>Mike Lorrey wrote:
>However calling any and every capability of the mind an 'intelligence' is
>doublespeak. There is no reason the original words to describe those
>capabilities should not be used.
John Grigg wrote:
>Gardner explains that there is far more to the human intellect then the
>logical/analytical part which is of course, is very important but not
>These are the forms of intelligence that he recognizes, (from his website)
Recently, he added
>an eighth intelligence to the list: the Naturalist Intelligence. There's
>also been some consideration of a ninth intelligence - existential
>intelligence - but the jury is still out on that one.
Besides, for now at
>least, a great deal of new understanding may be found from within these
I have to agree with Mr. Lorrey on this. No one has ever denied that these
areas of mental endeavor exist, or that they may be integral to human
Mr. Lorrey's concern, (and mine, when I studied psychology) is that these
of mental activity are emphatically NOT "intelligence". "Intelligence", as
by Binet when he invented the entire concept of the comparing of one's
against those of one's peers, never used the word "intelligence" to mean
EXCEPT mathematical / verbal / abstract symbolic reasoning. That is what
"intelligence" is. No aspersion is placed on any of the aforementioned other
but it is simply what the word means.
Is there any reason, short of Mr Lorrey's hypothesized assault on
rationalism, not to
refer to these other "intelligences" as what they *are*: abilities.
Intelligence, by this meaning, can be understood as one's "mathematical /
abstract symbolic reasoning" ability. What is so wrong with the word
so exalted with the word "intelligence", that we feel the need to redefine
"intelligence", so as not to cast aspersions on them?
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Jul 27 2000 - 14:04:12 MDT