Talk:Theory of multiple intelligences/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Add To Do list

I've just archived old material and would like to add a To Do list for this page but do not know how to add that banner yet.Stmullin (talk) 16:44, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Intelligence citations bibliography for updating this and other articles

You may find it helpful while reading or editing articles to look at a bibliography of Intelligence Citations, posted for the use of all Wikipedians who have occasion to edit articles on human intelligence and related issues. I happen to have circulating access to a huge academic research library at a university with an active research program in these issues (and to another library that is one of the ten largest public library systems in the United States) and have been researching these issues since 1989. You are welcome to use these citations for your own research. You can help other Wikipedians by suggesting new sources through comments on that page. It will be extremely helpful for articles on human intelligence to edit them according to the Wikipedia standards for reliable sources for medicine-related articles, as it is important to get these issues as well verified as possible. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 22:58, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

By the way, I notice that the way archiving was done on this talk page breaks the functionality of the new section link. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 23:01, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Simple Wikipedia

Hi. I think that this article should have a page in Simple Wikipedia.Frogger48 (talk) 02:30, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

WP:SOFIXIT. Huon (talk) 03:49, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Pseudoscience category

I think the reference to p35 of Introducing Neuroeducational Research: Neuroscience, Education and the Brain from Contexts to Practice by Paul Howard-Jones is fairly convincing that this theory belongs firmly to this category. What do others think? --John (talk) 20:33, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

• Almost six months on nobody has objected so I restored this category. --John (talk) 07:44, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Can you show that MI is typically characterized in those terms in reliable sources? The psychometric literature is broadly dismissive of Gardner, but few authors are as discourteous as to describe his ideas as pseudoscientific ("armchair theorizing" comes up much more often). Wikipedia categorization should reflect essential and defining features of the categorized articles, and I don't think MI is commonly and consistently referred to as a pseudoscience in reliable sources.--Victor Chmara (talk) 13:54, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Mmm, that is actually a nice point. Let me think about that, please. --John (talk) 14:17, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

As Victor wrote, we should find more than just one source (how widely used is the cited source, and how noted is the author?) characterizing multiple intelligences theory in that manner before adding the category tagging. All the standard reference works on human intelligence make at least passing reference to Gardner's ideas. The multiple intelligences theory has perhaps not been as productive as its proponents had hoped, but it's more difficult to show that it's flat wrong in the way that most ideas that are regarded as pseudoscience are. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 19:54, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

In case this discussion is revived, I would point out that Gardner (and Bruner and others) have a legitimate methodological disagreement with what constitutes proper evidence and by association what constitutes science. Psychometrics has no special claim on the definition of science. The fact that psychometricians look down on other approaches is not surprising or useful in this context. Bruner, for example, would claim it is the "data-crunchers" who take the untenable view. An encyclopedia should let that disagreement stand. (This differs from certain *applications* of 'learning styles', which clearly fit the definition of psuedoscience). Michaelacaulfield (talk) 02:39, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Lead

I'm uncomfortable with the new fourth paragraph in the lead:

According to a 2006 study many of Gardner's "intelligences" correlate with the g factor, supporting the idea of a single dominant type of intelligence. According to the study, each of the domains proposed by Gardner involved a blend of g, cognitive abilities other than g, and, in some cases, non-cognitive abilities or personality characteristics.[6] Empirical support for non-g intelligences is lacking or very poor. Despite this the ideas of multiple non-g intelligences are very attractive to many due to the suggestion that everyone can be smart in some way.[7] Cognitive neuroscience research does not support the theory of multiple intelligences.

There are several problems with this lead paragraph:

1. It is not a summary of the article, but rather a report of a few select articles, one of which is not available in English.
2. The 2006 article is actually part of a peer-reviewed debate between supporters and detractors of the theory, but only the supporters' opinion is mentioned.
3. The 2006 article was not a "study". It was a rebuttal to a response by Gardner to an earlier article.
4. One person's opinion, not otherwise mentioned in the article (imagining why the theory may be popular), is presented as part of the lead.
5. The criticism section of the article is largely negative concerning this theory, but not entirely so. The lead should reflect this. But there is no mention of supporters of the theory in this lead paragraph. A proper summary should report the criticism without implying that there is a consensus opinion.
6. Claiming "empirical support is lacking" is inappropriate without mention of Gardner's defense of his research base. Claiming support is poor is a valid criticism accepted by Gardner himself.

I moved the paragraph to the criticism section and reworded some sentences to correct a few of the errors, but my edit was reversed with the explanation "no, the WP:LEAD is a summary of the whole article". --seberle (talk) 11:12, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

The lead as a whole has to summarise the article as a whole. There is no evidence for this theory and the lead needs to include this. --John (talk) 09:17, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Seems to me as if John, having been prevented from getting this theory anathematised as pseudoscience, has settled for the next best thing, a hatchet-job in the lead. Sorry if that's too crude, but it's what it looks like to me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vidauty (talk • contribs) 16:54, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

I was going to create a section here for exactly the same purpose. I'll be frank: the paragraph is very poor quality, and contradicts itself in a transparent way. Specifically:

1. The paragraph acknowledges the existence of "cognitive abilities other than g" (a true statement, based on the quantitative facts)
2. The paragraph then claims the opposite (a false claim) saying "Empirical support for non-g intelligences is lacking or very poor" (yes, cognitive abilities are what comprise intelligence, according to the definition), and g can only explain one dimension of variation, when there are certainly several dimensions visible in the statistics. The key point is that the principal component is not everything.
3. The paragraph contradicts the true statement a second time at the end saying "Cognitive neuroscience research does not support the theory of multiple intelligences"

