Multiple Intelligences?

[KazeCraven]

Okay, I'm wondering what you guys think about this subject.

The most common is the multiple intelligences by Howard Gardner. They would be
-Interpersonal
-Intrapersonal
-Body/Kinesthetic
-Visual/Spatial
-Linguistic
-Musical
-Logical
-Naturalistic

To me, the subdivision seems to be into basic skills that, once developed, allow one to make good use of this given 'intelligence'. My example is that I've been playing the violin for a few months now, and I've since picked up a whole lot of music skills that were previously undeveloped, particularly in relation to the ear and hearing the notes. Also, I previously considered myself bad at Visual/Spatial things, but I started picking up drawing skills not too long ago and, well, seems like a lot of the measures of that particular intelligence (just reading about what characterizes it) have boosted significantly. Of course, if I'm not paying attention I still have some difficulty with directions and whatnot, but if I want to I can track where I am and where I've been easily.

So what do you think? Seems to me that these are just abilities we can tap into whenever we are motivated enough to do so. Then here again we're just left with a preference for one or more types of abilities to use.

 

[Quinlan]

From my personal experience what I've noticed is that most people have roughly the same amount of intelligence, they just apply it in different areas (there are some people that have much less or more potential but not as many as we usually tend to think). Some people focus all of their intelligence potential into one area, these people are basically idiot savants. Some people spread their intelligence potential into every area and become jack of all trades types etc.

 

[Trifoilum]

The way I see it it's also related to our studying skills; among those, in which way are you more capable to learn / understand something?

For example, from the way you've described yourself, I would say your Kinesthetic intelligence are the most dominant and/or developed because you tend to learn directly.

for me (visual/intrapersonal/linguistic, IINM); I learned better by musing, or asking questions to myself, or even better; making notes. I can learn violin and drawing and probably karate by asking questions internally. "So colour A + B becomes this? >> Why? >> Due to this blablablablablabla >> Is it the same with C? >> No, because lalalalala"

...something like that.

 

[KazeCraven]

Learning styles usually come out pretty even to me. On the one hand, auditory and visual clearly have their respective pluses and minuses, whereas kinesthetic often seems to describe someone who is really in-sync with their environment and is prone to like sports/physical activity (not me at all). However, looking past that, I could definitely see myself as being more kinesthetic.

Your method seems very indirect and unnecessarily complicated =D.

ETA: yeah, I'm checking a site that has descriptions of intelligences and Body/Kinesthetic sounds way too 'sporty' and well-coordinated. I had lots of coordination problems as a child, which made physical education rather unenjoyable.

 

[Gaze]

Two others were added - Spiritual and Existential intelligence

I think the multiple intelligences list of 9 is inadequate to describe the varieties of intelligences. Intelligence theory is very interesting. Until I learned about personality theory, i had a narrow definition of intelligence. Coupled with learning theory/styles/methods and natural abilities, there are so many other types of intelligences or innate competencies excluded.

Whenever lists like these are made, just like the IQ, it limits the range of other intelligences not on the current spectrum. In the end, i think the list simply represents the most dominant types of intelligence.

 

[Trifoilum]

Learning styles usually come out pretty even to me. On the one hand, auditory and visual clearly have their respective pluses and minuses, whereas kinesthetic often seems to describe someone who is really in-sync with their environment and is prone to like sports/physical activity (not me at all). However, looking past that, I could definitely see myself as being more kinesthetic.

Your method seems very indirect and unnecessarily complicated =D.

ETA: yeah, I'm checking a site that has descriptions of intelligences and Body/Kinesthetic sounds way too 'sporty' and well-coordinated. I had lots of coordination problems as a child, which made physical education rather unenjoyable.

Hahahaha, yeah; I can't disagree with that; yet when it comes to understanding I'm better working with that...in certain cases. When it comes to skill, doing it is best.

I kinda see Kinesthethic description as very similar to Se, actually; we did things and learn by simply immersing oneself during it.

Two others were added - Spiritual and Existential intelligence

I think the multiple intelligences list of 9 is inadequate to describe the varieties of intelligences. Intelligence theory is very interesting. Until I learned about personality theory, i had a narrow definition of intelligence. Coupled with learning theory/styles/methods and natural abilities, there are so many other types of intelligences or innate competencies excluded.

Whenever lists like these are made, just like the IQ, it limits the range of other intelligences not on the current spectrum. In the end, i think the list simply represents the most dominant types of intelligence.

Whoa; I've only heard about it. Could you tell me what are those two involves?

And yes, I experienced the same thing too; learning about MBTI, Enneagram, and types of intelligence had broaden my visions. XD

 

[KazeCraven]

Hahahaha, yeah; I can't disagree with that; yet when it comes to understanding I'm better working with that...in certain cases. When it comes to skill, doing it is best.

I kinda see Kinesthethic description as very similar to Se, actually; we did things and learn by simply immersing oneself during it.

Hmmm... I wonder what the Ne corollary would be? I'm just interested because on the one hand, I agree, and on the other Se should be way down in my shadow functions but that's still probably the best way for me to learn anything: immersion.

