I was recently reading in psychology class about Howard Gardner's Theory of Multiple Intelligences.

According to the Wikipedia article this theory suggests that Humans can have more than one type of intelligence. Specifically :

1 Verbal-linguistic

2 Logical-mathematical

3 Visual-spatial

4 Kinesthetic

5 Auditory

6 Interpersonal Communication

7 Intrapersonal Communication

I'd like to hear some comments on this if you will.

The address for the Wikipedia article is: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiple_intelligence

It seems reasonable to me, because standard methods of intelligence evaluation are subjective. Academically standard intelligence tests are designed to find the usual nerdy square peg types that will fit into the square holes of standard academia.

 

The special abilities (type of intelligence?) exhibited by savants and autistics who resist standardisation are not catered for.

 

Different types of intelligence require different testing methods/models.

How any one can claim to quantify a property for which there isn't a universally established definition of, is beyond me.

 

Even Gardner's categories are loosely and, in my opinion, arbitrarily defined and incomplete.

How any one can claim to quantify a property for which there isn't a universally established definition of' date=' is beyond me.

 

Even Gardner's categories are loosely and, in my opinion, arbitrarily defined and incomplete.[/quote']

 

True, that has earned this theory a lot of criticism. However most of psychology is on shaky ground compared to other sciences.

How any one can claim to quantify a property for which there isn't a universally established definition of' date=' is beyond me.

 

Even Gardner's categories are loosely and, in my opinion, arbitrarily defined and incomplete.[/quote']

 

That is a fair point, but at least Gardner is recognising that their are different variatitions of intelligence. The idea that intelligence is not a single easily definable characteristic is an advance and Gardner also does accept that his catergorisations are ,too a degree, arbitrary.

In fact, there are an infinite number of intelligences, depending on your system of classifying them. The set given in the original post is a reasonable classification, but is subjective rather than being the result of some objective measurement.

 

My favourite is, to my knowledge, my own invention, though it seems to me to be a vital distinction. That is, rationality. If it were measured, it would be RQ. Rationality is the ability to recognise the difference between reality and taurine excrement. Most people have little ability to draw the distinction. Hence such things as homeopathy, spiritist mediums, advertising and politicians.

Wasn't there some method of measuring the EEG response to a flashing light in the subjects mind that was supposed to correlate with intelligence? As I recall the lower the latency of the response the more powerful the intellect. I remember this getting a lot of discussion about twenty-five years ago.