![images[1]](http://psychcentral.files.wordpress.com/2009/11/images1.jpg?w=132&h=91 "images[1]")
The topic in General Psychology this week is intelligence. While most people think of intelligence as “book smarts,” we’ve been discussing more up-to-date theories such as that of Howard Gardner. He has proposed that there are actually multiple types of intelligences which traditional intelligence tests don’t measure. While the theory is a bit controversial (big surprise!), many components of it have merit.
Can we say that a person with a high degree of logical-mathematical intelligence who can’t keep a job is smarter than a person with a high level of interpersonal intelligence who has an average IQ? Is a person with a high degree of bodily-kinesthetic intelligence (like a dancer or athlete) “dumber” than someone with linguistic intelligence who can write short stories?
Here’s a list of Gardner’s Multiple Intelligences from your text (Lefton and Brannon, Vango Books, 403) with a brief description of each. After reading and thinking about these types, share whether you think Gardner’s theory has validity. You might also consider answer Gardner’s question: “How am I smart?” There’s a big difference between that and, “How smart am I?”
- Linguistic: Sensitivity to the sounds, rhythms, and meanings of words; sensitivity to the different functions of language.
- Logical-mathematical: Sensitivity to and capacity to discern logical or numerical patters; ability to handle long chains of reasons.
- Musical: Ability to produce and appreciate rhythm, pitch, and timber. Appreciation of the forms of musical expressiveness.
- Spatial: Capacity to perceive the visual-spatial world accurately and to perform transformation on initial perceptions.
- Bodily-kinesthetic: Ability to control bodily movements and to handle objects skillfully.
- Interpersonal: Capacity to discern and respond appropriately to the moods, temperaments, motivations, and desire of other people.
- Intrapersonal: Ability to access one’s own feelings and to discriminate among them and draw on them to guide behavior; acknowledge one’s own strengths, weaknesses, desires, and intelligence.
- Naturalistic: Ability to make fine discriminations among the flora and fauna of the natural word or the patterns and deigns of human artifacts.
- Spiritual: Ability to master abstract concepts about being and also the ability to attain a certain state of being.
- Existential: Capacity to understand one’s place in the universe and the nature of being in both physical and psychological terms.
We're psychology instructors (Jayne, Mark, Myles, Katie-in order of our being hired) at a community/technical college who are energized and excited by psychology and its applications to daily life. After all, what's the point of knowing about synapses unless the knowledge improves your understanding of moods, disorders, and memory (to name a few).
We've found that just about everything relates in some form or fashion to the science of human behavior, and it's our goal to help others to see that. Accordingly, we'll be posting opinions, comments, and questions and hoping that you'll respond. We'll also provide links to relevant articles and websites to further increase your knowledge
8 responses so far ↓
Belinda Williamson // November 19, 2009 at 5:04 am
I congratulate Mr. Gardner. He has developed a category that will allow all sorts of people to feel and understand that they are smart. I think it is about time someone did this. I never felt like I was a smart person, mainly because where I went to school, like many other schools, if you didn’t make all A’s you weren’t considered smart. Other talents were not taken into consideration. Thanks to Mr. Gardner many people can come out of the closet, so to speak, they can show their smarts in different fashions. I especially hope that this knowledge trickles down to children, so that they can begin to understand this now. This is another reason to rejoice in individualism!
I hope it trickles down to children too! I know this theory is covered in education classes today because of its applications to school children. Let's just hope the education graduates take it to heart and apply it in their classes.Jerlene Atkinson // November 18, 2009 at 6:50 pm
I agree with gardner, there are many different intelligencies. Some people have some of the ones listed and some people have quite a view. I thought about my grandmother who have quite a bit of these intelligencies. One of them was spiritual and another was interpersonal as well as intrapersonal. We all have special gifts and the more you learn the more you grow.
Nice comment about your grandmother. Many people think that because you're old, you can't learn...or that you aren't too smart.DIANE GIDDINGS // November 17, 2009 at 1:11 pm
I would say that I agree. The fact that someone has a higher I.Q then you doesnt make them smarter in my opinion. At the end of the day we all have bills to pay, a family to participate in and life to live. I say if we are living it then we are doing ok!!!
