Wordsmith Talk |
About Us | What's New | Search | Site Map | Contact Us | |||
Register Log In Wordsmith.org Forums General Topics Miscellany Intelligence and intellect
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
OP I read with interest all the opinions expressed on bonzaialsations post *Is it just me?*
It provoked a couple of thoughts:
1. The definition and peoples perception of intelligence and intellect
and
2. When discussions arise regarding the attitudes and literacy of todays youth very rarely is the role of educators questioned.
Hello, ll! [beaming smile e] Would you mind sharing your definitions of intelligence and intellect? What do you see as the difference between the two?
Wow! Could we ever write a lot about measures of intelligence! There have been volumes written on the subject.
I would suggest that a person's view of intelligence has a lot to do with what the individual values. Gardner's theory of multiple intelligences at the very least suggests that intelligence cannot be measured one way.
And that's not even beginning to tap into perception.
He categorizes the "intelligences" as:
"Logical-Mathematical Intelligence--consists of the ability to detect patterns, reason deductively and think logically. This intelligence is most often associated with scientific and mathematical thinking.
Linguistic Intelligence--involves having a mastery of language. This intelligence includes the ability to effectively manipulate language to express oneself rhetorically or poetically. It also allows one to use language as a means to remember information.
Spatial Intelligence--gives one the ability to manipulate and create mental images in order to solve problems. This intelligence is not limited to visual domains--Gardner notes that spatial intelligence is also formed in blind children.
Musical Intelligence--encompasses the capability to recognize and compose musical pitches, tones, and rhythms. (Auditory functions are required for a person to develop this intelligence in relation to pitch and tone, but it is not needed for the knowledge of rhythm.)
Bodily-Kinesthetic Intelligence--is the ability to use one's mental abilities to coordinate one's own bodily movements. This intelligence challenges the popular belief that mental and physical activity are unrelated.
The Personal Intelligences--includes interpersonal feelings and intentions of others--and intrapersonal intelligence--the ability to understand one's own feelings and motivations. These two intelligences are separate from each other. Nevertheless, because of their close association in most cultures, they are often linked together. "
http://ed.gov/databases/ERIC_Digests/ed410226.html
...plus the intelligence of natural sciences.
And Gardner's is just one theory floating out there.
The reason I bring up Gardner is he at least recognizes that intelligence cannot be measured in one way. Take IQ tests, for instance. You might score very high on an IQ test, yet may have no ability (or little ability) to draw anything you see with any kind of skill. Today our principal mentioned Diogenes to a group of teachers, and our art teacher said, "Who was Diogenes? I slept through all that in school." Yet this is a person wonderfully, amazingly gifted in creating paintings. She says she's in love with paint, and I believe her. She also has the gift of making people feel at ease. She's funny. She's welcome in any group. We love her. And there are probably lots of people who might score a lot higher on standard IQ tests who don't begin to produce what she does through her art, and, thank heaven, what she does for groups of shy people.
It's comforting to people--and I suppose most of us here are such people--to know that the linguistic element of intelligence is highly valued. But that linguistic element or ability ain't gonna help you worth squat if you're sitting among a group of musicians who can improvise together at the drop of a hat.
So, I like what Gardner gets at. Traditionally we've measured intelligence heavily on linguistic, mathematical, and logical abilities. But we're beginning to realize that there are other mental abilities that are just as important given the appropriate field.
It's interesting that even Gardner realized a bit later that the natural sciences required a special kind of intelligence that simply wasn't subsumed by the other areas.
I'll give you another personal example, although I'm certainly not gifted in the natural sciences. I have a small ability to recognize trees. I just "get" it. Once I've got a bark or a limb or a leaf or a bud inside of me, that tree is mine. But I can't draw any of it. It's clearly visual, right? But I cannot draw for the life of me anything with any clarity. And it's not muscular. It's not a kinetic problem. I just cannot make my hands do what my brain immediately--instantaneously--recognizes and puts together. The art teacher and I have talked about this because she has trouble recognizing specific kinds of trees. She'll have a terrific leaf project going on with her kids--and I'll stand by looking in amazement telling her I couldn't even produce what the second graders are doing. And then I'll tell her all about what I recognize in the leaves. And she admits she isn't hooked into what I see. Yet she can use the visual information both creatively and accurately.
