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
