gG Model
or
MI-g Synthesis
© Laurent Dubois 2003
An attempt of remodelling of the different theories of intelligence and of enlarging the definition of intelligence.
In counterpoint, here is the Howard Gardner’s definition of intelligence
The great absent in the traditional testing and even in power tests:
Enlarged definition of intelligence
Against the grain: the root of intelligence
As
it is virtually certain that even the most adamant opponents of Spearman’s
theory will agree to admit that his definition of intelligence constitutes an
excellent starting point, were it precisely to be invalidated “ab absurdo”, in
the attempt to tame this fleeting matter, let us give it the honor of the first
lines of this essay:
|
“g is the ability to see relationships between things and to
manipulate those relationships to solve problems”. |
As
this and in the state of affairs, it is, at worst, a purely abstract
representation, at best, a rather good approximation of the reality
-
supposing that one knows what “intelligence” is!!! - as long as one focuses on
the implicit notion of “performance” implied by this definition. One fails in
satisfying our confused and intuitive perception of the richness and the
complexity of the notion of intelligence.
If pertinent, the
displaying of g is one of the strongest expressions of… g.
This remark itself then
stays at a higher level of abstraction yet:
meta-process, & so on
ad infinitum!
Let us reason against the
grain: let us suppose that g is not pertinent!
Then, the disqualification
of g is the fact/power of a specific factor!
Does it make sense that the questioning
About intelligence was a product
of extra-intelligence?
Now,
the picture of the displaying of g is not complete. What makes the
reputation of Spearman is his displaying of g as product of a factorial
analysis. His definition is the translation of the result of a statistical
operation, some people reproaching for having simply elaborated a statistical
artifact.
But
Spearman himself is not satisfied with this statistical entity. He goes further
and assimilates g to the expression of the “genetics”.
Consequently,
g is both root and fruit, and its janusian nature is synthesized in the
expression “general factor of intelligence”.
As product, g is the emergence of a process of
maturation.
Let us note that it is not the product of one particular entity/diagram
but of the correlations between the scores of multiple
entities.
As general,
genetic factor, g must rest above, at the origin of this process.
Hence its
schizophrenic nature.
|
"That ability to
solve problems, or create products, that are valued within one or more
cultural settings". |
Are
the Spearman and Gardner definitions really contradictory? Is the Gardner
definition not simply an extension of that of Spearman?
Its merit
is to underline the “relative” character of the label “intelligent” of the
products of the mind.
It
depends on the referential in which these products emerge.
An
extension of the types (math-verbal-spatial) where g can express! The
price to pay is the assimilation of g, pure abstract product of a
factorial analysis with Spearman, and in such seemingly without limit, or
assimilated to a statistical artifact in the head of its detractors, to a
“potential energy” that diffuses differently through the different types, the
variation of quantity devoted to each type explaining possible low correlations
between some types of intelligence, even if the basic logical principles
regaling each type must be the same.
In
fact, the really fluid g is immeasurable through IQ tests, a residual
fluidity only.
different
The most general distinction would be:
functional and conceptual intelligence
The key point in the apparent antagonism
between MI and g is the notion of “performance”, the heart of the works
of the psychometricians since Galton, Binet and Spearman to Jensen and
Sternberg. It allows empirical measures and easy comparisons between testees.
However it leads to make the field of intelligence too restrictive. The real contribution of Gardner, and
Sternberg in some extend, is to emphasize this problem as well as to allow
extension of this field by including characteristics that we all intuitively
feel belonging to the essence of intelligence; e.g. “creativity”, which we all
know somewhat confusedly that it is directly linked to intelligence and which
the strongest weakness compared to “performance” is its unruly and free nature
(wild intelligence), aleatory efficiency.
Gardner typology is nothing more than
an extension of Thurstone primary mental abilities.
[the
emphasis is put on g as product]
A new framework is needed. Here below is an
attempt of remodelling of the different conceptions of intelligence and of including
the enlarged definition of intelligence.
