Freethought & Rationalism Archive

God Fearing Atheist · 04-28-2003, 12:19 PM

I dont see the supposed contradiction between the theory of multiple intelligences and general intelligence.

Couldnt it be that various forms of intelligence are specific adaptations, but they all rely on a single neurophysiological mechanism?

For example, there is some evidence that g may be the speed of neural and synaptic transmission (Haier et al, 1993; Reed & Jensen, 1992; Andres-Pueyo et al., 1999). Is this at all incompatable with multiple intelligences? Am I missing something here?

Refs

Reed, T.E., & Jensen, A.R. (1992). Conduction velocity in a brain nerve pathway of normal adults correlates with intelligence level. Intelligence, 16, 259-272.

Andres-Pueyo, A., Boastre, R.M., & Rodriguez-Fornells, A. (1999). Brain nerve conduction velocity, magnetic nuclear resonance and intelligence: New data. Paper presented at the 9th Biennial Convention of the International Society for the Study of Individual Differences, Vancouver, B.C., July, 1999.

Haier, R. J., Siegel, B. V., Crinella, E M., & Buchsbaum, M. S. (1993). Biological and psychometric intelligence: Testing an animal model in humans with positron emission tomography. In D. K. Detterman (Ed. ), Current topics in human intelligence: Individual differences and cognition (vol. 3; pp. 157-170). Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing Corporation.

-GFA

ps418 · 04-28-2003, 12:35 PM

No, there is no contradiction, only a common misunderstanding. There are specific mental abilities ("multiple intelligences"), and there is a general factor common to all mental abilities as well. There would only be a contradiction iF it were asserted that there is only a single factor, g, that accounts for all the variance in all cognitive tests, which is not the case. Instead, 'g' accounts for ~30-40% of variance in a battery of diverse tests. As far as I know, even Howard Gadner doesn't deny the existence of a general factor. I'll try to find you some sources tommorrow.

Patrick

God Fearing Atheist · 04-28-2003, 12:44 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by ps418
No, there is no contradiction, only a common misunderstanding. There are specific mental abilities ("multiple intelligences"), and there is a general factor common to all mental abilities as well. There would only be a contradiction iF it were asserted that there is only a single factor, g, that accounts for all the variance in all cognitive tests, which is not the case. Instead, 'g' accounts for ~30-40% of variance in a battery of diverse tests. As far as I know, even Howard Gadner doesn't deny the existence of a general factor. I'll try to find you some sources tommorrow.

Patrick

Thats the way Herrstein and Murray read Gardner, anyway (Herrstein & Murray, 1994, pg. 18).

I was just curious about some of the hostility coming from certain evolutionary psychologists, like Pinker. I was reading an interview with him the other day where he really seemed to contrast the two ideas. It seemed odd, given that ive never read anything about an incompatability before.

-GFA

ps418 · 04-29-2003, 06:11 AM

More on Gardner:

First, some of Gardner's 'intelligences' are highly dubious. For instance, his bodily-kinesthetic and musical 'intelligences.' Of course there are interesting and valuable human abilities that match these names, but they do not match the definition of intelligence commonly used.

Second, some of Gardner's 'intelligences' are known to be significantly intercorrelated with each other and with 'g', and thus are not truly seperate at all. For example, tests of linguistic and spatial abilities are signficantly correlated -- individuals who do well on one tend to do well on the others.

Third, as I said above, even Gardner doesn't deny the existence of a 'g' factor. Its more a matter of emphasis on the particular than the general. Gardner 1995 wrote:

Quote:

Myth 5. MI theory is incompatible with g (general intelligence),11 with hereditarian accounts, or with environmental accounts of the nature and causes of intelligence.

Reality 5. MI theory questions not the existence but the province and explanatory power of g. By the same token, MI theory is neutral on the question of heritability of specific intelligences, instead underscoring the centrality of genetic/environmental interactions.

