View Full Version : Multiple Intelligence


fuzzybrain
05-04-06, 01:47 PM
There are many kinds of intelligence in the world, there is intellectual of course, emotional intelligence-working on the book now-mostly I think it is self control-spatial-aware of your body in space-coordination/balance -linguistic-ability to learn and remember language-logical mathematical-the ability to figure things out and discover patterns-musical-the ability to relate to tunes and rhythms-interpersonal-to get along well with others(I am retarded in this area) and intrapersonal a deep awareness of who you are and where you are going in the world, this is for you dormu-care to comment? Lori

dormammau2008
05-04-06, 09:22 PM
thank you fuzzy for asnwering me yes you strike me as an intelagent person ;l,)))
mmmm yes i have great spatil awarenesss in are froms an others but not in body froms iam very porr on linguistic ability an balance an coordination you can forget it lol my intrperasaonl skillssss are not good i allways say what i think an if someone asks me some thing then i tell them total tell them witch is over powering most ofve the time lol yes there meany froums i find the IQ<< tests to littieding i think there meany more kinds inteligence an i think each person has a unigqe way ofve doing it like i love logical an ordoer an patterns ofve oder an chosac as well allso the mixing ofve these intenacgen toghter with >>theisareth <<mixing ofve sight sound toght tast when one floods into the other i think somethe things you meatiin also do this i think the ablit to slove porblems with out new info is a diff kind skill as wellllll the ablit to look at something in your mind an see though your eyes into speac around tou spatial-aware >><<<in a 3d format is something that has a diff awanesss i find intenc a fastinting thing cos from our minds we come up with so meany woulderfull things some good some back we all ahve the bicase modle how its so diff in each ofve us takes my breath away even now aS I do this in aswer to what you said .....hey fuzzy i find you a warm person an i dont see some the intrpersonal >>that your restked in you do well two me i love muisc an become lost in it hering all the pattens an tonssss even now ive got classic on woulderfull the ablit to interpted others thoughs i think is one the gifts that make us humans soooooo unquic to the uneveice an if life is just a fact ofve the unvice trying to make since ofve its self then were got be one the be an worce its come up with so far.....i think one the greats things we can do is to leren but its also our greatst weknesss cos what we leren an what we know is 2 diff things your right as well emonatil intellagence is one the most imponet we have others are impated on all other the sterght an weakness ofve the others dep havly on the frist one i think if the fodation is not built right then all things after that wont be ither its like meany worman will say there good at mutil takeing but i think men can do that as well i know i can so if i can so can other same if men say something there only good at but again i think we all can do all the same things maybe not all ofve us but some can allways in the end life is wounderfulll if we only stop for a monted to look at it sooooooo thank you fuzzy you made my day dorm.....:)))

fuzzybrain
05-05-06, 02:36 PM
Just glad you got something good out of it, It is designed to make you realize there is more than one kind of thinking in the world-and that you have strong areas and weak ones, but we can learn from each other-especially the ones with differing strengths than our own. I can wish I was a different way-like my daughter is very interpersonal, she can read people well, and they all come to her for their problems, and they love to be around them, and she is persuasive with them, and imho would make a great teacher or counselor-she is good with people, and I am not-I take things way too personally and feel badly about myself and others-she reaches out-forgets about herself and gets herself in the middle of where they are, so I can learn good people skills from her, but my tendencies are still to shy away from them as a self protection thing-when maybe all they want to do is help me, do you get what I mean? And you can't change anything about yourself until you acknowledge it, like this is how I deal with stress.....etc....thanks for responding It is kinda neat to think about how we were designed to help each other, huh? L.