The
deep analysis of the matrix will be made in two steps:
-
the attempt of elaborating
-
the emphasis on the dynamical side through a
diagram
|
|
Spearman |
g |
||||||||||||||
|
|
|
global mental potential “energy” |
||||||||||||||
|
|
Spearman Carroll*
|
Factorial
analysis Product
of group factors statistical relations to be confirmed |
||||||||||||||
|
|
Hardware + Rom
(set
of instructions) |
Pure
Fluidity genotype |
Galton Jensen
|
Raw g: neural/neuronal
speed processing factor (speed) &
neural system complexity factor
(level) + sensory- *short- (cash) *mid- (ram) *long-
(hard) term memory |
||||||||||||
|
1st-order Filter |
Interface |
1st
Crystallization Phenotype(?) |
|
Metabolism (Breath-sugar consumption-protein-vitamins-greases…) + Sense (central nervous system) |
||||||||||||
|
2d-order Filter |
Software
(from
other “g-loaded” entities) |
2d
Crystallization (environment [non-g
+ g loaded entities] + personality) |
Gardner
9
MI |
gs Physico-math |
gs Linguistic |
gs Spatial |
gs Musical |
gs Bodily-kinaesthetic |
gs Interpersonal |
gs Intrapersonal |
gs Naturalist |
gs Existentialist |
||||
|
Guilford 5
contents |
Symbolic |
Semantic (Verbal)
|
Visual gv |
Auditory gu (Rhythmic) |
Behavioural (Spatio-dynamical) |
Behavioural |
Behavioural |
Behavioural (olfactive-gustative-touch) |
Behavioural |
|||||||
|
|
Common
feature: “infos”, but
specific “codes”/data |
-
Evanescent g ·
Artistic ·
Aesthetic ·
Emotional |
componential -
Evaluation -
Cognition ·
analytical ·
synthetical ·
hypothetico-deductive ·
inductive ·
algorithmic ·
dynamic ·
combinatoric ·
systematic ·
heuristic conjecturo- speculative Contextual -
Convergent production ·
Practical ·
Experimental Experiential -
Divergent production (wild g) ·
pure divergence ·
producivity ·
ingenuity ·
originality -
logico-divergence (highest
quality of g) ·
autoreference ·
recursivity ·
infinity Power -
Memory
·
Sensory ·
short (cash) ·
mid (ram) long (hard) -
persistence -
motivation -
Evanescent g ·
Artistic ·
Aesthetic ·
Emotional |
componential -
Evaluation -
Cognition ·
analytical ·
synthetical ·
hypothetico-deductive ·
inductive ·
algorithmic ·
dynamic ·
combinatoric ·
systematic ·
heuristic conjecturo- speculative Contextual -
Convergent production ·
Practical ·
Experimental Experiential -
Divergent production (wild g) ·
pure divergence ·
producivity ·
ingenuity ·
originality -
logico-divergence (highest
quality of g) ·
autoreference ·
recursivity ·
infinity Power -
Memory
·
Sensory ·
short (cash) ·
mid (ram) long (hard) -
persistence -
motivation -
Evanescent g ·
Artistic ·
Aesthetic ·
Emotional |
componential -
Evaluation -
Cognition ·
analytical ·
synthetical ·
hypothetico-deductive ·
inductive ·
algorithmic ·
dynamic ·
combinatoric ·
systematic ·
heuristic conjecturo- speculative Contextual -
Convergent production ·
Practical ·
Experimental Experiential -
Divergent production (wild g) ·
pure divergence ·
producivity ·
ingenuity ·
originality -
logico-divergence (highest
quality of g) ·
autoreference ·
recursivity ·
infinity Power -
Memory
·
Sensory ·
short (cash) ·
mid (ram) long (hard) -
persistence -
motivation -
Evanescent g ·
Artistic ·
Aesthetic ·
Emotional |
componential -
Evaluation -
Cognition ·
analytical ·
synthetical ·
hypothetico-deductive ·
inductive ·
algorithmic ·
dynamic ·
combinatoric ·
systematic ·
heuristic conjecturo- speculative Contextual -
Convergent production ·
Practical ·
Experimental Experiential -
Divergent production (wild g) ·
pure divergence ·
producivity ·
ingenuity ·
originality -
logico-divergence (highest
quality of g) ·
autoreference ·
recursivity ·
infinity Power -
Memory
·
Sensory ·
short (cash) ·
mid (ram) long (hard) -
persistence -