Plus, even if your IQ is 150, it's not too smart to live irresponsibly or to neglect your family.Hannah Norwood // November 17, 2009 at 3:43 am
I agree with it, but I also see McLaurin’s point as well. You could just be talented, or gifted, in one area of knowledge. I remember my friend and I used to talk about people at school, and whether they were “book smart” or “life smart.” She always told me that I was not very smart, even though I always had to help her with school related things. My friend was always just better at working in the world than I was. She couldn’t barely spell or read, I was more linguistic than her, so I helped her a lot. She was more in tune with the world and what was going on around her. I guess we kind of helped eachother out by being opposite kinds of intelligent.
Sounds like the two of you were a winning team except that I have to wonder how "smart" it is to tell a friend that she's not very smart.J.D. Daves // November 15, 2009 at 6:35 pm
I agree with his theory to a certain exstint. I mean you could be at the top of your class but then you could also not be smart enough to do simple things like drive a car. A person not at the top of her class could know how to do more things then a person at the top of her class. Its hard to compare there intelliegence just by school grades. You wouldn’t hire a pharmacist to build you a house. People have different intelligence in many different fields. how smart am I? Well I think everybody has alittle bit of the definitions he mentioned in them, some more then others in certain areas. I think it all depends on what you are interested in.
Good example about the pharmacist and the contractor (builder).Jennifer Pearson // November 11, 2009 at 3:27 am
I think Howard Gardner is totally correct in his thinking. I have always thought that it was not totally an accurate measurement of someone’s intelligence just because they are not good at taking specific tests. Even in simple multiple choice tests, it is easy to get flustered or simply forget at the time of testing. I think that someone with the capability to play an instrument or speak more than one language is brilliant. I cannot do either…but I do not think I am any less intelligent than them(haha, I wouldn’t like to think so anyway…!). I believe I am just intelligent in different ways than them. So, how am I smart?~I think I am in all these categories in some ways. I get awesome grades in school and I love to sing, be active, and be social!
Although I've never actually met you face-to-face, I can tell that you're right about componential and interpersonal types of intelligence. Plus, you must have a good bit of intrapersonal intelligence too, or you wouldn't have been able to "know thyself" so well.John McLaurin // November 9, 2009 at 5:24 pm
I have to say I agree and yet I don’t. But honestly, I never viewed intelligence in categories like these. I’ve always viewed it as one’s knowledge in an area. For example, someone who could identify trees by name. They would be smarter than me in the area for I only really know what pine trees are.
Looking at the categories though, I would have considered them “talents” rather than intelligence. Society would probably agree. For me though, intelligence is school and work. Talents are hobbies. So what is being said today? If these “talents” are truly apart of out intelligence then how do we make them seen as not talents, but as something that rises above the value of basic scholarship?
Without thinking about it too deeply, it is not very valid. Simply off the top, I registered them as talents rather than intelligence and I do not believe them to be as high or as great as the common belief of what intelligence is. But I can see his point.
Hmmm. It sounds like you're wavering there at the end. You just can't decide if these "gifts" are actually talents or intelligences.melanderson1 // November 9, 2009 at 3:48 pm
I’ll start off by saying that I believe he is correct. You can’t judge someone’s intellegence on just a few things alone. So i pondered the question–How am I smart? and took a look at the list above: Here is how I believe that I am smart:
Linguistic: I sure do have a knack for words! Although I don’t know every definition and word in the dictionary, I can remember and respond to those that use certain words and I can apply them to my everyday language skills.
Musical: I sing, play the piano, play the violin, the viola, the flute and the clarinet. I also can read music. Although it took many years to study, My family has many musical talents, and its been passed down generation to generation.
Bodily-Kinesthetic: I used to be a gymnast, and I can use my body to definately dance. I used to be a cheerleader and I was a “leader” on my high school dance team.
Interpersonal and Intrapersonal: Lets face it, although I may be quiet in class, I have special “gift” for talking anyone’s ear off… but I also have the “gift” of listening.
I love how you tackled this theory and so readily found your intelligences. Now that you've been reminded of them, you'll have to start using them more fully.