dormammau2008
05-07-06, 01:29 PM
Just glad you got something good out of it, It is designed to make you realize there is more than one kind of thinking in the world-and that you have strong areas and weak ones, but we can learn from each other-especially the ones with differing strengths than our own. I can wish I was a different way-like my daughter is very interpersonal, she can read people well, and they all come to her for their problems, and they love to be around them, and she is persuasive with them, and imho would make a great teacher or counselor-she is good with people, and I am not-I take things way too personally and feel badly about myself and others-she reaches out-forgets about herself and gets herself in the middle of where they are, so I can learn good people skills from her, but my tendencies are still to shy away from them as a self protection thing-when maybe all they want to do is help me, do you get what I mean? And you can't change anything about yourself until you acknowledge it, like this is how I deal with stress.....etc....thanks for responding It is kinda neat to think about how we were designed to help each other, huh? L.YES I GOT A GREAT DEAL OUTER IT FASATEING I LOVE THINGS THAT PUSH THE BANDLY OFVE THE MIND IN MORE WAYS THAN ONE ....YEH WE ALL HAVE SENTLY TENDECNIES .....TO TRY TO THINK IN WAYS AN GET SET IN A WAY THINKING THAT MAY NOT HELP YOURSELF OR OTHERS FOR THAT MATTER TO ACKNOWLEDAGE THAT THE WAY WE THINK MAY NEED TO BE CHAGED OR IMPORVED AN COS SOMETIMESSS IT CARNT THE MINDS A FLUID THING AND ITS SUCH GOOD AT IT WEATHER BE POSTIVE OR A NIVAGTIVE THING IT DONT KNOW THE DIFF IT REPONEDS THE SAMW WAY I THINK YOU READ PEPS WELL YOU DONT GIVE YOUR SELF ENOUGH CREITD FOR SOMETHING S OYU CAN DO YOUR SELF YOU MAY NOT SEE IT BUT YOUR STERAGTHS ARE ALOT MORE THEN YOU MAY THINK I THINK YOUR EVEYBIT AS GOOD AS YOUR DAUGHTER MAYBE YOU SHOULD TEST IT OUT AN SEEE L,/)))) counselor>>>THIS IS SOMETHING YOU BE GOOD AT I THINK THERE ARE DRAW BACKS LERENING TO MUCH ABOUT PEPS THEN.....YOU SOMETIMES PICK THERE TRATS AS YOU GO ALONG THAT CAN BE VERY STRESSFULL FOR YOUR SELF >>>I LOVE THE WAY THE MIND WORKS I DO FIND THE iQ TESTS TO LITTMIEING THERE PEPS WHO HAVE HIGHER LEVEALS ON THE ONE HAND AN SHOULD HAVE A BLANCING EFFCT ON THE OTHER BUT SOME DONT AN THERE DONT KNOW AN SAY IT SHOULD NOT BE SOOO BUT CAN GIVE NO RESONS FOR IT WHO THE TEACHERS US OR THEM COS I THINK WE TEACH THEM ALOT THE TIME I FIND THAT PEPS WHO HAVE A MIXED BALITSS WERE THE DIFF AREAS OFVE THE MIND LEAK IN TO OTHERS THAT SHOULD NOT BE THAT GIVES DIFF PERCIONS SOOOOO YOU MAKE A GOOD CASE YES WE ARE DESIED TO HELP EACH OTHER VERY TRUE IAM ALLWAYS HAPPY TO HELP ANYONE AND HAPPY TO HELP YOU AS YOU HAVE ME I FIND WHAT YOU SAY TO INTRIGEING I OFEN THINK OUR TRUE MIND IS NOT IN OUR BOIDS AN THAT OUR BRAINS ARE A VEACL FOR IT DORM L,))))
<!-- / message -->

barbyma
05-07-06, 02:07 PM
My opinion, but an educated one:

Emotional intelligence = emotional maturity

"Multiple Intelligence" = preferences

If you look at the scales for multiple intelligence, they have absolutely nothing to do with actual ability.

The whole "multiple intelligences" construct is simply a way to include everyone as being high in intelligence.

Intelligence is just one trait of many -- some are high, some are low.

The solution to the stigma some may feel from being average or below on intelligence isn't to redefine the word, it's to change the culture so that "intelligence" isn't more valued than other things (like athletic ability, musical ability, empathy, etc.).

We hold up intelligence as if it was the end-all-be-all of human virtues. I assure you, it's not. And that's not sour grapes because I happen to fall into the "revered" category of intellectual ability.