motivation -
Evanescent g ·
Artistic ·
Aesthetic ·
Emotional mental
representation |
componential -
Evaluation -
Cognition ·
analytical ·
synthetical ·
hypothetico-deductive ·
inductive ·
algorithmic ·
dynamic ·
combinatoric ·
systematic ·
heuristic conjecturo- speculative Contextual -
Convergent production ·
Practical ·
Experimental Experiential -
Divergent production (wild g) ·
pure divergence ·
producivity ·
ingenuity ·
originality -
logico-divergence (highest
quality of g) ·
autoreference ·
recursivity ·
infinity Power -
Memory
·
Sensory ·
short (cash) ·
mid (ram) long (hard) -
persistence -
motivation -
Evanescent g ·
Artistic ·
Aesthetic ·
Emotional empathy |
componential -
Evaluation -
Cognition ·
analytical ·
synthetical ·
hypothetico-deductive ·
inductive ·
algorithmic ·
dynamic ·
combinatoric ·
systematic ·
heuristic conjecturo- speculative Contextual -
Convergent production ·
Practical ·
Experimental Experiential -
Divergent production (wild g) ·
pure divergence ·
producivity ·
ingenuity ·
originality -
logico-divergence (highest
quality of g) ·
autoreference ·
recursivity ·
infinity Power -
Memory
·
Sensory ·
short (cash) ·
mid (ram) long (hard) -
persistence -
motivation -
Evanescent g ·
Artistic ·
Aesthetic ·
Emotional |
componential -
Evaluation -
Cognition ·
analytical ·
synthetical ·
hypothetico-deductive ·
inductive ·
algorithmic ·
dynamic ·
combinatoric ·
systematic ·
heuristic conjecturo- speculative Contextual -
Convergent production ·
Practical ·
Experimental Experiential -
Divergent production (wild g) ·
pure divergence ·
producivity ·
ingenuity ·
originality -
logico-divergence (highest
quality of g) ·
autoreference ·
recursivity ·
infinity Power -
Memory
·
Sensory ·
short (cash) ·
mid (ram) long (hard) -
persistence -
motivation -
Evanescent g ·
Artistic ·
Aesthetic ·
Emotional |
componential -
Evaluation -
Cognition ·
analytical ·
synthetical ·
hypothetico-deductive ·
inductive ·
algorithmic ·
dynamic ·
combinatoric ·
systematic ·
heuristic conjecturo- speculative Contextual -
Convergent production ·
Practical ·
Experimental Experiential -
Divergent production (wild g) ·
pure divergence ·
producivity ·
ingenuity ·
originality -
logico-divergence (highest
quality of g) ·
autoreference ·
recursivity ·
infinity Power -
Memory
·
Sensory ·
short (cash) ·
mid (ram) long (hard) -
persistence -
motivation -
Evanescent g ·
Artistic ·
Aesthetic ·
Emotional |
||||||
|
Guilford
5 operations As
sub-specifications of the 3 components of the Sternberg triarchic theory + Thurstone’s
7 primary mental abilities as sub-specifications Analytical -
spatial ability -
(gsf + gsc) -
-perceptual speed -numerical ability -verbal meaning -memory *short (casch) *mid (ram) *long (hard) -word fluency -reasoning + Jensen
(meta) - Binet-Simon –Weschler (+ Vernon) Verbal Subtests
Performance Subtests gν gf -
Vocabulary - Picture Completion -
Similarities - Digit‑Symbol/Coding -
Arithmetic - Block Design -
Digit Span - Matrix Reasoning -
Information - Picture Arrangement -
Comprehension - Symbol Search -
Letter‑Number - Object Assembly
Sequencing + Guilford
6 products -
unit -
classes -
relations -
systems -
transformations -
implications Carroll
8 groups factors: -
Gf fluid intelligence -
Gc crystallized intelligence -
Gy general memory -
Gv general visual perception -
Gu general auditive perception -
Gr general recuperation -
Gs general cognitive speed -
Gt general speed processing Sternberg
Triarchy -
Componential: abstract -
Contextual: practical -
Experiential: creative |
||||||||||||||||
|
In italics, my concepts. The computing science metaphor is for clarity. |
|
|||||||||||||||
This matrice
is itself an expression of the product.
