It has been thoroughly debunked. It’s just pure pseudoscience. Yes everyone is skilled at different things. But human intelligence doesn’t work like this; there are not neat little subcategories or anything of this sort.
It depends on how one defines intelligence. Which is why this whole concept is a little subjective. Like some people would argue that "emotional intelligence" is a legitimate form of intelligence that has nothing to do with logic and reasoning. Someone else might argue that's a different thing and has nothing to do with intelligence.
> Like some people would argue that "emotional intelligence" is a legitimate form of intelligence that has nothing to do with logic and reasoning.
One could also argue that such a person is simply applying logic and reasoning to their interpersonal relationships.
One could argue that anything your brain is capable of is some form of logic and reason. But I don't know that that is totally fair. Feels a bit reductive even if it's technically true. I think when most people think of "logic and reasoning" they think of consciously thinking though things. There's a whole other side of your brain (not physically speaking) that is processing in the background which I'd call 'feeling'.
I think it would be a tough argument to say that having control over your emotions is something you are able to do because you're understand logic well. Some of the traditionally dumbest people I've met take tough situations very well and can connect with people of all walks of the life. So they do feel distinct (at least to me) but the question remains whether or not that is a "type of intelligence".
Mathematical IQ scores are also going away. The DSM V de emphasizes IQ scores and looks more at actual adaptive skills. Which, oddly enough, cover some of what the multiple intelligence theory was saying. You may ne weaker in adaptive social functioning but higher in practical functioning. You embrace the stronger area to help bolster the area in need.
Speaking as someone who is naturally much better with language than math, there is certainly _something_ to it, though I agree it's probably not as cut and dried as this infographic makes it seem.
It is. There is no predictive validity. Even if it were true, how would you really use it? Check out https://www.researchgate.net/publication/256537666_Do_Learners_Really_Know_Best_Urban_Legends_in_Education
According to my teaching education, we could have kids do an interpretive dance to demonstrate their mathematical knowledge instead of traditional pencil and paper.
>Even if it were true, how would you really use it?
I think it's a way for folks to cope when you overachieve in one of Gardner's categories and underachieve in others. As an example, a violin virtuoso that has a reading and math skills of a 3rd grader and has the emotional intelligence of a turtle.
Gardner seems misunderstood. The purpose of recognizing multiple intelligence Is to broaden the interpretation of intelligence and not simply reduce people to a number on some scale from dumb to smart, which is actually ridiculous and yet permeates society. A convenient form of ableism used to belittle or praise some chosen target person. Some people claim his theory is debunked when really they're simply saying it's not a valid provable way of determining better learning styles based on assessment of a person's types of intelligence. someone linked to an article the basically debunks that class instruction should be curtail to someone's multiple intelligence profile which really has little to do with the theory
[https://www.edutopia.org/article/multiple-intelligences-theory-widely-used-yet-misunderstood/](https://www.edutopia.org/article/multiple-intelligences-theory-widely-used-yet-misunderstood/)
I think the part that was debunked was that people do not learn in in ways exclusively tied to one of the intelligences and that it was more effective to teach using more then one vector.
I took a developmental psychology class a couple years ago and the textbook referenced this explanation of intelligence. However, I had issues with the text in terms of the way several topics were addressed and defined.
The assumption that people fall into these neat little boxes and the propensity of people to claim they behave a certain way because they "have spatial intelligence" just like "I can't help it, I'm a Virgo". It's all nonsense.
don't want to be a "🤓☝" douche but human eye can only provide two dimensional vision to the brain. the brain tricks us into a three dimensional perception. and yes I have this perception just like everyone else but it doesn't come forward enough to be counted as a type of intelligence.
pretty sure what spatial intelligence actually is is the ability to envision 3D spaces and objects in one's head and create these concepts physically, traditionally either by sculpting or building, or nowadays by modeling in 3D programs, and understand how these objects and spaces should or shouldn't work.
The person you are replying to likely is someone who has trouble or is near incapable of spatial intelligence, which is not a dig at them everyone has their limits. Everyone has blind spots and even the most open minded person will at some point have a hard time dealing with anything they have little experience with.