I'm not saying I'd trade intelligence for something else, but it would sure be nice to be able to sing like Nora Jones or skate like Kristy Yamaguchi! (or look like Alicia Silverstone).

chloe516
05-07-06, 02:13 PM
I think I relate multiple intelligence to learning styles.

there are differences and preferences for how some people learn, so including lessons that cover each aspect of the multiple intelligences does make for more engaging and meaningful lessons.

barbyma
05-07-06, 02:53 PM
I think I relate multiple intelligence to learning styles.

there are differences and preferences for how some people learn, so including lessons that cover each aspect of the multiple intelligences does make for more engaging and meaningful lessons.The recent research shows that those preferences don't correlate with ability. In other words, we might prefer to learn things "visually", but visual presentation isn't a factor in whether or not we actually learn it.

I agree that it could make things more engaging, but I don't think they are many studies on that...

dormammau2008
05-07-06, 04:00 PM
I WOUNDERS THAT THE FROUMS COULD DO SMILPY STUDES ON THESE THINGS THEN I AGES TO A POINT WITH YOU BRAB AN CHOLE AS WELL I WOULD NOT TREAD MY INTEENCE FOR ANYTHING AND YOUR RIGHT ALL COS YOU MIGHT HAVE A STYLE DONT MEAN YOU LEREN FROM IT SO TRUE MUTLPILE INTELLGEC MEANS YOU COULD FAOCS ON MORE THINGS AT ONCE AND SEE THINGSSSS THAT MOST MISSS YOUR RIGHT INCELICE IS NOT THE END AN BE ALL BUT THE WAY SCSITY WORKS IT MIGHT AS WELL BE JUST LIKE READING AN WRITEING
athletic ability, musical ability, empathy, etc.).Ll like these abiltssss an likessss empathy be great to play an that be good if we could preferences don't correlate with ability mean test dont correlte an thats part the porbelm dorm

fuzzybrain
05-09-06, 09:35 PM
yeah, I think you are on the right track there, we are all intelligent in some way, we all have some strength or natural ability-we just have to find out what that is, so do kids. WE have to tap into the thing that makes them tick to find out best how to teach them-using "their" rules of nature, not ours. It is about finding out who they are in the world-pick up and out the things that are specially their gifts and work with them, that is what I did with my own kids with homeschooling-they had different ways of learning-using what they have to work with, how their thinking happens best-is the way you learn to teach and then you are out for a purpose, you can set goals and objectives. does this make sense?

barbyma
05-09-06, 09:48 PM
does this make sense?Perfect sense.

It might sound a little corny, but it's truly a great philosophy, IMO.

I'd like to add one thing, though, that is more the point of what I posted: it's not enough, I think, to find and nurture a child's individual strengths. It's just as important to value those strengths as much as the strengths of others. In other words, it's great to be a chess master. But it's also great to be an artist.

Uminchu
05-09-06, 10:00 PM
I am totally ignorant in this area, so please bear with me.

Leaving aside "emotional intelligence," "body intelligence" and the like, aren't there still different types of intelligence?

Things like an "intelligent" person with severe LD's ... or simply someone who has mastered 7 foreign languages yet can't calculate his income taxes? It just seems to me like the various aspects of what we call intelligent are not doled out to each of us in a uniform manner so that a single number can summarize them...

barbyma
05-09-06, 10:34 PM
Leaving aside "emotional intelligence," "body intelligence" and the like, aren't there still different types of intelligence?

Things like an "intelligent" person with severe LD's ... or simply someone who has mastered 7 foreign languages yet can't calculate his income taxes? It just seems to me like the various aspects of what we call intelligent are not doled out to each of us in a uniform manner so that a single number can summarize them...The question actually boils down to both a definition of intelligence and what is meant by "multiple intelligences".

The definition of intelligence is basically the ability to solve novel problems, although the finer details of what that entails are still argued.

While LDs certainly impair one's ability to acquire knowledge, they don't affect fluid intelligence very much and "crystalized intelligence" isn't usually considered "intelligence" in the field of cognitive psych. It's just stores of facts.

One's ability to do many things is somewhat affected by intelligence, but that doesn't make it vital for the development of all talents.