But
it is not all. The recursive/reflexive feedback on this remark itself,
and
so on ad infinitum…
generator-computing
This matrix intends to show the levels of
fitting of the different elements implied in the “development” of intelligence.
The main idea consists in assimilating g
to a mental energ or “generator”. Indeed, as to avoid a purely
“disincarnate” factor, g must be “materialized” in some way, kind of
“sum”, in mathematical terms or “balance sheet/statement of account”(???) in
thermodynamical terms. As we have seen in the preliminary, the literature leads
to justify two interpretations of g:
g as genetic factor and g as result of a process
highlighted by the statistics which assimilate it to the product of a factor
analysis.
And if, in the state of affairs, we must be
satisfied with rather rough measuring tools, the supposing of the quasi-perfect
adequacy between g as generator and g as product of the
factor analysis constitutes precisely an epistemological abuse!
It is clear that the attempts of minimize the
importance of the genetic factor is vain as the importance of the combined
effects of the phenotype and the sensory machinery on the one hand, and the
environment and the personality on the other hand, is obviously directly
dependent upon the efficiency of the central nervous system.
Really, in a sense, all is on the dependence of
g! The functioning of the filters is conditioned by g. (cfr.
Plasticity and memory of brain zones; cognitive tasks need important sugar
consumption but anaerobic, thought needs O consumption)
Now, a complementary reading is necessary and
it is as true that the generator needs supports to express itself, g
is not disincarnated; the supports? The
“filters”!
g
is not immutable.
And after all, the psychometric tools: IQ
tests, intelligence scales, assessment questionnaires are limited to the end of
the process(ing)!
From there are inferred inter-/intra-polations.
It is rather methodologically weak.
It is more than probable that intelligence must
be considered as output, fruit of a more or less maturation, but it must take
more various forms and be not immutable, contrary to what the strict advocates
of genetics think.
Raw g at the origin, evolutionary g
the most part of the time, G, for Genius, in conclusion, in the best cases.
So, one observes that Spearman & Gardner’s perspectives, far from being
antagonist, are perfectly complementary. “Pure g” advocates
fail to take into account the very early effects of the
“personality-environment” filter; the MI advocates fail in finding an
underlying common feature in each type of intelligence, i.e. the common logic
under the elaboration of any “specific” code-info.
g as energy, fundamental
potential, as Stump/stub/stock cell that diversifies & develops with
specific degrees of complexity in each type. This conception/representation
allows an energy/power expenditure. (thermodynamics/information-complexity
theory). The degree of quality in which g is expressed can be determined
in a first time according to the Kolmogorov definition of “complexity”.
However,
Intelligence cannot be simply assimilated to g.
Intelligence is the way g is expressed. In other words, one can be more
intelligent with less g!
Different levels of g
can lead to an equivalent G.
Same g can
lead to different G.
Lower g can lead to higher G.
As
product, G is the emergence of a process of maturation.
Let us note that with Spearman, it is not the product
of one particular entity/diagram but of the correlations between the scores of
multiple entities. Thus, g is a product.
But as general, genetic factor, g must rest above, at the origin of this
process. This schizophrenic nature must explain the incompleteness of the
orthodox model.
|
Raw
g |
= |
Raw
intelligence |
≠ |
pure intelligence (G) |
|
|
IQ tests Convergent intelligence + 1st
order divergence
& logico-divergence |
|
|
Chaotic-aleatory-emergent-turbulent 2d
order divergence & logico-divergence Genius
(complex-subtle alchemy) |
Maturation of g to G. Intelligence would
be the degree/level of quality/maturation of
g in one or more types.
Entropy for g. Emergence for
intelligence.
Schizophrenic
Also, it seems to lead to a more logical
hierarchisation than that developed from a “unitary” g. Indeed, if we
consider the Carroll’s model:
g
8
group factors
numerous
primary mental aptitudes
where g is the product of the factorial
analysis, i.e. the result of a process, and the primary mental aptitudes at the
origin of the process and as such far from g,
our conception of g as raw energy (ener-g)
would give the following schema:
g
numerous
primary mental aptitudes
8
group factors
[9
types of intelligence]
As “primary”, the mental aptitudes must rest
close to the most primary factor, the “genetic” factor.