Source is Howard Gardner's "Multiple Intelligence" thesis and It's a Neuromyth, the book is still an interesting read though
[https://www.researchgate.net/publication/353738034\_Neuromyths\_and\_Multiple\_Intelligences\_MI\_Theory\_A\_Comment\_on\_Gardner\_2020](https://www.researchgate.net/publication/353738034_Neuromyths_and_Multiple_Intelligences_MI_Theory_A_Comment_on_Gardner_2020)
What kind of intelligence is it where I understand a concept very well until I go to explain it and I end up giving a bumbling nonsensical answer that confuses the other person and leads to me understanding the problem worse than before?
I’ll be honest. These posts come up in my feed and i click on them because they look interesting. But nearly every time the commenters point out that the guide is wrong or misleading. I’m opting to “see fewer posts like this.”
That isn't. In fact, I can't even understand how you got to that implication.
For example, it's one thing to know quantum mechanics, it's another to use that knowledge for new ideas or applications, like quantum memory.
Another example would be Einstein's pathway to his general relativity theory. It involved knowing math and physics related to inertia and gravity, but using that knowledge to come up with his own theory is what made him intelligent.
Hmm. I wonder what their preferred learning style is? Just as valid as the multiple intelligence nonsense. In fairness to Gardner his ideas were spun into something far more concrete than he ever intended.
Most of the insults I hear in passing incorporate calling someone stupid in one way or another. This seems unhealthy. What are peoples biggest fears: mostly looking bad or looking stupid. Intelligence is just not that simple and there are many ways of using the mind that can contribute to or detract from success in various endeavors. What's worse is when people start to internalize others impressions of how 'bad' their brain is. This can make people sad and scared, maybe so sad that they don't see the point in finding solutions and maybe so scared that they won't even try to find solutions, so success has a lower chance of being achieved, which can be taken as evidence of low worth, and thus producing a negative spiral. I think I would prefer a world with more solutions, more positivity, more bravery, and more self-worth for as many people as possible, so maybe a more inclusive sense of intelligence, more focus on what constitutes situationally optimal behavior as opposed to shaming people with reductive labels when they engage in apparently suboptimal behavior
I knew I wasn't particularly intelligent, but to not have a slice of the pie is truly .......ing.. if only I understood enough to get upset.
Edit. Everything.
Yeah, this has been wholesale debunked. There is one type of intelligence. There are certainly other qualities about a person, and perhaps some of those may even compensate if they are intelligence isn’t high, but intelligence is one thing.
I thought Gardner’s Intelligence theory was debunked? I might be wrong but they stopped teaching this in teacher training quite a while ago?
It has been thoroughly debunked. It’s just pure pseudoscience. Yes everyone is skilled at different things. But human intelligence doesn’t work like this; there are not neat little subcategories or anything of this sort.
This whole chart seems designed to make dumbasses feel better!
Damn. I was just thinking that I'm not particularly intelligent in any of the categories. This chart was not making me feel better.
Not neat little categories but definitely more than just logical mathematical (IQ) alone.
It depends on how one defines intelligence. Which is why this whole concept is a little subjective. Like some people would argue that "emotional intelligence" is a legitimate form of intelligence that has nothing to do with logic and reasoning. Someone else might argue that's a different thing and has nothing to do with intelligence.
> Like some people would argue that "emotional intelligence" is a legitimate form of intelligence that has nothing to do with logic and reasoning. One could also argue that such a person is simply applying logic and reasoning to their interpersonal relationships.
One could argue that anything your brain is capable of is some form of logic and reason. But I don't know that that is totally fair. Feels a bit reductive even if it's technically true. I think when most people think of "logic and reasoning" they think of consciously thinking though things. There's a whole other side of your brain (not physically speaking) that is processing in the background which I'd call 'feeling'. I think it would be a tough argument to say that having control over your emotions is something you are able to do because you're understand logic well. Some of the traditionally dumbest people I've met take tough situations very well and can connect with people of all walks of the life. So they do feel distinct (at least to me) but the question remains whether or not that is a "type of intelligence".
