Olympus-OM
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [OM] BIGGER GAME

Subject: Re: [OM] BIGGER GAME
From: Andrew Fildes <afildes@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 13 Apr 2011 09:03:20 +1000
Yeh, must be getting old. But I won't accept an argument for different 
intelligences.

In the final years of my teaching, one very popular concept was 'multiple 
intelligences'. It's an idea started by Howard Gardner who was interested in 
the obvious and provable idea that we all tend to learn in different ways and 
we tend to be good at different things. He talked this up into a concept of 
different 'intelligences'. Not too bad so far. However this has been seized on 
by the education system as a plausible argument to claim that every person or 
student has an intelligence. That hulking, brain-dead thug at the back of the 
class has a physical or mechanical intelligence and we just haven't tapped into 
it yet. This is reinforced by the strange idea that we are all equal, in some 
sense. Therefore we must all be equally intelligent, right?! And it's just a 
matter of finding out how.

I object, strongly. I would argue with no more than anecdotal evidence that 
there is one kind of intelligence, which happens to be expressed in different 
ways. Note that Gardners's theory is little more than a plausible thought 
experiment anyway, though I'll concede that he's certainly more intelligent 
than I am. <g> But I'd apply a simple ontological proof to it by conceding that 
I can conceive of a being who is better than I am am at absolutely everything - 
and is not a god of course. I don't go there. But I have seen, heard of or met 
such admirable individuals who, while flawed, are still 'better' than I in 
every significant category I can consider. Logically then there must be those 
who are worse than I in every significant way. It's my standard argument 
against equality. Intelligence is one of those significant categories - 
persistence probably isn't although it's a useful personality trait.

But it does seem clear that those we regard as intelligent seem to have common 
features - make up your own list but I'd include things like adaptability, 
quick thinking, even-handedness, tolerance and the like as these things are 
based in careful thought. I'd also expect such a person to be good at more than 
one thing. Now there is a clear, sliding scale that can measure these things. 
Yes I'm hopeless at music, languages and crosswords but I'm good in certain 
other areas so a test would have to measure outside these 'good ats' - for 
instance, the ability to comprehend and assess complex scenarios without 
leaping to faulty or facile conclusions.

That average enough for you Chris?  :-)
Andrew Fildes
afildes@xxxxxxxxxxxxx



On 13/04/2011, at 1:13 AM, Bob Whitmire wrote:

> Nah, For some reason unfathomable to me, Andrew is being nice. I would have 
> said, "Half our electorate are blinking effing idiots!" Of course that 
> denotes prejudgment on my part, for which I don't apologize. Truth to tell, 
> the only reason I haven't made a life's work out of demolishing "one person, 
> one vote," is because no one has suggested a satisfactory way to decide 1) 
> who's smart enough to vote, and 2) who gets the final say. 
> 
> Intelligence comes in so many flavors that any attempt to elevate one kind 
> above another invariably results in tyranny.

-- 
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>
Sponsored by Tako
Impressum | Datenschutz