Sociopath Community

I would explain which intelligences I'm excellent in but i dont want to be some bragging narc, all I'm saying is there are multiple I excell in so multiple intelligence's theory is more than a theory, maybe a law, but usually an exception 

FOTS said: 

I would explain which intelligences I'm excellent in but i dont want to be some bragging narc

You could talk about your three worst to seem more humble. 

Turncoat said: 

FOTS said: 

I would explain which intelligences I'm excellent in but i dont want to be some bragging narc

You could talk about your three worst to seem more humble. 

 Nah fuck that I'll just list em off

Intrapersonal, spatial, existential are my top 3

I have excellent naturalist, interpersonal, bodily-kinesthetic, linguistic, logical-mathematical

My musical intelligence is average

Intelligence tests and psychometrics have generally found high correlations between different aspects of intelligence, rather than the low correlations which Gardner's theory predicts, supporting the prevailing theory of general intelligence rather than multiple intelligences (MI). The theory has been criticized by mainstream psychology for its lack of empirical evidence, and its dependence on subjective judgement.

Top 3: 
Bodily-Kinesthetic, Interpersonal, Existential

Bad 3: 
Intra-personal, Spatial, Linguistic

I've tried to think of some kinds of intelligence that might not be on here, but the categories keep somewhat covering it in different forms. I feel like I'm overlooking something obvious. 

BIearydoII said: 

Intelligence tests and psychometrics have generally found high correlations between different aspects of intelligence, rather than the low correlations which Gardner's theory predicts, supporting the prevailing theory of general intelligence rather than multiple intelligences (MI). The theory has been criticized by mainstream psychology for its lack of empirical evidence, and its dependence on subjective judgement.

 

So much for that theory.

What would you figure leads to the divisions within people's capabilities then, their lackings? 

There do seem to be tilts for people's capabilities, like someone who's decent with problem solving but can't figure people out at all. 

Turncoat said: 

BIearydoII said: 

Intelligence tests and psychometrics have generally found high correlations between different aspects of intelligence, rather than the low correlations which Gardner's theory predicts, supporting the prevailing theory of general intelligence rather than multiple intelligences (MI). The theory has been criticized by mainstream psychology for its lack of empirical evidence, and its dependence on subjective judgement.

 

So much for that theory.

What would you figure leads to the divisions within people's capabilities then, their lackings? 

There do seem to be tilts for people's capabilities, like someone who's decent with problem solving but can't figure people out at all. 

I removed that last bit because I realized it wasn't warranted.

One major criticism of the theory is that it is ad hoc: that Gardner is not expanding the definition of the word "intelligence", but rather denies the existence of intelligence as traditionally understood, and instead uses the word "intelligence" where other people have traditionally used words like "ability" and "aptitude". This practice has been criticized by Robert J. Sternberg, Eysenck, and Scarr. White (2006) points out that Gardner's selection and application of criteria for his "intelligences" is subjective and arbitrary, and that a different researcher would likely have come up with different criteria.

BIearydoII said: 

Turncoat said: 

BIearydoII said: 

Intelligence tests and psychometrics have generally found high correlations between different aspects of intelligence, rather than the low correlations which Gardner's theory predicts, supporting the prevailing theory of general intelligence rather than multiple intelligences (MI). The theory has been criticized by mainstream psychology for its lack of empirical evidence, and its dependence on subjective judgement.

 

So much for that theory.

What would you figure leads to the divisions within people's capabilities then, their lackings? 

There do seem to be tilts for people's capabilities, like someone who's decent with problem solving but can't figure people out at all. 

I removed that last bit because I realized it wasn't warranted.

One major criticism of the theory is that it is ad hoc: that Gardner is not expanding the definition of the word "intelligence", but rather denies the existence of intelligence as traditionally understood, and instead uses the word "intelligence" where other people have traditionally used words like "ability" and "aptitude". This practice has been criticized by Robert J. Sternberg, Eysenck, and Scarr. White (2006) points out that Gardner's selection and application of criteria for his "intelligences" is subjective and arbitrary, and that a different researcher would likely have come up with different criteria.

I could see how appropriating that word would push some people, and aptitude/ability do seem like better choices. Past a point I could see people feeling like terms such as "Emotional Intelligence" ought to be a different words too, though. 

It otherwise seems to cover a surprising amount of ground through it's simplicity. 

Turncoat said: 

I could see how appropriating that word would push some people, and aptitude/ability do seem like better choices. Past a point I could see people feeling like terms such as "Emotional Intelligence" ought to be a different words too, though. 

It otherwise seems to cover a surprising amount of ground through it's simplicity. 

Agreed! Skimmed through this quickly and found this:

A major criticism of Gardner's theory is that it has never been tested, or subjected to peer review, by Gardner or anyone else, and indeed that it is unfalsifiable. Others (e.g. Locke, 2005) have suggested that recognizing many specific forms of intelligence (specific aptitude theory) implies a political—rather than scientific—agenda, intended to appreciate the uniqueness in all individuals, rather than recognizing potentially true and meaningful differences in individual capacities.