Talk:Theory of multiple intelligences

A dialectical overtaking (dépassement dialectique) by the C.U.P theory

the semiologist, mentor, talentprofiler and entrepreneur Yves Richez base his scientific researches on Howard Gardner's theory. He studies « talent », emergence and actualization of potentiales.

He discovers 10 Natural Operating Modes (Modes Opératoire Naturel - MoON) during anthropological and semiological studies and trips around the world. Each mode is structured by a couple of antagonistic components .

Theory, correlations and applications

• Theory and praxis

His studies show a gap between Chinesese thought and Western thought. In China, notions of Being and notion of intelligence don't exist. Those are greek-Latin inventions. Instead of intelligence, Chinese speaks of « operating modes ». Thus, Yves Richez does not speak of « intelligence » but of « natural operating modes » (Mo.O.N.).

But, we can connect intelligence and operating modes. Indeed, to Henri Wallon : « We can not distinguish intelligence from its operations ».

Yves Richez's theory on the talent corrects errors of Howard Gardner's theory of multiple intelligences. The C.U.P. theory (configuration, utility, potentialisation) surpasses dialectically theory of multiple intelligences.

• Correction of Gardner's theory and correlations with others studies

Yves Richez shows that it is wrong to attach a sense at an « operating mode » : visuo-spatial or verbal-linguistic. Indeed, a blind or a hedgehog are able to move in space despite their blindness. They emulate space.

He observes that individuals who skilfully operate with a mathematical Mo.ON have difficulties to emulate the space. They are difficulties to read a mind map. They prefer to read lists or series. His observations confirms an experiment of René Zazzo. Zazzo discovers a young girl who is unable to read despite an IQ of 120. IQ definie globaly a Mathimatical Mo.O.N.. Origin of this dyslexia is a problem of recognition in space. The emulative component of Mo.O.N. Spatial play a decisive role in learning to read (cf again the pedagogy of Ovide Decroly).

He notes that employees defined by the DSM like autistist (Asperger (?)) spontaneously engage a Naturalistic Mo.ON.. We find also cases of the population of certains primitive societies.

... etc.

• Applications in the society

The C.U.P. theory of Yvez Richez has a few applications in management, in education (which is analogous to education reform : John Dewey, Ovide Decroly, Maria Montessori, Anton Makarenko, Célestin Freinet...) and in complex psychology (in connection with Lev Vygotsky, Henri Wallon, Jean Piaget, Jacqueline Nadel, Michel Cariou, Émile Jalley...).

Yves Rivez applies the results of his studies in his own company (Talent Reveal). Decathlon Academy use his studies to form their mananagers . We can found again this applications in a few municipales services, a few sports clubs and a Montessori school, En Terre D'Enfance who are applying the C.U.P. theory.

He provides his studies to the general public through various media : books, youtube and internet articles.

His book, Détection et développement des talents en entreprise, edited by ISTE editions follows his doctoral thesis in semiology. It is published in English in 2018 : Corporate Talent Detection and Development, Wiley Publishing.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.223.129.253 (talk • contribs) 11:05, May 24, 2018 (UTC)

References

« too much weight on one author in addition to being written in a language other than English »

J'espère que c'est une blague, ElKevbo ? Les anglophones ne sont pas plus con que les autres. Ils peuvent se débrouiller dans d'autres langues que la leur. Certes, j'écris mal, même dans ma langue. Darwin avait aussi un mauvais anglais bien qu'elle fut sa langue de naissance. Par ailleurs, je ne suis pas choqué lorsque l'on m'apporte autre chose qui sort du cadre de ma nation, de ma pensée et de mon piédestal quand bien même mal écrit. La théorie C.U.P. d'Yves Richez, parfaitement bien écrit, dépasse de manière dialectique la théorie d'Howard Gardner. Elle se concilie parfaitement à d'autres études. Il serait dommageable de ne pas en profiter puisque qu'elle est déjà disponible : Détection et développement des talents en entreprise. Une version anglaise de son livre va bientôt sortir. J'anticipe les choses d'autant plus que ça va faire du bruit. L'anglais ne prime pas sur d'autres langues. Certes les éditeurs des USA cherchent à contrôler les revues scientifiques et philosophiques. Mais, la pensée américaine représente seulement 8% de la pensée globale dans les universités dans le monde contre 68% de la pensée française selon Émile Jalley. Cordialement. S.L.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.223.129.253 (talk • contribs) 11:38, May 24, 2018 (UTC)

Evidence rather than criteria

When, at an early stage in the article, it says "According to the theory, an intelligence "modality" must fulfil eight criteria" and then lists them, would it not be better to say that these are the eight pieces of evidence Gardner cites for the theory? Yes, I have read Frames of Mind! YTKJ (talk) 18:47, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

Opening paragraph

The opening paragraph is brief and to the point. I think it is well written, except that it ends with "being referred to as a neuromyth." There is a reference to Lynn Waterhouse. Have other psychologists used this term for this theory? Usually "neuromyth" is reserved for thoroughly debunked theories, such as learning styles, "classical music increases babies' intelligence," or "we only use 10% of our brain." Gardner's theory is controversial, for sure, but reception has been mixed, as the article states. I'm not aware of the theory being placed in the same category as "neuromyths." If this is a one-time insult by Waterhouse, then it probably belongs in the criticism section, not the opening paragraph. If it is commonly accepted as a "neuromyth" by psychologists, then there should be a reference to this fact. The opening paragraph should summarize the article and represent a reasonable consensus of the theory's reception. seberle (talk) 02:53, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