The concept of "multiple intelligences" is a specific theory that has been promoted in pop-psychology to encompass pretty much all human behaviors. From a website on the theory:

<table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr><td valign="baseline" width="42">http://www.thomasarmstrong.com/_themes/armstrng/ablbull1.gif</td><td valign="top" width="100%"><!--mstheme-->Linguistic intelligence ("word smart"):<!--mstheme--><!--msthemelist--></td></tr> <!--msthemelist--><tr><td valign="baseline" width="42">http://www.thomasarmstrong.com/_themes/armstrng/ablbull1.gif</td><td valign="top" width="100%"><!--mstheme-->Logical-mathematical intelligence ("number/reasoning smart")<!--mstheme--><!--msthemelist--></td></tr> <!--msthemelist--><tr><td valign="baseline" width="42">http://www.thomasarmstrong.com/_themes/armstrng/ablbull1.gif</td><td valign="top" width="100%"><!--mstheme-->Spatial intelligence ("picture smart")<!--mstheme--><!--msthemelist--></td></tr> <!--msthemelist--><tr><td valign="baseline" width="42">http://www.thomasarmstrong.com/_themes/armstrng/ablbull1.gif</td><td valign="top" width="100%"><!--mstheme-->Bodily-Kinesthetic intelligence ("body smart")<!--mstheme--><!--msthemelist--></td></tr> <!--msthemelist--><tr><td valign="baseline" width="42">http://www.thomasarmstrong.com/_themes/armstrng/ablbull1.gif</td><td valign="top" width="100%"><!--mstheme-->Musical intelligence ("music smart")<!--mstheme--><!--msthemelist--></td></tr> <!--msthemelist--><tr><td valign="baseline" width="42">http://www.thomasarmstrong.com/_themes/armstrng/ablbull1.gif</td><td valign="top" width="100%"><!--mstheme-->Interpersonal intelligence ("people smart")<!--mstheme--><!--msthemelist--></td></tr> <!--msthemelist--><tr><td valign="baseline" width="42">http://www.thomasarmstrong.com/_themes/armstrng/ablbull1.gif</td><td valign="top" width="100%"><!--mstheme-->Intrapersonal intelligence ("self smart")<!--mstheme--><!--msthemelist--></td></tr> <!--msthemelist--><tr><td valign="baseline" width="42">http://www.thomasarmstrong.com/_themes/armstrng/ablbull1.gif</td><td valign="top" width="100%"><!--mstheme-->Naturalist intelligence ("nature smart")</td></tr></tbody></table>
My opinion is that this theory is simply an attempt to equalize people by pointing out that all people have strengths and weaknesses. The problem is that it goes about it the wrong way.

Redefining "intelligence" isn't the answer. We need to recognize that there are many human potentials that are just as (if not more) valuable as intelligence. We need to change the way we think about these traits.

The measures of multiple intelligences, BTW, do not include any measures of actual ability. All of the rating scales are constructed of preference questions. An example of the type of question would be a Likert-scale of agreement to the statement: "I would rather be playing basketball than reading a book."

Uminchu
05-09-06, 10:59 PM
Thanks for the explanation of "multiple intelligences." I guess I should have googled it -- I just did not know that it was a specific theory rather than a general concept.

But could you elaborate on intelligence itself? For example, what does it mean when you have large discrepances in your scores in the various subtests of the Stanford-Binet?

I'm also thinking of "skills" relating to intelligence, like the ability to acquire knowledge, integrate existing knowledge, critically analyze/problem solve, etc. For example, the Wiki entry (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligence_%28trait%29) gives this definition of intelligence from the American Psychological Association (among others):
Individuals differ from one another in their ability to understand complex ideas, to adapt effectively to the environment, to learn from experience, to engage in various forms of reasoning, to overcome obstacles by taking thought. Although these individual differences can be substantial, they are never entirely consistent: a given personís intellectual performance will vary on different occasions, in different domains, as judged by different criteria. Concepts of "intelligence" are attempts to clarify and organize this complex set of phenomena.

barbyma
05-10-06, 01:30 AM
Thanks for the explanation of "multiple intelligences." I guess I should have googled it -- I just did not know that it was a specific theory rather than a general concept.How were you to know? I figured you thought we were just discussing intelligence in general.