Sure, give me those abstract tests in which you have to predict which sequence comes next, and I fly! But put a pencil or paintbrush into my hand and tell me, on the lowest level, to reproduce something I've seen and loved and watched develop at any stage at all--I become a three-year-old idiot.
So, to reiterate, I like very much what Gardner is getting at. He levels the playing field a bit and causes us to appreciate each other's brains a bit more.
Off my box,
WW
thank you, WW!
now let's take that and poke at question #2 a bit: imagine that you have 20(or often more) students in your classroom...
formerly known as etaoin...
OP WW
you took the words right outa my mouth
Intellect is the product of intelligence having been put to work.
OP Jackie
to my mind intellect is just a measure of our intelligence.
WW virtualy echos my opinions in his post on Gardner's views on the measures of intelligence.
We all have our level of intelligence but it may lie in a different sphere.
Lets recognise and appreciate the diversity this world provides.
WW re: your comment on iq tests Take IQ tests, for instance. You might score very high on an IQ test, yet may have no ability (or little ability) to draw anything you see with any kind of skill.
the 4 hour+ test given by doctors, test many of these diffent types of intelegence..there are spacial test, and memory test, and pattern finding test and drawing tests, and tactile tests...
the more common IQ test that are multiple choice questions on a a broad range of subjects, are more similar to SAT's or other test, what they test is general knowledge, and applications of that knowledge.. and relationships about the knowledge.
like one question similar to a recent crossword puzzle clue, horse:hocks::human:? if you only knew hock as in ham hocks (the narrow end of whole ham--) you might be able to come up with the correct answer, if the multiple choice list did not not include Knee. but its a stretch.. you have to think about hock, and where you know it from, and where it is on a living animal, and then think about what part of the body that would be on a human... (or you could have grown up on a farm, and be familiar with horses..) and the biggest thing that written IQ test test is reading ability!
a good IQ test can find intelegence in kids who can't read (but when presented with the same information verbal, or visually (images) clearly know the answer)
intelect is the intelligence plus effort. a persons basic inborn ability, plus the effort they have used with the ability.
In reply to:the 4 hour+ test given by doctors,
Which one specifically? There are many IQ tests out there from many different countries. Which one is it to which you're referring? It would make an interesting part of the battery to include musical aptitude. The one musical aptitude test I've seen is really entirely too easy with no challenge at all--really, a ridiculous little test, the Conn Musical Aptitude test. It doesn't begin to measure or challenge musical skills that truly gifted musicians would find challenging. It tests extremely easy skills such as telling whether musical phrases have been played at the same tempo or not, and whether a note in a phrase has changed pitch. Pretty paltry attempt there by those particular test makers.
Anyway, I'm interested in knowing the name of the 4-hour test that includes drawing to which you refer. I was tested after an extremely horrible automobile accident (head injury) in 1972--tested all day long, in fact, but no drawing was included in any of the many tests I took; no music; lots of abstract thinking, patterns, linguistic and mathematical items; memorization (a little). I didn't take one test, but many, and I have no idea what the names were. However, I'm thankful drawing was not included, although I wish music had been, because if drawing had been included, I would have done very poorly indeed.
Thanks for trying to remember the name of the test that includes drawing--if you can find it.
I think the role of educators has been discussed in the "AWAD in Schools" area which admittedly has only sporadic use (possibly because of some doubt about its purpose).
k
Moderated by Jackie
Link Copied to Clipboard
Forum Statistics Forums16Topics13,913Posts229,423Members9,182 Most Online3,341
Dec 9th, 2011
Newest Members Ineffable, ddrinnan, TRIALNERRA, befuddledmind, KILL_YOUR_SUV
9,182 Registered Users
Who's Online Now 0 members (), 793 guests, and 3 robots. Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Top Posters(30 Days) A C Bowden 23
Top Posters wwh 13,858Faldage 13,803Jackie 11,613wofahulicodoc 10,593tsuwm 10,542LukeJavan8 9,922Buffalo Shrdlu 7,210AnnaStrophic 6,511Wordwind 6,296of troy 5,400
Forum Rules · Mark All Read Contact Us · Forum Help · Wordsmith.org