I agree - the opening paragraph seems somewhat biased and would lead a reader to think the whole thing should be dismissed (which is not consistent with the rest of the entry). 23.240.148.47 (talk) 17:55, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

Ok. I am modifying anything in the opening paragraph that is biased, not referenced, or which does not accurately reflect the controversy described in the remainder of the article. Let's keep discussion going here if there's any disagreement so we can keep the article NPOV. seberle (talk) 15:55, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

Please keep in mind audience, purpose, and Wikipedia requirements for sources

@BrantonShearer: Thanks so much for your recent contributions to this article. I'm sorry that I reverted some of them recently but you added a ton of detail to the article that doesn't quite seem appropriate for an encyclopedia article intended for a general audience, especially if we're to keep this article to a reasonable length and scope. It may be appropriate to create a new article, however, if length is the primary concern - that's a common approach in Wikipedia when one section in an article becomes too long. ElKevbo (talk) 14:13, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

Better Treatment

The theory of multiple intelligences introduced in Howard Gardner’s scholarly book, Frames of Mind: The Theory of Multiple Intelligences (1983) deserves a fair, accurate and thorough presentation in Wikipedia. Multiple intelligences (MI) was a revolutionary scientific theory that shook the foundations of conventional psychology and educational establishments around the world. This is not an exaggeration and was surprising because the intended audience for Frames of Mind was psychologists and not educators. Unlike many other innovative theories that are unsustainable or “educational fads,” MI theory after 40 years remains a powerful idea that continues to inspire researchers and teachers around the world. This is despite organized and concerted efforts by conventional psychologists to defend the IQ (unitary, general intelligence) with disinformation, misinformation and biased opinions. Traditional psychologists have a deep investment in IQ theory, both professionally and personally. This bias is exemplified in the current Wikipedia article on multiple intelligences in which with the lead paragraph begins not with an objective description of the theory but instead with four negative evaluations and opinions… “The (MI) theory has been criticized for its lack of empirical evidence, its dependence on subjective judgement and its overall unscientific nature, being referred to as a "neuromyth".

This sets the tone and content for about two thirds of the present article despite my efforts to offer a text that is clear, fair and balanced. I have modified the descriptions of the eight intelligences to present them with clarity, detail and practical examples.

While teachers and educators appreciate MI theory for how it helps them to better understand students' unique intellectual profiles, psychologists are threatened by its goal to replace the unitary concept (g) that each individual's intellectual potential may be adequately measured by a single number. Psychologists have over a 120 years invested in research supporting the “empirical validity” of the IQ score and no other theory of intelligence has so strongly challenged IQ’s preeminence.

This situation is represented in Wikipedia’s several articles that address traditional, psychometric, general intelligence. There is a strong bias in these Wiki articles where g (IQ) is presented positively with minimal criticisms while the MI page is tilted negatively, superficially and with very limited information.

My essay was modeled on several Wikipedia pages on topics related to intelligence. These pages present mostly positive supporting opinions and information and do not include numerous references that question the essential validity of their topic.

Wikipedia is not the place to litigate the scientific question of the validity of MI theory but instead readers should be presented with an outline of the arguments on both sides of the debate. Then given resources for them to investigate further.

There are two fundamental arguments against MI theory that the critics make: 1) it is not scientifically valid and 2) it is not effective as an educational model. Each of these criticisms require fair responses. Our essay describes several of these key criticisms and then summarizes the evidence and arguments in support of MI theory, both conceptually and educationally. Our article strives for an objective presentation of the facts and conclusions of scholars and scientists. We welcome feedback for where we fail in this effort. However, we will not do as the critics and be silent on the supportive evidence that has accumulated over the past 40 years. Of particular note, is the extensive library of neuroscience investigations that describe the neural systems underlying each of the eight intelligences that I have documented.

On a personal note, let me say that I have over the past four decades interacted with many highly esteemed MI critics. These are thoughtful and learned people, but I have been shocked at their blind devotion to IQ and utter rejection of MI theory. They base their opinions on little actual knowledge about MI theory and research evidence subsequent to its introduction in 1983. In fact, very few have read Frames of Mind nor do they keep informed about ongoing research evidence. It appears that they can’t be bothered but still they think of themselves as good scientists and scholars who are qualified to condemn MI theory as being “unscientific”. Being well versed in your own theory does not qualify you to condemn a competing model. This appears to me to be the situation on Wikipedia. Critics wish to minimize and misrepresent MI to support their own bias. Multiple Intelligences theory deserves a better treatment. Below are a few articles that served as models to inform our MI theory page. The g factor (psychometrics) article is perhaps the closest model to our essay. These pages range from about 1500 words to 11,000. We believe that Wikipedia is the right place for a fair, informed and balanced review of MI theory in the marketplace of ideas. Currently my essay is about 12K words.

• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G_factor_(psychometrics)
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emotional_intelligence
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligence_quotient
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Learning_styles

Some of these pages include charts, pics and historical contexts for their topic. That is why ours includes these also. We are happy to provide our credentials supporting our knowledge about MI theory, research qualifications and publication history. We appreciate that no one wants to support the advocacy of “crack pot” theories that may do more harm than good. Thank you for your consideration.

PS: Please find the proposed section of "Criticism and reponses" in my sandbox.

C. Branton Shearer

For the Assn for Multiple Intelligences BrantonShearer (talk) 13:22, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for your work on this. The article is looking so much better. --seberle (talk) 13:56, 26 October 2024 (UTC)