But could you elaborate on intelligence itself? For example, what does it mean when you have large discrepances in your scores in the various subtests of the Stanford-Binet?
LOL. I imagine you have those, huh? ADDers often have odd subscale scores. Like the Woodcock Johnson subscales might show reading comprehension off the charts, but sentence memory down in the single-digits?

This happens because we have specific deficits in processing that are unrelated to actual intellectual ability. The neural connections are all there, they just don't always work properly. Specific deficits in working memory and/or auditory processing will pop up in these situations.

I'd like to see a study comparing the retest reliability of ADDers to that of "normals". I imagine the variance across tests over time would be greater for ADDers...



I'm also thinking of "skills" relating to intelligence, like the ability to acquire knowledge, integrate existing knowledge, critically analyze/problem solve, etc. For example, the Wiki entry (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligence_%28trait%29) gives this definition of intelligence from the American Psychological Association (among others):Talk about dodging the question, huh?

I don't know where that came from, but the more commonly used definitions involve going beyond the information taken in by the senses.

It's still being argued, but there are leaders.

Sternberg (of the famous "triangle of love") has a triangular "model" of intelligence that, of course, incorporates 3 aspects: creative, practical, and analytic. The "practical" aspect incorporates what most people think of as common sense and the tests for it are designed to be less culture-dependent.

Uminchu
05-10-06, 02:16 AM
Thanks a lot for the info, barbyma. I don't know if I have any differences in my subtest scores -- I've never seen the results, although I was told the total score once. My son does have a somewhat lower verbal score than the other scores.

fuzzybrain
05-10-06, 09:56 AM
Thanks to you both barbyma and uminchu-I love this conversation. I believe so wholeheartedly in finding out what lies beneath, and maybe beyond our grasp to understand what is going on inside a mind-I am certainly lacking in lots of areas, but I think things like art, music, drama-expression can certainly uncover an intelligence we didn't know was there, and can maybe level the field in the world of intelligence in the traditional sense. Sometimes I know that I can't find the words, but I know what I want to say-so I use my hands and arms to help me-flailing around to get my point across. I think also, the less communication that happens from a child, the more we need to "dig" it out using the senses-maybe finding other ways to get responses-there are so many things that can be used, music, a dark room, bubble wrap, to soothe and create less stress-here I am going on and on-carry on this conversation-I love it!! Lori

Uminchu
05-11-06, 10:27 PM
I'd like to add one more thing here. It's tempting to look at something about us that is "below average," and think, well, I'm above average in this or that, so it equals out. So we get into the game of keeping score, measuring ourselves against others.

I think it is wrong in the end because it measures your value as a person by your abilities. If I were to lose one of my abilities tomorrow, my value as a person is not diminished. If I lose the ability to walk, to speak, to feed myself, my value is the same as it is today.

If one ant can lift one grain of sand, and the other can lift two, is the other ant twice as valuable? No, they are both just ants. Their value is as ants and as living creatures, not the number of grains of sand they can carry. Now think about some being much more powerful than us. Do you think it will be impressed because my IQ is 10 points higher than some other person's, or that I can run a little faster, or lift a little more? To it, we will all still be as ants are to us. Our value will be as human beings, nothing more. :soapbox:

barbyma
05-12-06, 01:46 AM
I think it is wrong in the end because it measures your value as a person by your abilities. If I were to lose one of my abilities tomorrow, my value as a person is not diminished. If I lose the ability to walk, to speak, to feed myself, my value is the same as it is today.
Well said!

BTW, if you ask a sample of people if they are below average, average, or above average on just about any given task, around 85% will say they're above average!

fuzzybrain
05-12-06, 10:19 AM
I think people are just bent to thinking highly of themselves, and the insecure ones look to ways to overpower others in some way to make themselves look better, when if they knew they were the best they could be they would not NEED to compare themselves with another-just try to better themselves if it has to be a contest. People are pretty sensitive to their abilities-it makes them vulnerable, I guess to be questioned about it.