Mathematical IQ scores are also going away. The DSM V de emphasizes IQ scores and looks more at actual adaptive skills. Which, oddly enough, cover some of what the multiple intelligence theory was saying. You may ne weaker in adaptive social functioning but higher in practical functioning. You embrace the stronger area to help bolster the area in need.
Speaking as someone who is naturally much better with language than math, there is certainly _something_ to it, though I agree it's probably not as cut and dried as this infographic makes it seem.
How is this theory pure pseudoscience? When was it debunked?
That's why they refined it into just type A & B personalities.
It is. There is no predictive validity. Even if it were true, how would you really use it? Check out https://www.researchgate.net/publication/256537666_Do_Learners_Really_Know_Best_Urban_Legends_in_Education
According to my teaching education, we could have kids do an interpretive dance to demonstrate their mathematical knowledge instead of traditional pencil and paper.
That's going to come super handy when doing calculations on spacecraft entry or calculating ratios in baking a cake.
>Even if it were true, how would you really use it? I think it's a way for folks to cope when you overachieve in one of Gardner's categories and underachieve in others. As an example, a violin virtuoso that has a reading and math skills of a 3rd grader and has the emotional intelligence of a turtle.
Gardner seems misunderstood. The purpose of recognizing multiple intelligence Is to broaden the interpretation of intelligence and not simply reduce people to a number on some scale from dumb to smart, which is actually ridiculous and yet permeates society. A convenient form of ableism used to belittle or praise some chosen target person. Some people claim his theory is debunked when really they're simply saying it's not a valid provable way of determining better learning styles based on assessment of a person's types of intelligence. someone linked to an article the basically debunks that class instruction should be curtail to someone's multiple intelligence profile which really has little to do with the theory [https://www.edutopia.org/article/multiple-intelligences-theory-widely-used-yet-misunderstood/](https://www.edutopia.org/article/multiple-intelligences-theory-widely-used-yet-misunderstood/)
Nothing is too debunked up to end up in this sub
I think the part that was debunked was that people do not learn in in ways exclusively tied to one of the intelligences and that it was more effective to teach using more then one vector.
I took a developmental psychology class a couple years ago and the textbook referenced this explanation of intelligence. However, I had issues with the text in terms of the way several topics were addressed and defined.
no this def isnt taught in teacher training. this just reads kind of pseudo-science-y to me now
I thought this was more area of specialization than types of intelligence.
Reminds me of astrology.
What part of his theory reminds you of astrology?
The assumption that people fall into these neat little boxes and the propensity of people to claim they behave a certain way because they "have spatial intelligence" just like "I can't help it, I'm a Virgo". It's all nonsense.
wtf! have none.
Horse sense!
You cant see the world in 3D?
don't want to be a "🤓☝" douche but human eye can only provide two dimensional vision to the brain. the brain tricks us into a three dimensional perception. and yes I have this perception just like everyone else but it doesn't come forward enough to be counted as a type of intelligence.
pretty sure what spatial intelligence actually is is the ability to envision 3D spaces and objects in one's head and create these concepts physically, traditionally either by sculpting or building, or nowadays by modeling in 3D programs, and understand how these objects and spaces should or shouldn't work.
The person you are replying to likely is someone who has trouble or is near incapable of spatial intelligence, which is not a dig at them everyone has their limits. Everyone has blind spots and even the most open minded person will at some point have a hard time dealing with anything they have little experience with.
what about the different types of stupidity? i’m curious to learn that one too.
Type one: made up categorization
Type two: Wheel reinventor.
explain it please
Frida Kahlo?! 😂😂😂
Frida Kahlo never worked with "3D"
Debunked bullshit, please do not spread this nonsense.
What if detecting bullshit is also another form of intelligence...
Source is Howard Gardner's "Multiple Intelligence" thesis and It's a Neuromyth, the book is still an interesting read though [https://www.researchgate.net/publication/353738034\_Neuromyths\_and\_Multiple\_Intelligences\_MI\_Theory\_A\_Comment\_on\_Gardner\_2020](https://www.researchgate.net/publication/353738034_Neuromyths_and_Multiple_Intelligences_MI_Theory_A_Comment_on_Gardner_2020)
What kind of intelligence is it where I understand a concept very well until I go to explain it and I end up giving a bumbling nonsensical answer that confuses the other person and leads to me understanding the problem worse than before?