Comment. Interest in g comes chiefly from those who are probing scholastic intelligence and those who traffic in the correlations between test scores. (Recently people have become interested in the possible neurophysiological underpinnings of g12 and, sparked by the publication of The Bell Curve,13 in the possible social consequences of "low g.") While I have been critical of much of the research in the g tradition, I do not consider the study of g to be scientifically improper, and I am willing to accept the utility of g for certain theoretical purposes. My interest, obviously, centers on those intelligences and intellectual processes that are not covered by g 14. While a major animating force in psychology has been the study of the heritability of intelligence(s), my inquiries have not been oriented in this direction. I do not doubt that human abilities � and human differences �have a genetic base. Can any serious scientist question this at the end of the 20th century? And I believe that behavioral genetic studies, particularly of twins reared apart, can illuminate certain issues.

However, along with most biologically informed scientists, I reject the "inherited versus learned" dichotomy and instead stress the interaction, from the moment of conception, between genetic and environmental factors.

Reflections on Multiple Intelligences: Myths and Messages

Gardner is not the only psychologist whose work has been misinterpreted as being inconsistent with 'g.' Robert Sternberg's Triarchic Theory of intelligence has also been interpreted this way. But again, there is no contradiction at all. Sternberg himself is quoted in 1983 as saying:

Quote:

"We interpret the preponderance of evidence as overwhelmingly supporting the existence of some kind of general factor in human intelligence. Indeed, we are unable to find any convincing evidence at all that militates against this view."

And in 1995 as saying:

Quote:

Skeptic: Would it be fair to say that your view is not that g does not exist, but that it is one facet or one side of the picture?

Sternberg: That's right, g is not quite as general as some psychometricians make it out to be.

1995 Skeptic Magazine interview

If you're interested in seeing how Sternberg's own Triarchic theory is faring, as well as his claims about the generality of 'g', check out:

July - August 2003 issue of the journal Intelligence, as well as Linda Gottfredson's publications, particularly:

Gottfredson, Linda S. (2002). g: Highly general and highly practical. Pages 331-380 in R. J. Sternberg & E. L. Grigorenko (Eds.), The general factor of intelligence: How general is it? Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. PDF

Gottfredson, Linda S. (2003). Dissecting practical intelligence theory: Its claims and evidence. Intelligence, 31(4), 343-397. PDF

Patrick

04-28-2003, 12:19 PM	#1
God Fearing Atheist Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2000 Location: Massachusetts, USA -- Let's Go Red Sox! Posts: 1,500	Multiple Intelligence and g: Is there any contradiction? I dont see the supposed contradiction between the theory of multiple intelligences and general intelligence. Couldnt it be that various forms of intelligence are specific adaptations, but they all rely on a single neurophysiological mechanism? For example, there is some evidence that g may be the speed of neural and synaptic transmission (Haier et al, 1993; Reed & Jensen, 1992; Andres-Pueyo et al., 1999). Is this at all incompatable with multiple intelligences? Am I missing something here? Refs Reed, T.E., & Jensen, A.R. (1992). Conduction velocity in a brain nerve pathway of normal adults correlates with intelligence level. Intelligence, 16, 259-272. Andres-Pueyo, A., Boastre, R.M., & Rodriguez-Fornells, A. (1999). Brain nerve conduction velocity, magnetic nuclear resonance and intelligence: New data. Paper presented at the 9th Biennial Convention of the International Society for the Study of Individual Differences, Vancouver, B.C., July, 1999. Haier, R. J., Siegel, B. V., Crinella, E M., & Buchsbaum, M. S. (1993). Biological and psychometric intelligence: Testing an animal model in humans with positron emission tomography. In D. K. Detterman (Ed. ), Current topics in human intelligence: Individual differences and cognition (vol. 3; pp. 157-170). Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing Corporation. -GFA

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

04-28-2003, 12:35 PM	#2
ps418 Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2001 Location: Louisville, KY, USA Posts: 1,840	No, there is no contradiction, only a common misunderstanding. There are specific mental abilities ("multiple intelligences"), and there is a general factor common to all mental abilities as well. There would only be a contradiction iF it were asserted that there is only a single factor, g, that accounts for all the variance in all cognitive tests, which is not the case. Instead, 'g' accounts for ~30-40% of variance in a battery of diverse tests. As far as I know, even Howard Gadner doesn't deny the existence of a general factor. I'll try to find you some sources tommorrow. Patrick

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.