should be noted that Gardner's use of multiple intelligences has much in similarity with the use of multiple modules in cognitive science. The primary difference is that Gardner utilizes both third-person and first-person persectives, whereas congitive science is exclusively performed in third-person terminology.

9) The point I was trying to make concerning the relationship of linguistics and mathematics is that one can be quite competent and "developed" in linguistic ability, but still quite unaccomplished in the ability to do mathematics. Vice-versa, as well.

10) For my last point, I think I should point out that the fundamental problem in g theories is that as to what exactly g comprises is often vague, nebulous, and unexplained. Whenever specifics are given concerning g, it is almost always associated with a form of linear logico-mathematical competence (sometimes wedded with linguistic-verbal performance). But, even then, there is no satisfactory explanation as to why this logico-mathematical variable should be g, as opposed to one of the s variables. In other words, the actual delineation as to what makes up g and what qualifies as an s is simply not there. This is a fundamental and serious flaw in the system.

Laterz.

 

[heretic888]

In response to rmcrobertson's post:

1) Yes, Guilford presented his structure-of-intellect model decades before Gardern's multiple intelligence theory. But, a few notes should be made here:
- Guilford made use of an exclusively psychometric approach to intelligence, which Gardner criticized.
- Guilford did not posit multiple intelligences, as much as he did multiple variables and factors (120, if memory serves) that constitute a single "intelligence".
- Guilford's model, despite its inordinate complexity, covers a fairly small number of the intelligences outlined by Gardner.
- Guilford's model, unlike Gardner's, lacks any neurological or evolutionary support.
- Guilford's model, unlike Gardner's, has never really been tested by others (perhaps due to its complexity).

2) Just so we keep things straight, the first guy to outline anything resembling the idea of multiple intelligences or developmental lines was James Mark Baldwin. Decades before Guilford.

3) The "real issue", I would maintain, is the evidence and support for Gardner's theory within a peer-reviewed context.

4) Just so you know, Robert, cutting a sentence I said in half does not in any way change the original meaning and message of that sentence. In any event, the subsequent research and criticism concerning the Piagetian model is very well-established at this point in history.

5) Its just you.

Laterz.

 

[arnisador]

I'm Popperian to the core, so falsifiability is important to me. Yet, one can make predictions: If indeed there is an evolutionarily selected for ability to detect lying, then this is innate (of course, the skill can be augmented by what is learned), so children, and possibly primates, should be able to do it.

When I think of E.P. I think of theories related to sexuality, language and communication, and other basic behaviors. The stuff about a genetic basis of God I find overblown. I'm thinking of--though not necessarily agreeing with--Pinker and the others thinking about how we learn languages, or those who are trying to explain monogamy, not those who are trying to explain less basic aspects of our culture.

I understand your point with regard to the malleability of Gardner's intelligences. I find fMRI more convincing in some cases than brain damage studies; in other cases, the brain damage evidence clearly shows how parts of the brain appear to be isolated. Still, labeling of one of these intelligences involves some vagueness, and I await a clear test of what is a "bodily-kinesthetic" activity. How to clearly separate linguistic from musical? The edges are surely fuzzy. Are there enough brain damage studies to make a convincing case that these are two intelligences, not one that is affected in different ways by different accidents/insults? Maybe the answer is yes; in general, it seems that that would be a hard case to make.

 

[Feisty Mouse]

I am also not a fan of evolutionary psychology. The only really well-done Ev Psych I've seen done is by Lisa Lloyd and her colleagues - and they are critical of the field. It's just so easy to construct Just-So stories.

We had a discussion about this a while ago, where upnorth and I rolled up our sleeves and dug in - I wonder where that thread is.... If you do a search on "female orgasm" you should find it....

 

[heretic888]

I'm Popperian to the core, so falsifiability is important to me. Yet, one can make predictions: If indeed there is an evolutionarily selected for ability to detect lying, then this is innate (of course, the skill can be augmented by what is learned), so children, and possibly primates, should be able to do it.

Yes, but here's the cincher --- we still cannot test, and therefore cannot falsify, the claim that the ability to detect lying was naturally selected.

It could very well be the by-product of another natural selection (such as, for example, the development of conceptual thinking within the mind and the neocortex within the brain), or could be explained by sociocultural selection forces. We just have no way of testing it to be sure.

When I think of E.P. I think of theories related to sexuality, language and communication, and other basic behaviors. The stuff about a genetic basis of God I find overblown. I'm thinking of--though not necessarily agreeing with--Pinker and the others thinking about how we learn languages, or those who are trying to explain monogamy, not those who are trying to explain less basic aspects of our culture.

Again, there are very few ways to directly test any of this sort of stuff. It remains within the realm of a priori historical reconstructionism.

Now, it could very well be that all of the above is a result of naturally selected adaptations rooted in particular genetic codes. Just as easily, however, all of the above could be a by-product of another type of natural selection. This is the problem with all correlational research --- there is always the possibility of a confounding variable.

Also, given my understanding of cultural anthropology, I'd be a bit leary of the idea that something like monogamy has a "natural" or "genetic" basis.