There is no reference to support the last two claims, and if such a reference existed it would be in conflict with the quantitative facts. The two falsehoods don't become a truth by reinforcement and need to be removed. I would suggest that the paragraph be reworded in its entirety by someone who can deal objectively with the quantitative facts. Elroch (talk) 15:16, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Theory of multiple intelligences. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.indiana.edu/~intell/mitheory.shtml

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 21:11, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Theory of multiple intelligences. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20111003192905/http://forum-files2.fobby.net/0005/6817/VisserRebuttal.pdf to http://forum-files2.fobby.net/0005/6817/VisserRebuttal.pdf
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20121101024124/http://www.pbs.org:80/wnet/gperf/education/ed_mi_overview.html to http://www.pbs.org/wnet/gperf/education/ed_mi_overview.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 09:42, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Should this quote be added in Howard Gardner or / and Theory of multiple intelligences?

Gardner is quoted by a secondary source saying

[E]ven if at the end of the day, the bad guys [such as Jensen, who emphasize the importance of g,] turn out to be more correct scientifically than I am, life is short, and we have to make choices about how we spend our time. And that’s where I think the multiple intelligences way of thinking about things will continue to be useful even if the scientific evidence doesn’t support it. (at 45:11–31)

— Cofnas, Nathan (1 February 2015). "Science Is Not Always "Self-Correcting"". Foundations of Science. doi:10.1007/s10699-015-9421-3.

--The Master (talk) 00:55, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

I think this quote may need context to be understood correctly. --seberle (talk) 06:43, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

This is a freely accessible version of the secondary source, which Wikipedia usually use.--The Master (talk) 11:33, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Twelve Pillars of Wisdom

Is this related to the neurological (MRI) studies and tests done by Adrian Owen and Roger Highfield? They wrote a paper in Neuron ("Fractionating Human Intelligence", Neuron 76, Dec 20, 2012) that argued for the existence of 12 measurable cognitive skills, and they discuss relationships with the Spearman g factor. New Scientist had an earlier article about this work "The 12 Pillars of Wisdom", in October 30, 2010. DonPMitchell (talk) 23:16, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Talents or intelligences

In the second edition of "Frames of Mind" Gardner says that one of the criticisms of this theory has been that some have argued that the intelligences which he writes about may be talents rather than intelligences. This could go in the article when the article talks about criticisms of the theory.Vorbee (talk) 20:02, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

Go ahead and add this to the article. Explain what the difference is and how Gardner responds. --seberle (talk) 12:48, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Denis Postle's model

I happened accross this and thought it might be useful to this article:

Denis Postle’s (The Mind Gymnasium,1989) Model of multiple intelligence. Denis Postle’s model includes four types of intelligence: 1) Emotional Intelligence, 2) Intuitive Intelligence, 3) Physical Intelligence and 4) Intellectual Intelligence.

— Hian, Physical Intelligence of University of Technology MARA Sport Science Students (PDF) citing Postle, D. (1988). The Mind Gymnasium: A New Age Guide to Self Mastery. McGraw-Hill. ISBN 978-0-07-050569-8.

However, a quick search does not indicate to me that this model has been used or accepted, or that Denis Postle is notable. I mention it here in case it is useful to other editors. Daask (talk) 13:22, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Why do we deal twice with physical intel. (and only w/ that)?

"Bodily-kinesthetic" and "Physical intelligence" have the same topic. 1) There's an "anchor" on the heading "Physical intelligence" - can't we go around this silly restriction? And 2) "Physical intelligence" has got far more material then the other 9 or so modalities. Why not create a separate article and leave here only the general presentation, the one under "Bodily-kinesthetic"? Since we're talking of smarts :) Or are we just sticking to theory? Arminden (talk) 20:02, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Eight or nine modalities?

Under Intelligence Modalities, it first says (emphasis mine): "Howard Gardner proposed eight abilities that manifest multiple intelligences." After that nine modalities are mentioned. Who can explain this discrepancy and remove it? Thanks. Bcurfs (talk) 02:45, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

Existential has been invalidated and refuted

=> Otherwise 10 modalities (MoON) has been discovered by Yves Richez while observing and evaluating nature and humans in their environment : cf Corporate Talent Detection and Development > https://www.wiley.com/en-us/Corporate+Talent+Detection+and+Development-p-9781119564133

S.L. 2A01:CB10:854A:7600:1490:2B46:99B7:A43 (talk) 00:33, 22 January 2022 (UTC) (1:32 in France)

Spiritual intelligence

Gardner says in the second edition of "Frames of Mind" that he continues to think some type of spiritual intelligence may exist. This could go in the article. Vorbee (talk) 20:02, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

Yes, there is a section in the article on existential or spiritual intelligence. --seberle (talk) 12:47, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

In 2000, Howard Gardner had a paper published in the International Journal for the Psychology of Religion, Volume 10 Issue 1, called "A Case Against Spirtual Intelligence". In this article, he argues that spirituality is distinct from the intellectual domain. I seem to recall I had an article published in response, asking whether some conceptual distinctions are needed. YTKJ (talk) 20:03, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

Yes, the article was called "Response to the Spiritual Intelligence Debate: Are Some Conceptual Distinctions Needed Here?" and was published in the International Journal for the Psychology of Religion for 2003. YTKJ (talk) 20:08, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

error citation 2 first link

the link isn't to a publicly accessible site. Coderiety.py (talk) 04:36, 11 January 2023 (UTC)