Gardner's Theory of Multiple Intelligences...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_multiple_intelligences

Howard Gardner, a Harvard Psychologist, has a produced the Theory of Multiple Intelligences. It basically asserts that there's 8 different types of unconventional intelligences. They are:

* Spatial
* Linguistic
* Logical-mathematical
* Kinesthetic
* Musical
* Interpersonal
* Intrapersonal
* Naturalist

He asserts that someone whose intelligence lies in the Logical-mathematical (the intelligence that people most assert with "genius") area, isn't necessarily more intelligent overall than someone with the Linguistic intelligence.

Gardner also says people with Musical intelligence, may need an unconventional approach to learning the maths, or English. He also would like to use it to throw out the ideology behind standardized test - more specifically, the SAT. Gardner believes the SAT discriminates against students who are VERY functional in one intelligence, and are terrible at another one.

What do you think on the subject? Do you believe the SAT shouldn't be put so high up on the academic pedestal?

 

There's no limit to what human brain can do. No one knows of it's abilities and no one will. It is a never ending dilemma.

 

Worded it perfectly.

A few less sounds more rashional.

 

Of course the SAT discriminates against people with very high English and low math intelligence; its goal is to find people who are well rounded intelligently.
What is his point on the SAT? I don't fully understand it.

 

Yeah... my bad. My brain wasn't set to English mode when I wrote it. He basically asserts that because someone does horribly in the math area, but, the same person goes into a non-math oriented program (I.E: Psychology), the college shouldn't penalize him for a lower mark, they should pay more attention to the non-math part of the SAT.

Seeing as math isn't exactly prevalent in English-oriented courses.

 

Well said. I've always had the conventional thinking on intelligence. I always correlated intelligence with academic aptitude, but, Gardner brings forth more intelligences that a Rhodes Scholar may be terrible at.

 

It's an intriguing theory, but I don't know nearly enough about psychology to give an educated opinion.

Why would you think less than 8 would be more rational?

 

Well, if he had a strong English resume in school and did extremely well in the English SAT/SAT IIs, the college would probably understand what type of student the person was and not penalize them as much.
Then again, colleges always prefer well-rounded and multi-faceted students.

 

Standardized tests aren't perfect and they know it. When you take the ACT they aren't just checking how smart you are. They put so many questions on there to see how you deal with stress and time management. The science portion of the ACT doesn't even deal with science, it's about graphs. This is an interesting theory though, in college I'll expand on this probably.

 

Maybe the SAT's are testing for that certain type of intelligence. Maybe having that will make you more succesfull in life in general. If there really are that many intelligences, then you couldn't compare them because it would be apples and oranges.

 

I don't believe the SAT or the ACT (What the kids in my school are required to take in 11th grade) should be so critical to your academic future as there are multiple factors that could cause you to do bad. Sure some kids are ignorant in some subjects but their academic future shouldn't be ruined because of one bad test.

 

Yeah, I still gotta retake mine, god damn you are smart btw, I only got a 27 and it was tied for highest in our school :/

 

I also think of the pressure. I can't handle life-altering pressure. I can do a little mid-term test with no anxiety, whatsoever. However, if I take a test that's decently big in my life (for example, the A+ Certification I just took) I get nervous, and double-guess myself.

 

I also don't think you can narrow it down to only 8.

Is this in any way related to the "unconventional" approaches to learning such as kinetic and stationary?

 

I fully agree with this. I am very very good at Psychology, but I lack in math... It takes me way longer than most people to understand it. To me, being a "Genius" means being good all-around, kinda like being an all-star in the courts.

 

Are you good in the simplest forms of Math? I.E: Adding, subtracting, multiplying, and division.

I'm good at Psychology, as well. I'm also quite shit at math; however, I can do all the "simple," forms of Math exceedingly well.