QueenMUSE wrote:
>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.
"Intelligence" is a word. It is a symbol we use use to refer, in speech and
writing, to a particular class of mental abilities. The "traditional"
definition is that "intelligence" is one's ability in those areas of
cognition also referred to as "mathematical / verbal abstract symbolic
reasoning."
I have no particular attachment to the word "intelligence". In fact, I am
prepared to jettison it altogether if it will aid communication.
Intelligence being the word it is, and having the history of usage it does
and the connotations it does, communication is better served by abandoning
the word altogether, then by weakening it's definition from a particular
subset of our cognitive abilities, into a mere synonym for "cognitive
ability".
"Intelligence" does not mean the same thing as "cognitive ability."
Intelligence has never meant anything more then "one's ability at
mathematical / verbal abstract symbolic reasoning, as compared to one's
peers abilities in this area."
Note that at NO time in this argument have I even *suggested* that
"intelligence" is the entire sum of human cognition, or indeed even the most
important part. Intelligence is a part of cognition. It may be characterized
as a cognitive ability, one among many. That it has it's own particular noun
is an accident of history, and largely due to the gross misinterpretation by
American psychologists of Binet's work. It even may turn out that
intelligence qua intelligence is next to useless in the creation of
artificial minds.
The human mind has a vast array of completely different abilities, each of
which makes it's own contribution to that total, which may most accurately
be referred to as "cognition." Intelligence is one of these abilities. It is
NOT the only one. It MAY not be the most important one. But it IS *merely*
an ability. As are all of the other abilities that Gardner has characterized
as "intelligences." They are not forms of intelligence. They are abilities.
Intelligence is an ability. Gardner seems to feel the two words are
synonyms. They are not.
As to Mr. Lorrey's contention, it is true that the cognitive ability of
mathematical/verbal abstract symbolic reasoning has never been more useful
in society then it is today. For some reason, however, it has never been
more out of style (or "politically incorrect") among academic circles as it
is today. It is my belief that Gardner's incorrect use of the word stems
from this political environment, as well as from a simple misunderstanding
of what "intelligence" is all about. Gardner is not the first to hold this
misconception. It was this misconception in the American originators of
intelligence testing (The "Stanford", as in Stanford University, in
"Stanford-Binet) that led to the orgy of misplaced functionalist testing
that the US Army employed during World War II, and that many American
institutions adopted afterwards. The misconception that "intelligence" is a
centralized particular function of the brain, and the most important one to
boot. It is not, and Binet never believed that it was. Binet's tests were
never intended as general-purpose aptitude tests. They were exactly what
they were, a test of mathematical/verbal abstract symbolic reasoning,
comparing children against others in their peer group, for the stated
purpose of identifying children in need of special help at school.
QueenMUSE, returning to your contention that Gardner's conceptualization is
valid because it is useful in education, we seem to have come full circle
:). Gardner's work ECHOS Binet's, in deemphasizing the universal
all-importance of symbolic reasoning. Where it fails, is in continuing to
use the word "intelligence" in it's ridiculous, functionalist sense, instead
of the original, empirical sense.
What Binet referred to as "intelligence" was a particular cognitive ability.
What Gardner refers to as "intelligences" are cognitive abilities. The
definition was distorted by the psychologists at Stanford in the 30's and
40's. To denigrate the weakening of the definition of intelligence, from
"particular cognitive ability" to "cognitive ability" is not to "look back
to the tried and true", but to propagate a ridiculous error, the continuance
of which is responsible for a large part of the ridiculous non-empiricism
found in psychology today.
Darin Sunley
rsunley@escape.ca
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Jul 27 2000 - 14:04:14 MDT