My real issues with this thread is not whether or not people can get behind
this particular theory of Multiple Intelligences.
The truly alarming part is that they don't want to redefine intelligence at
ALL, but adhere to the original definition a la 1905. This is the problem I
have with most conservative models, they prefer to look back on the tried and
true, preferably pre 1950, rather than make a stab at any future uncertainty.
It's normal for our species to create, as time goes by, more comprehensive
definitions of Intelligence. This thread could be seen as a discussion that
encompass the many attributes that make up a human mind, but as usual, people
are looking at this as a political battle. It's almost comical.
If I disagreed with the theory I would see this thread as a challenge to
create a model
that did encompass the whole picture, not just the limited ones within 1905
psychologists reach. It's like Harry Brown saying how wonderful the fifties
were, before everything went to hell!! I had to laugh out loud!
Perhaps it WILL become apparent what intelligence is ONLY when we the
cognitive sciences discover all the brain/body processes. In the meantime, a
forward looking view is always better than looking back. Even if a current
theory is proven wrong, it's likely that in 1905 the psychologists did not
have as much evidence as researchers do now.
The last post by Matthew brought up to me the thought that as we go forward
into technology a LOT of terms and values will have to be redefined, indeed
"amplified upon" not just the words "selfish" or "intelligence".
No matter how we cling to the original definition, its not the whole picture
of a human mind.
Perhaps we think a machine that could only think in logic and reason, and has
no other aspects of intelligence, would appear as intelligent in the same way
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Jul 27 2000 - 14:04:14 MDT