I've not read Gardner, but the basic premise makes sense to me. Here I am,
so utterly dysfunctional numerically that the only way I can remember my
bank PIN is by setting each digit to a degree of the scale and learning the
resultant 4-note melody. What a mercy I'm musically intelligent, or I'd be
sunk!
best joanna
----- Original Message -----
From: "Ann White" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Tuesday, February 22, 2005 12:45 PM
Subject: Re: Gardner's intelligences
> Sue,
>
> Sue Stanford wrote:
>
>> At 08:16 AM 2/21/2005, you wrote:
>>
>>> Hi Sue,
>>> Aren't skills part of the learning package, whereas intelligence is the
>>> gas to make that package run?
>>
>>
>>
>> To postulate a separate driver seems to me to invoke an extra unnecessary
>> layer.
>>
> When you say "driver" I'm thinking you are referring to the various
> intelligences, and that you believe there is just a single, omnipotent
> kind of intelligence.I'd like to know how you identify this single
> intelligence.
>
>
>> Recognition of beats, I would call a basic level skill. This has
>> pertinence
>> to many different areas of experience. Not just music but sport, poetry,
>> fluent handwriting, stress in speech, dance among many other activities
>> all use depend at least to some extent on the recognition of beats.
>> Musical
>> ability presupposes some sensitivity to recognition of beats, but also
>> pitch, intonation, pattern recognition, physical control etc.
>
> Recognition of beats is part of Musical/Rhythmic Intelligence as defined
> by Howard Gardner, the guy who came up with the theory of multiple
> intelligences. But it isn't the whole of that area of intelligence. Even
> if it were one and the same, there are obviously some people who are
> lousy at "keeping a beat." Just as there are people who cannot "hear"
> the music in poetry, the rhythm and patterns.
>
> Gardner says this about musical/rhtymic intelligence:
> "These "music smart" people learn best through sounds including
> listening ands making sounds such as songs, rhythms, patterns and other
> types of audoitory expression. They are able to use inductive and
> deductive reasoning and identify relationships in data."
>
>
>>
>> It seems to me absurd to assume that we are all born with a specific
>> 'intelligence' (ie 'driver' as you have above) that relates to a
>> relatively
>> new technology.
>
> Sue, if the idea of multiple intelligences is "absurd" that's your
> feeling to keep, of course. But if I've given the impression that people
> are "born with a specific intelligence.. that relates to a relatively
> new technology," then I need to clear up what sounds like some kind of
> magical gift.
>
> The idea of a digital intelligence has still not made it past a
> theoretical hypothesis. But what I know of it, is that it is called the
> "click" reflex or something similar, and it is indeed, something we each
> possess to varying levels of proficiency. It is not specifically related
> to "new technology." It is an ability that can be applied to the use of
> computers. Just as recognitoin of patterns can be applied to use and
> enjoyment of music or poetry.
>
>> A couple of generations (or more) ago there would have been
>> some people who were specially keyed into observing say the weather for
>> farming purposes, animal tracks for hunting purposes, relating colour to
>> the temperature of a fire (as potters who use long kilns still do today).
>
> I think this is true. But just because the uses or applications of an
> intelligence change from one generation to the next (ie recognizing
> animal tracks as opposed to recognizing some other pattern), does not
> mean the basic "intelligence" that allowed for that recognition was
> nonexistent.
>
>>
>> We can see how both personal/economic need and cultural supports would
>> enable these skills to be developed on the basis of observation,
>> comparison, salience etc. We don't need to relate each one of them to a
>> specialised intelligence.
>
> Well if you do not "recognize" the intelligence, then how do you develop
> it? If you deny it exists, how do you develop it?
>
>>
>> But to return to what I said in my first post, I do think that Gardner's
>> theory helps us teachers to realise that individuals have their own
>> profiles with some strengths and weaknesses and that concepts need to be
>> introduced and reinforced through a number of different channels. It also
>> helps us to recognise the pure variety of these strengths, and make
>> things
>> like good communication skills more 'respectable' by giving them the name
>> 'intelligence'.
>
> Laugh. well Sue, you've given a nice summary to what I've just been
> introduced to... but I do believe there's more than "respectability" or
> credibility involved in naming these intelligences. If they are not
> recognized, how can teachers develop the intelligence? How can
> individuals recognizew and master these intelligences? I think naming is
> essential here.
>
> take care,
> Ann
>
> --
> It is our duty to proceed as though the limits of our abilities do not
> exist.
> - Pierre Teilhard de Chardin
>
> ***
> The Red Hibiscus http://theredhibiscus.blogspirit.com/
|