After the Bell Rings

While this post is mainly for my human relations class, it certainly has relevance to anyone with an interest in psychology. Intelligence was a hot topic in my introductory psychology class last week. What is this concept exactly? Can it be measured? How do you know if a person is smart or not? Two theorists, Howard Gardner and Aaron Sternberg, look at intelligence quite differently from the so-called traditional way.

Today I’m concentrating on Gardner’s theory of multiple intelligences. According to our text, Gardner believes that there are at least eight different types of intelligence and that only two of them are the standard types that we get measured on in school. Linguistic and logical/mathematical are of ultra importance in an academic setting, but what about after the proverbial bell rings? How is “smartness” assessed without a paper and pencil test?

Of Gardner’s eight types of intelligence, the two that I believe are important in a person’s work and personal life are intrapersonal and interpersonal. Intrapersonal intelligence tells a person what he’s good at, what his aptitudes and interests are. While you’d think that would be obvious to a person, it apparently isn’t. There are folks everywhere who are employed in positions that they don’t enjoy. In fact, some loathe their jobs and dread going to work. “Is this all there is?” they might ask.

Interpersonal intelligence is an aptitude that allows a person to get along with other people. Individuals with a high degree of this can “read” others, communicate with them, motivate them, lead them, and handle conflict more easily. To take this a step further, they know how to get along with their co-workers and supervisor and understand the importance of forming alliances and of staying in touch with their boss. They know what it takes to get raises and promotions. In the personal arena, those with a high level of interpersonal intelligence also know how to get along with partners, friends, neighbors, and children.

Put your thinking cap on and relate some opinions and/or personal experiences related to the above. How would you rate yourself on intrapersonal and interpersonal intelligence? Are there people in your life whom you consider gifted in these areas? Have there been situations in which you wish you’d had a bigger dose of either or both?

Cover That Tattoo

 A few weeks ago a young co-worker of mine told me about an article she had read about personal appearance and its importance in the workplace. According to the information she had read, some of the top reasons given by employers for not hiring and/or promoting people all had to do with image factors that people have control over: bad breath, unkempt looking hair, visible tattoos, and wrinkled clothing. Then last week, I read an article on NPR that advised people who weren’t getting the positions and raises they wanted to look in the mirror. That’s right. According to the article, looks still count.

Why is this on a psychology blog? Because it fits neatly into at least two areas: social psychology and the psychology of self. The former includes topics such as interpersonal attraction, decision making, and attitudes. The latter encompasses tons of “self words” like self-presentation, self-esteem, self-concept, and self-efficacy. Truly, the above topic could dovetail into several others including humanistic psychology, an area that involves making choices that affect your life success (or lack of it). While I’m on the subject of topical areas, this is also relevant to intelligence, especially the so-called street smarts.

Many people might argue that it’s their work ethic and their expertise that make the difference. They don’t think it’s fair to be judged on appearance. While they might have a point, it’s a fact that employers are the ones who are calling the shots, and if they don’t want to see visible tattoos and you want the job, then cover it (or them) up. If  you think employers are being too picky about ironing your clothes, fine. Then stay unemployed. Like it or not, people everywhere make assumptions based on appearance, at least until they get to know you.

According the article that I read on NPR, employers and supervisors also make decisions on things that might be a little harder to change. Size, for example. Do you need to lose a few pounds? Many organizations frown on obesity because of health concerns. They want their employees to come to work and work energetically and efficiently, not call in sick. They’re concerned about the cost of insurance premiums too. Also, as much as it pains me to mention it, the article said that good looking people have advantages over average looking ones. While there may not be that much we can do about crooked noses or big ears (just examples, don’t take it personally), we can still do our best with what we have.

Are you willing to cut your hair, hide the tattoo, floss and brush? Is a nice raise worth enough to iron your clothes? Is a promotion worth cutting out the desserts and going to the gym? Can you see how personal choice can affect how people perceive you? Are there changes you can make?

How Am I Smart?

Howard Gardner

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.

Nerds and Eggheads

Although psychology is a science, there are those who persist in applying common sense explanations in their efforts to understand behavior. Despite the fact that much folk wisdom turns out to be false when subjected to empirical testing, some people cling to it because….Well, you tell me why. Here are a few examples of folk beliefs that people cling to, beliefs that have no basis in fact.

• Children who excel academically or who read a lot are nerds, physical weaklings, or eggheads. Not true. Zill and Winglee, among others, found that these children are actually more likely to be accepted by their peers than are low achievers.
• Low self-esteem causes aggression. Again, not so. In fact, the opposite seems more likely in that aggression is more often associated with high self esteem
• Parenthood is a cause of happiness. When subjected to scientific examination, this turns out to be true only from the retrospective standpoint, meaning that it’s true when the children have left home and the parent can appreciate the accomplishment of raising them. In the moment-to-moment perspective, children make people less happy. Ouch.
• We use only 10 percent of our brain. Although this has no basis in fact, this psycho-fact has been around for decades. How could something like this even be measured? And what part of the brain are the believers referring to? The cerebellum? The hypothalamus?

There are dozens of such examples. My question is why people persist in believing common sense “wisdom” when it’s actually nonsense.  Also, can you think of some psycho-myth that you’d like to share? For instance, everyone knows that absence makes the heart grow fonder, right? Or does familiarity breed contempt?

How Am I Smart?

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.

P.S. to Nature/Nurture

A little online reading unearthed an interesting statement by Lewis Terman to Harry Harlow when he learned of the latter’s  upcoming marriage to Clara Mears. Having a tested IQ of 155, Clara was a young woman who had been  part of Terman’s classic study of gifted children. Yes, 155. That’s extraordinarily high when you consider that the average American IQ is 100.

 So is intelligence more related to genes and chromosomes or to one’s environment? Read Terman’s statement and tell how you think it relates to the nature/nurture issue mentioned in yesterday’s post: “I am happy to see the joining of Clara’s extraordinary hereditary material with Harry’s productivity as a psychologist.”

As a postscript, I know that Mears and Harlow had two children, but I don’t know anything about their intellectual capacity or productivity. What’s your guess?

Nature or Nurture or Both?

Aside from that adorable dimple in your left cheek, what else have you inherited from your parents? Are you tall, short, smart, dull, musically gifted, athletically adept, or linguistically proficient? Or maybe you’re a math whiz. Whatever you are, you’re the unique combination of your heredity and your environment.

Just how much of our development is because of our unique genetic endowment, that special combination of genes and chromosomes that is passed on to us from our ancestors? In addition to physical attributes, think about characteristics such as intelligence, personality, and predisposition to certain mental and physical disorders and share your opinion on which you believe to be more important, nature or nurture.

There’s no right or wrong response to this so-called “debate.” I’m just interested in your thoughts about what makes you uniquely you.