I understand your point with regard to the malleability of Gardner's intelligences. I find fMRI more convincing in some cases than brain damage studies; in other cases, the brain damage evidence clearly shows how parts of the brain appear to be isolated. Still, labeling of one of these intelligences involves some vagueness, and I await a clear test of what is a "bodily-kinesthetic" activity. How to clearly separate linguistic from musical? The edges are surely fuzzy. Are there enough brain damage studies to make a convincing case that these are two intelligences, not one that is affected in different ways by different accidents/insults? Maybe the answer is yes; in general, it seems that that would be a hard case to make.

Once again, for an intelligence to be an intelligence in Gardner's theory, it must meet all of the eight criteria I outlined in my prior post. Not some, not most, not seven --- all eight. This is actually a pretty stringent set of standards, if you ask me.

Laterz.

 

[TonyM.]

I believe that the different types of skills are distributed between the two halves of the brain and the trick is to use both.

 

[heretic888]

I believe that the different types of skills are distributed between the two halves of the brain and the trick is to use both.

Not to be rude or anything, but it doesn't really work that way.

Many of these "skills" are associated with specific structures in the brain, and most of the brain's major structures are shared by both hemispheres.

 

[Makalakumu]

I am also not a fan of evolutionary psychology. The only really well-done Ev Psych I've seen done is by Lisa Lloyd and her colleagues - and they are critical of the field. It's just so easy to construct Just-So stories.

We had a discussion about this a while ago, where upnorth and I rolled up our sleeves and dug in - I wonder where that thread is.... If you do a search on "female orgasm" you should find it....

That was a fun discussion. Hopefully I'll get enough time for round two. I've been polishing up on my E.O. Wilson and Richard Dawkins. I've been reading the anti side too. Niles Eldridge is not a fan of Ev. Psych...

 

[heretic888]

That was a fun discussion. Hopefully I'll get enough time for round two. I've been polishing up on my E.O. Wilson and Richard Dawkins. I've been reading the anti side too. Niles Eldridge is not a fan of Ev. Psych...

Hrmmm... yes, good fun.

But, hopefully, we can steer this discussion back in the direction of MI theory. That is kinda what the thread was originally about, anyways. :asian:

 

[lulflo]

Hello,

An interesting read (or listen) is Ken Wilbur's "Kosmic Consciousness".

His theory is that everyone is right in some form and builds a map of awareness.

It breaks down into:

1. Quadrants (I, We, It)
2. Lines (Intelligences such as cognitive, moral, etc)
3. Levels (In each line, there is a development level)
4. States (Ordinary and non ordinary states may be achieved at any level)
5. Types (Male or Female, left brain or right brain, both, etc)

It is interesting as a model to use to follow ones own development and I recommend taking a look at it as it does use many of the works of others as a reference point for each of the 5 points at issue. I liked the fact that he seems to understand that it is going to evolve from his current model as it has already for him many times, but it is well worth the time spent from my point of view. It is so detailed that I would maybe comment on a question, but just put down the general idea here to show that there is some agreement out there about the idea of multiple intelligence theory.

Farang - Larry

 

[heretic888]

Actually, Larry, the man's name is Ken Wilber --- but don't let Robertson catch you endorsing his philosophy. He'll bite your head off! :ultracool

I also believe a slightly more accurate interpretation of Wilber's position is that everyone (himself included) is "true, but partial". To use his own words, anyway.

Wilber's 'integral psychology' is explained in more detail in an online article: http://wilber.shambhala.com/html/books/psych_model/psych_model1.cfm/

Howard Gardner, by the way, is one of the many theorists Wilber cites in his works.

Laterz.

 

[lulflo]

Darn it, I knew it was WilbEr, I even thought of that as I wrote it. Oh well, too late now. Thanks for the article and the wonderful correction 'sigh' as it will be necessary for someone to actually look up the correct person (for the most part). I thought the discussion interesting (heard it on audio as an interview with Sounds True). I try to take everything with a grain of salt and extract those things that will help me along the way. I have my own slightly skewed view on many subjects and as far as the theory of multiple intelligences. I would subscribe to that on most days

Farang - Larry

 

[heretic888]

Meh. No worries.

 

[Brother John]

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

Logic intelligence does have to do with numbers.
You are thinking of Rhetoric I believe.
Big difference.

Your Brother
John

 

[heretic888]

Logic intelligence does have to do with numbers.
You are thinking of Rhetoric I believe.
Big difference.

To use Gardner's terms, I think we are referring to the dichotomy between logico-mathematical intelligence and linguistic intelligence.

 

[Loki]

Logic intelligence does have to do with numbers.
You are thinking of Rhetoric I believe.
Big difference.

Not entirely sure here. Rhetoric is use of written or spoken language in an effective and/or persuasive manner, not necessarily application of logic.

I'll give you an example of what I meant by noticing nuances. An SAT question I had once stated a book x long, y, wide and z high. Then a worm tunneled a hole through it with r radius. What's the volume of the book without the worm's tunnel?

The correct answer was x*y*z-2*w*π*z, which is the volume of the book minus the volume of cylinder of the worms tunnel. But if you'll notice carefully, a tunnel isn't volume, but an absence of volume within volume, a hole, pretty much. So the volume of the book without the tunnel is the volume of the book, x*y*z. Though my answer was logically sound, I got that one wrong.

~ Loki

 

[Loki]

Meh. No worries.

This proves religion starts as a rumor passed from mouth to ear!

http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/showthread.php?t=22904

~ Loki