multiple intelligences and money

[Andrea]

is intelligence a fixed thing, or does it decrease and increase? For example, mathematical intelligence?

Both

I use to be brilliant at maths (good "mathematical intelligence" DNA from parents) but now I am crap at it (lack of any incentive to do mathematics after almost 10 years in a "soft" systems department )

[Dave H]

I also believe that you can focus or amplify your intelligence on a particular activity such as music and this is the process whereby some people are good at particular activities. When this thread started I though the control model might provide a means of understanding how this process happens. I have been trying to explore this idea but currently I am not having much success and beginning to feel that the control model is the wrong approach. However it seems that there is some feedback mechanism involved.

[Teiana]

i haven't managed to draw it either.. still thinking.

[Andrea]

I've drawn a simple figure to try and capture what's on my mind:

MI & action learning 2.JPG (48.68 KiB) Viewed 83 times

In the figure I have reformulated the control model as the four phases of the action learning cycle. The different coloured lines represent the potential "intelligences" that could be operating during a particular phase.

When people think about learning/optimisation, it's usually unidimensional. For example, my plan is to jump over the fence; I've never done it before so my plan of action is to wait and see how somebody else manages it before I try it myself; I observe somebody jumping over the fence; I evaluate those observations against my capabilities and my original objective; I now have a model of how I could do it; I put it into practice etc etc. With a unidimensional approach, one would assume that the principal intelligence involved here is kinaesthetic. If one were to follow it through on the figure, then only one of those lines would light up.

However, it's obvious that our cognitive/behavioural processes are more multidimensional, where any process of optimisation/learning involves more than one of those 'multiple intelligence' lines lighting up. But this could happen in a whole series of different patterns: lines lighting up in parallel; different lines becoming dominant at different stages of the optimisation/learning cycle; some lines remain lit up at a particular stage while other lines progress to different stages; etc.

I think we probably have to explore this by looking at the literature in cognitive/behavioural science. For example, I was listening to a series on BBC Radio Four looking at the evolution of physical objects for human use, and at one point the presenter mentioned some cognitive science research that showed the same area of the brain lighting up when fashioning a flint knife and when speaking.

What I want to get at is to move beyond the rational/intuitive dichotomy in thinking/acting. In other words, develop a more comprehensive model of cognitive engagement with complexity.

[Teiana]

For example, my plan is to jump over the fence; I've never done it before so my plan of action is to wait and see how somebody else manages it before I try it myself; I observe somebody jumping over the fence; I evaluate those observations against my capabilities and my original objective; I now have a model of how I could do it; I put it into practice etc etc. With a unidimensional approach, one would assume that the principal intelligence involved here is kinaesthetic. If one were to follow it through on the figure, then only one of those lines would light up.

you just 'used'.. 'planning intelligence' ( which ones that??) .. then an intelligence that told you you hadn't done it before..part of some kind of risk assessment intelligence?...then visual intelligence as you made the observation...and spatial awareness/something which told you that it had actually happened in 3 dimensions and wasn't just a picture..then you used your memory/self awareness of your own capabilities .. the model of how you could do it was probably a combination of all the intelligences put together including a verbal (in your head) explanation of the process and a mathematical computation of the distances involved and the forces needed to make the jump..body awareness intelligence to help you convert that maths into how much energy you would need to apply..at the point where you then try it out you are using visuals (watching the fence or the target beyond it, i doubt you'd jump it with your eyes closed), sound (as you hear your feet hit the floor in the run up to the fence - you probably used sound in evaluating how fast the other person ran/how hard they landed), kinaesthetic - understanding the shape you make as you move and your position in space...and that of everything around you.., verbal/linguistic, as within your head you reassured yourself that you could make it, your memory etc, as you went back over the plan.. (and..'now' i will jump..)


how on earth did you get to a) one would assume that the principal intelligence involved here is kinaesthetic and b) only one of those lines would light up ?

[Dave H]

Some interesting ideas on cognitive science and complexity.

The flint knife appears to require further investigation.
I understand that expert flint knappers consider we have lost the spatial awareness required for making flint tools. I suspect that this is due to lack of use as we no lonnger require flint tools. There is now this research that shows the same area of the brain is involved in flint knapping and speech so has the spatial skill/intelligence been converted into the skills required for speech and this represents our evolution into more more complex humans. Unfortunately there appears to be something wrong as we require increasing complex spatial skills for driving a car and computer gaming. Alternatively as we are regaining our spatial skills are our linguistic skills decreasing.
This seems to becoming an interesting topic.

[Andrea]

how on earth did you get to a) one would assume that the principal intelligence involved here is kinaesthetic and b) only one of those lines would light up ?

You made my point beautifully . It's ridiculous to think that because an activity is predominantly manifested in a certain way, that the cognitive processes actually going on are exclusively those to do with, for example, physical coordination.

Let me give you another example: the written language. One would assume that reading something is exclusively to do with "linguistic intelligence". In fact, there is a growing movement that is contesting the separation of the verbal from the visual:

Our nervous systems make and use models of the world. A writing system is a visual model of the sounds we make when talking. The old alphabet is a disaster. It's been said to be less than 20% phonetic. No wonder many people have so much trouble learning to spell/read. Further, there is evidence to suggest that imposing such an irrational/disordered system on a sensitive, young human brain/mind could result in permanent physiological damage. [source: http://www.omniglot.com/writing/phonographics.php ]

Is it dyslexics that are "disabled" or is it an inappropriate written language which is not able to make use of our "integrative" intelligence?