John Kulig wrote: > > There is a tremendous amount of scientific literature on the measurement > of intelligence, much of it unknown outside the discipline, even amongst > psychologists from other specialties. Gardner's multiple intelligences > is not held in the highest esteem in the field. You don't see well > developed operational definitions with high reliabilities and validities > for his various intelligences (which might be better described as > talents or abilities).
I think that is a misunderstanding of what Gardner intends to do. I don't necessarily agree with Gardner, but to criticize him for being unsuccessful in doing something which he never set out to do is problematic. To say he "is not held in the highest esteem in the field", for example, assumes that he wants to be well respected in the field in question ... whatever that is (psychometric measurement of intelligence defined as IQ, perhaps?). Gardner is a very well respected developmental psychologist. I would argue one of his aims is to point out that IQ is not necessarily the only important measure of ability. His use of the term intelligence is, I would think, calculated to avoid relegating other abilities (music, mathematics, language, social etc.) to lower status terms such as talents, abilities or competence. Thom . . ================================================================= Instructions for joining and leaving this list, remarks about the problem of INAPPROPRIATE MESSAGES, and archives are available at: . http://jse.stat.ncsu.edu/ . =================================================================