Chronomancer
05-20-06, 12:22 AM
I think that it isn't intelligence we are talking about but understanding.

dormammau2008
06-09-06, 07:36 PM
yes to have intelligence is one thing but to be clevaer an use it is something eles and thats where be smart comes into its own dorm

ADDitives
06-11-06, 04:03 AM
I listened to a very interesting Guest Speaker on Friday, who spoke about "every child in your class is 100% intelligent" and that they need different strategies.

I already knew taht..... and he spoke about Gardner's 8 Multiple Intelligences.

He THEN suggested that Gardner has 8 MIs and Bloom has written about 6 levels of thinking (e.g. knowledge, application, synthesis.....) and then said, from that you can get 48 different teaching strategies (Gardner's 8 X Bloom's 6).

e.g. Knowledge/ Verbal-Linguistic
Synthesis/ Visual-Spatial

I haven't seen the list yet, they put it up on the Student Server (supposedly) but i don't think it's there yet.

I'll update you next week and if anyone wants the whole list (probably a pdf file) then they can PM me their email address and i will email it to them when i get it.

ADDitives
06-11-06, 04:08 AM
The guest speaker ALSO gave us a definition of Intelligence...


"Intelligence is the ability to SOLVE PROBLEMS, MAKE PRODUCTS and SUPPLY SERVICES that other people value"

dormammau2008
06-11-06, 06:38 PM
hey addivtes thanks id love to see this listed a n know more about the diff stagingesss an your soooo right about defintion intrllingence thanks dorm

barbyma
06-11-06, 09:41 PM
Not only do I disagree with that definition of intelligence, I also have to comment on the Bloom/Gardener combo.

Gardener's "intelligence" has failed to give any information about a person except what activities they prefer to engage in.

While Bloom's taxonomy has proven somewhat useful for some assessments, it falls quite short of measuring true understanding. All it seems to measure is the level of processing (which is a completely different theory related to memory).

I speak first-hand about this; I've personally tested Bloom's taxonomy in a well-designed series of experiments.

dormammau2008
06-12-06, 07:56 PM
hey barb tell me more about blooms tests an how you did expermints on and why do you diesgare with the notron ofve intelligence???? dorm

fuzzybrain
06-13-06, 10:45 AM
Yes, I would be interested as well Barbyma to find out what kind of experiments you did-and doesn't it depend on your definition of intelligence? Not to split hairs, but can't you be smart in more than one way? Can't you have an internal knowledge, maybe it can or maybe it cannot be expressed or shared or communicated-but I think there are so many different kinds of it-maybe perhaps we need to broaden our definition of intelligence- at least be tolerant of another way of thinking or organizing our thoughts and imaginations-I am ignorant in the area of social behaviors, but maybe very smart in language usage-words-expression and syntax-so maybe it is the value we place on the skill itself, how useful is it to us as a society, or a group, or does it have to be useful to a group-what about if I have all the knowledge in the world, but I am just selfish and want to have it all to myself? Sorry-this is getting out of hand, just some random thoughts and what ifs. I love this conversation. Question: What are your passions?

fuzzybrain
06-13-06, 10:48 AM
Think I will shut up and go read my e-q book-thanks for the discussion.

barbyma
06-14-06, 01:48 AM
I can't go into too much detail about how I've tested Bloom's taxomony; I'd like to keep my anonynomy.

But, I can say that our examination included other factors that helped us show that the principles at work in the taxonomy are no more than "levels of processing", which is a theory that basically discusses memory's dependence on how things are encoded.

Bloom was certainly on to something, but applying knowledge requires more than just understanding. Because there are other things involved, assessments that are supposed test deeper understanding often miss.

I've discussed the issues with "intelligence" in many prior posts. If you do a search on keywords for my posts, I'm sure you can find them.

dormammau2008
06-17-06, 07:54 PM
mmmmmmm incodeing yes thinking and doing is what all liveing things do but thinking is something intil diff as in understanding but being intecent is how tyou use that knowagdele an put it toghter that makes it work some can do it better than others dorm