When I was learning to play the violin, I just focused on parsing out all the possible sources of errors (squeaks and whistles, etc.). It had little 'thinking' going on and just more noticing and correcting I guess. Maybe in this instance the difference between Ne and Se is negligible.

Whoa; I've only heard about it. Could you tell me what are those two involves?

And yes, I experienced the same thing too; learning about MBTI, Enneagram, and types of intelligence had broaden my visions. XD

+1

 

[Solongo]

Okay, I'm wondering what you guys think about this subject.

The most common is the multiple intelligences by Howard Gardner. They would be
-Interpersonal
-Intrapersonal
-Body/Kinesthetic
-Visual/Spatial
-Linguistic
-Musical
-Logical
-Naturalistic

To me, the subdivision seems to be into basic skills that, once developed, allow one to make good use of this given 'intelligence'. My example is that I've been playing the violin for a few months now, and I've since picked up a whole lot of music skills that were previously undeveloped, particularly in relation to the ear and hearing the notes. Also, I previously considered myself bad at Visual/Spatial things, but I started picking up drawing skills not too long ago and, well, seems like a lot of the measures of that particular intelligence (just reading about what characterizes it) have boosted significantly. Of course, if I'm not paying attention I still have some difficulty with directions and whatnot, but if I want to I can track where I am and where I've been easily.

So what do you think? Seems to me that these are just abilities we can tap into whenever we are motivated enough to do so. Then here again we're just left with a preference for one or more types of abilities to use.

I think this is an interesting way to study oneself. I am a big believer that all of the above intelligences exist in every individual; but the demands of one's environment requires specific skills to be successful.

Im a jack of all trades kind of person so I would say I got most of the intelligences down. But i would mainly prefer kinesthetic and naturalistic intelligences to be my dominant intelligence.

 

[Gaze]

Actually, they were proposed by Gardner in his book. Here are the descriptions.

Spiritual Intelligence

Gravitates toward religion, theology, mysticism and the transcendent. Concern with cosmic issues, supernatural, meaning of life's event; spends time in altered states such as meditation, self-hypnosis, and prayer; and connects with others in non-ordinary ways that may help and heal the other.
Skills and Careers: Monastic lifestyles; minister; mediator, alternative medicine, yoga and martial arts teachers,

Existential Intelligence

Concern with ultimate issues; continuity of spirit between lifetimes; sense of relationship with beings of other planes and the cosmos
Skills and Careers: Examples include spiritual masters such as Gandhi, Mother Teresa, the Dalai Lama

http://www.lifecircles-inc.com/Learningtheories/Gardner.html

Existential Intelligence (Proposed)
Learns through deep questioning. Can place self within time and space (kosmos) Sensitivity and capacity to tackle deep questions about human existence. The core ability is the capacity to locate oneself with respect to the furthest reaches of the cosmos, the infinite no less than the infinitesimal, and the related capacity to locate oneself with respect to the most existential features of the human condition, the significance of life, the meaning of death, the ultimate fate of the physical and the psychological worlds, such profound experiences as love of another human being or total immersion in a work of art.

http://www.hent.org/world/rss/files/intelligences.htm

 

[KazeCraven]

That's intense.

I can see why they were shoved under the rug.

 

[Trifoilum]

Hmmm... I wonder what the Ne corollary would be? I'm just interested because on the one hand, I agree, and on the other Se should be way down in my shadow functions but that's still probably the best way for me to learn anything: immersion.

When I was learning to play the violin, I just focused on parsing out all the possible sources of errors (squeaks and whistles, etc.). It had little 'thinking' going on and just more noticing and correcting I guess. Maybe in this instance the difference between Ne and Se is negligible.

I agreed with you, but I think it has quite a difference; Ne is similar in manifestation to Kinesthetic; by directly doing it / being in it. Only Ne is seeing one thing and looking for potentials that can be achieved from those. Se is more learning from experience itself; good or bad.

That's intense.

I can see why they were shoved under the rug.

yeah; me too.

 

[NeverAmI]

Ne is a method of gathering things to process, so how those things are processed wouldn't apply. You would probably have to look at the comparisons combining perceiving functions with judging functions. Ne+Ti or Ne+Fi

 

[Trifoilum]

Ne is a method of gathering things to process, so how those things are processed wouldn't apply. You would probably have to look at the comparisons combining perceiving functions with judging functions. Ne+Ti or Ne+Fi

Hmmmmmm, good point there. So Ti and/or Fi is the part that processes the knowledge....would there be differences?

 

[KazeCraven]

Well, I think there's a subtle difference in that Fi is going to be highly influenced by one's value system, and focus more on the fact that what you wanted is less valuable than what you got, whereas Ti is going to focus more on the fact that you don't know the logic of the system well enough so you got something different from what you wanted.

Also, I agree that it makes very little sense to talk about one function in isolation, at least for real-world applications, because there is always an aspect of taking in information and judging that information. Part of the function of Ti is due to the fact that it's always paired with a Pe function, and similarly for Ni that it's paired with a Je function.