Personality and High Agreeableness
- Thread starter Dark111
- Start date
I've been looking into this theory of "Multiple Intelligences" formulated by Howard Gardner, which talks about 8 autonomous intelligences. I get that people like it and it's become very popular because then everyone gets to feel smart but I'm still grappling with this one one in terms of finding empirical support for it.
The literature I've looked at so far does offer overwhelming support for the concept of an overarching single intelligence, often referred to as "g" or "the g factor". The g factor dudes are saying they found that people who scored well on one type of mental test tended to score well on all of them. Regardless of their contents (words, numbers, pictures, shapes), how they are administered (individually or in groups; orally, in writing, or pantomimed), or what they're intended to measure (vocabulary, mathematical reasoning, spatial ability), all mental tests measure mostly the same thing. They did this thing where they put together a battery of 16 tests ostensibly covering these eight intelligences, with two tests for each intelligence and reported the presence of g running through most of the tests. These researchers argued that what Gardner calls intelligences are actually capacities that are secondary or even tertiary to the g factor. In other words, they exist but are subservient to g.
While MI theory does agree that the g factor exists, what it disputes is that g is superior to other forms of human cognition. In MI theory, g has its place (primarily in Number/Logic Smart) as an equal alongside the other seven intelligences. So is the confusion a matter of semantics? Most critics in the psychometric community agree that the intelligences in Gardner's model exist and are supported by testing. What they disagree about is whether or not they should be called "intelligences." They want to reserve the word intelligence for the g factor, while regarding the other seven intelligences as talents, abilities, capacities, or faculties.
Any thoughts on this? Maybe there's a kick-ass paper somewhere on this I haven't come across yet.
The literature I've looked at so far does offer overwhelming support for the concept of an overarching single intelligence, often referred to as "g" or "the g factor". The g factor dudes are saying they found that people who scored well on one type of mental test tended to score well on all of them. Regardless of their contents (words, numbers, pictures, shapes), how they are administered (individually or in groups; orally, in writing, or pantomimed), or what they're intended to measure (vocabulary, mathematical reasoning, spatial ability), all mental tests measure mostly the same thing. They did this thing where they put together a battery of 16 tests ostensibly covering these eight intelligences, with two tests for each intelligence and reported the presence of g running through most of the tests. These researchers argued that what Gardner calls intelligences are actually capacities that are secondary or even tertiary to the g factor. In other words, they exist but are subservient to g.
While MI theory does agree that the g factor exists, what it disputes is that g is superior to other forms of human cognition. In MI theory, g has its place (primarily in Number/Logic Smart) as an equal alongside the other seven intelligences. So is the confusion a matter of semantics? Most critics in the psychometric community agree that the intelligences in Gardner's model exist and are supported by testing. What they disagree about is whether or not they should be called "intelligences." They want to reserve the word intelligence for the g factor, while regarding the other seven intelligences as talents, abilities, capacities, or faculties.
Any thoughts on this? Maybe there's a kick-ass paper somewhere on this I haven't come across yet.
I haven't looked up any actual scientific research on this matter, but this is my opinion on it. When I talk about "multiple intelligences" what I essentially mean is, like, someone can be book smart and be really good with facts and knowledge, someone can be street smart and be really good at reading people and their intentions, someone can be emotionally intelligent and know how to read others' emotions and body cues and perhaps analyze their own emotions, etc.
Sure, I do get that but would you say that these are separate "domains" of intelligence, as the MI theory suggests, and not talents or particular aptitudes the were developed due to the person's environment or learning style? I'm still trying to understand this myself but I would also imagine some of the aptitudes you mention there, in particular being good with facts and knowledge, would require an overall good level of general intelligence, or 'g' factor.