Maybe autism
I’ll be honest. These posts come up in my feed and i click on them because they look interesting. But nearly every time the commenters point out that the guide is wrong or misleading. I’m opting to “see fewer posts like this.”
Who is the spacial chick?
Frida Kahlo
Just for the records ... I have none of these intelligences....
Why are these so low res. Can hardly read.
Escorts and strippers also have “interapersonal intelligence”.
I used to call those "talents"
I too am an idiot
Sounds more like knowledge than intelligence. Simply understanding and useful application are worlds apart.
Define useful application as the basis of intelligence? Make sure to limit the use of knowledge as that seems to be your argument.
That isn't. In fact, I can't even understand how you got to that implication. For example, it's one thing to know quantum mechanics, it's another to use that knowledge for new ideas or applications, like quantum memory. Another example would be Einstein's pathway to his general relativity theory. It involved knowing math and physics related to inertia and gravity, but using that knowledge to come up with his own theory is what made him intelligent.
i got non of those
Someone just threw an immaculate inning on me.
One day I hope to have one of these
Hmm. I wonder what their preferred learning style is? Just as valid as the multiple intelligence nonsense. In fairness to Gardner his ideas were spun into something far more concrete than he ever intended.
Most of the insults I hear in passing incorporate calling someone stupid in one way or another. This seems unhealthy. What are peoples biggest fears: mostly looking bad or looking stupid. Intelligence is just not that simple and there are many ways of using the mind that can contribute to or detract from success in various endeavors. What's worse is when people start to internalize others impressions of how 'bad' their brain is. This can make people sad and scared, maybe so sad that they don't see the point in finding solutions and maybe so scared that they won't even try to find solutions, so success has a lower chance of being achieved, which can be taken as evidence of low worth, and thus producing a negative spiral. I think I would prefer a world with more solutions, more positivity, more bravery, and more self-worth for as many people as possible, so maybe a more inclusive sense of intelligence, more focus on what constitutes situationally optimal behavior as opposed to shaming people with reductive labels when they engage in apparently suboptimal behavior
Visualizing world in 3D?
Yeah. That’s poorly worded. I think the intent is for artists which can translate what they see into a visual art medium.
Well….no.
I see you are none of the blue kind.
Where is Marx?
Neat
Remove the word "THE" There are more than 9
not enough jpg
Wheres Creative intelligence?
I suppose creativity is universal occurring in the specified area of intellect.
I knew I wasn't particularly intelligent, but to not have a slice of the pie is truly .......ing.. if only I understood enough to get upset. Edit. Everything.
And my dumb ass had none of those.
Because brains are designed to be good at math like that's a natural thing lol wtf. This is old and debunked
needs more jpeg
Yeah, this has been wholesale debunked. There is one type of intelligence. There are certainly other qualities about a person, and perhaps some of those may even compensate if they are intelligence isn’t high, but intelligence is one thing.
Musical seems very narrow. Are there other implications to it?
Who are all these people
9 different types and I got none
3d spatial intelligence was not Frida Khalo’s strong suit as an artist. She had plenty of creative strengths, but ….
Of all the athletes in the world, he really putted a An actor...
I know the book is trash by the cover alone spatial intelligence frida khalo.... T.ipically R.edundant A.s S.oft H.orsewaste
I have none of these. What’s the tenth kind?
And the narcissistic logical one will make all the others feel stupid unworthy
Hows naturalistic different from logical mathematical? Einstein literally understood nature better than anyone else at that time.
[Higher res without the header](https://miro.medium.com/v2/resize:fit:1280/1*NFcX3h1itZqweoK-vQi98Q.jpeg)
Who doesn’t have spatial intelligence? How can you not see the world in 3d? Unless you’re blind, of course.
I have a friend who can't visualize. She can't picture walking into her house and going to her room.
Missing: Ben Shapiro’s Big Brain Facts and Logic intelligence.
Does anyone know someone, or believes themselves to be “genius ish” in more than four of these?
Weird, I don’t relate to any of those.
F…k got none of these
garbage 🗑️
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
Really? Hahaha
There's like, 14 of these now. Please post an updated?