Ann,
Driver was your word. I picked it up in order to relate to what I thought
was your position.
I don't believe in a single omnipotent kind of intelligence. In fact, I'm
suspicious of the concept intelligence per se. (Inductive and deductive
reasoning is OK though.)
The traditional IQ has been very much a means of social control. I suspect
- but its a long time since I've done any reading on anything like this -
that intelligence was originally a postulate to explain why some people
seem to excel across the board while others don't. In other words it
replaced an intuitive (not theoretically developed) position wherein people
had lots of different capacities. So Gardner swings back to that kind of
view. Anything that stresses that different people have different
strengths and weaknesses and that these strengths and weaknesses can change
over time has to be better than the fixed IQ model. So Gardner is for me an
improvement on, say, Burt. This doesn't mean I have to accept a theory that
has to keep patching itself by adding more and more dimensions.
I'm afraid, if anything, this conversation has polarised our points of
view. i feel that you have missed my point. Possibly you feel the same
about me. In such a case, I prefer to bail out.
Sue
At 11:45 PM 2/22/2005, you wrote:
>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/
|