I definitely agree that intelligence can't very usefully be expressed as a single quantity such as a "person's IQ." It's a very blunt instrument and I don't know what it tries to achieve - measuring the total horse-power of a human brain?
I much prefer breaking IQ down into aptitudes. Those can be measured more objectively. Of course it's necessary to decide what aptitudes to test, and I've no idea whether Mr.Gardner has picked the most useful set or not. But I see no harm in giving them a whirl.
Linguistic-Verbal Intelligence: I think I'm quite good at that. I can usually express my ideas pretty accurately. I can be rather a slow reader, and often balk at the task of reading a long chunk of text - paradoxically it's often because the author hasn't been skilled enough to make the ideas clear enough to me. I suppose testing a person's reading comprehension skill is more difficult than testing their skills of expression because we have to factor in the quality of the reading material. And I think some of it is down to luck - if the author manages to use the right amount of attention to detail about the right ideas, without under- or over-explaining, I'm in with a better chance.
Visual-Spatial Intelligence: I'm good at this to a degree. I often find 2-dimensional diagrams very useful as long as I can relate to their components. It's not enough just to draw any old diagram or picture and assume that's helpful. And if the ideas are new or are complex then I make only slow progress. I guess the reason I have some trouble with maps is that they're 2-dimensional but what they represent is 3-dimensional reality, in a way that can make things difficult where the 3-dimensionality of the real thing makes it look wildly different from the bird's-eye view of the map.
. . .I have some skill in thinking in 3 dimensions, but it's limited. If I'm trying to make a 3-dimensional bit of apparatus, I often find my first attempt doesn't work very well, though when I persevere I can do better on my next attempt. I suppose I use the first attempt as a real-life model of the task. The tools for creating abstracted 3-dimensional models of proposed real things are probably rare compared with the ease of 2-dimensional pencil and paper, so it's naturally harder to find tools for conceiving a 3-dimensional object. But I would imagine some people can do the whole thing in their heads more easily than I can. I think a lot of it has to do with familiarity, and that we aren't dealing with an absolute, unchangeable aptitude. If I spent more of my time creating 3-dimensional equipment, I'd be more familiar with how bits of stuff interact in 3 dimensions, and become better at designing these things.
Bodily / Kinesthetic Intelligence: If it's my whole body, I'm probably not so good at that. If it's my hands, I'm pretty good at manipulating small objects with them. I've always enjoyed making things with my hands and with tools. Of course if the tools need specialised skill to be used properly, I need to acquire that skill first, and that can be a slower learning curve than might be expected, though I often enjoy the process.
Musical Intelligence: I suppose I must be good at this, as evidenced by the recordings I make and the appreciation audiences tend to express when I perform live music. But I rarely go beyond a certain level of complexity, and would likely feel lost if I tried to. The world of classical music probably wouldn't want me, though I enjoy a lot of classical music. My field is mostly rock and roll and other relatively simple popular and folk music (it's interesting to note that word "popular," which seems to imply that to achieve the best results in music, i.e. playing in a way that people like the most, complexity can get in the way, and that the "best" music is often the simplest and easiest to create). I've noticed when trying to learn music theory that the books are like Greek to me but when I finally figure out what they're talking about, I knew about it intuitively all the time, but that my brain can't be bothered with naming such things as syncopation, grace notes, etc.
Interpersonal Intelligence: I'm certainly not without some skill in it, though I don't know how to assess how well I do. I can't imagine how it could be accurately tested. I'm definitely interested in the subject. I suspect I bring my own views on the best criteria into it, which may surpass conventional assumptions but at the same time risk falling short of the mark - in other words, with social stuff I see things others don't see, so more fool them, and they see things I don't, so more fool me.
Intrapersonal Intelligence: Probably quite good, though how do I know what I'm missing? I've had a strong interest in this kind of introspection for decades, and seem able to talk intelligently about how I feel, how I relate to others, and what my strengths and weaknesses are.
Logical / Mathematical Intelligence: Yes, I suppose. I do a lot of rational thinking and love to find things out by experiment. It was a significant part of my job as a science worker before I retired. But my mathematical skills are only middle-level and I'd be out of my depth among really skilled mathematicians and computer programmers. As long as I stay within my limits, I can achieve results that are often impressive to lay people. But I've always had a love-hate relationship with numbers and (to a lesser degree) with logic. I have a lot of trouble remembering numbers, and if I spend too much time thinking logically then I worry that I'm leaving my artistic, emotional side to rust up and grow cobwebs.
So, which of those is my strongest "intelligence?" I don't know. I suspect those categories need breaking down into smaller ones to provide more black-and-white insight into the matter, but even then I don't know that the results would be very well-defined. I always seem to find nuances that defy the drawing of hard-and-fast conclusions, it's always "well, it depends" with me. I seem to be able to do most narrowly-defined tasks well if I really put my mind to them. The worst "intelligence" I've found in myself is bureaucratic intelligence, i.e. being able to fill in forms effectively and quickly, and to get bureacrats to co-operate with me. I also have little or no "spiritual intelligence," though I suspect that may be a good thing. I balk at most philosophy and tend to consider it a waste of time.
25 Apr 2022, 1:31 am