[it seems that the 8 group factors of Carroll
cannot be really put on the same level.
g
General memory, general processing speed
General auditory and visual perceptions
General cognitive speed Fluid intelligence
Crystallized intelligence General recovery/recuperation]
Directly
after the group factors, the 9 types of intelligence of Gardner as 2d filter,
as it is clear that some kind of specialization appears at a very early age.
Small
but important modification in the typology of Gardner:
“Physico-mathematical”
rather than “Logico-mathematical”
as
first type of intelligence as each type
of intelligence
contains
its own support for logic
&
because the specificity of the “physics” reasoning
seems
to be the great absent in the classical IQ tests.
Paired
with the Gardner’s types, we have the Guilford’s contents. This association
highlights the artificial character of some of
the Gardner’s types like the naturalist, the existentialist
intelligences that can certainly be included in the inter-/intra-personal
types.
After
that, we find the more specific factors that will allow considering the
elaboration of concrete ways of testing.
Guilford: content-operation-product (Turing
machine)
In each type of intelligence, the qualitative
filters highlight the degree of complexity & the subtlety in which g
has been developed. It allows the establishing of a ratio raw/pure g.
Now, how could really be tested the creativity,
the aesthetic intelligences?
The only real measure of fluidity either
physiologically either in very young baby, in the constitution of the 2d
(personality-environmental) filter (but is it stable?)
It would be extremely naïve to ignore the
filters. If they make sense, one could find physiological- environmental
constants/similarities (cfr. Study of genius)
Some factors checked in everybody?
Residual
fluidity
g potential energy:
plasticity, speediness, effectiveness, quality
The best evaluation of g would take into
account all the factors (a bit laborious).
But if this synthesis makes sense, an excellent
approximation could be given by the checking/evaluation of the abilities of the
testee in his specific intelligence/content or in two of them maximum.
Fluidity can be tested better in the
non-familiar types. The effects of the first filter do not prevent the
persistence of some fluidity.
If strong discrepancies between the 2-3
specialized types & the others are confirmed, the checking of the fluidity
through non familiars types will not be indicative of real/full g but of
residual g.
Why 2-3 types maximum? Because history shows
that genius do not really succeed in more than 2-3 matters. And often, real
performances in not more than 2/3 sections of a privileged field (e.g. math,
music…)
“Existentialist” type is the one where
complexity plays a much more important role than speed
The 2d filter reinforces or inhibits the best
traits of the interface
The taking into account of Power (memory +
persistence) & motivation leads to make the distinction between IQ level
potential & IQ level realization.
Because
of the specific code implied in each type of intelligence, I think we cannot
speak of “pure fluidity” about them in the sense of Carroll, but rather of
“specific fluidity”, all the more that language used can be so bald in the
linguistic-semantic-Verbal type that it would not require less fluidity than in
physico-mathematical one.
Further
and deeper developments in the chapter devoted to the “diagram”.
allows
reservoir
Output
The second
part of the matrix contains a synthesis of the main models of intelligence.
We propose
two great categories: “concrete” (contextual/functional) and “abstract” (componential/conceptual)
intelligences. We can assign degrees to each of them: the degree and the
quality of the acquisition and of the restitution (combinatorics à demonstration, with Guilford six products as
guiding categories), and we can include for each of them the three great
components: convergence, divergence and logico-divergence.
Of course,
these categories apply to each of the nine types of intelligence.
What about fluidity/crystallization
dichotomy? As a degree of fluidity can be assigned to any acquisition and
restitution of data, we suggest to extend the conceptual field of the notion of
“fluidity” to the constitutive process of acquisition and restitution of data
in any mental activity according to a qualitative scale.
Sternberg
and Guilford for the great categories
Carroll and
Weschler for the details
Thurstone-7
“primary mental abilities” (PMA) or Carroll-8 “moderate specializations of
ability”
Weschler
-
architectural/global
ability
-
dynamical/algorithmic
ability
-
equational
(physics) ability
also, nothing proves that people good at these
Patent lack of density in traditional IQ tests, more present in power
tests
The degree and the quality of the acquisition and of the restitution
Stress must be put on the levels of difficulty of the items if we intend
to distinguish real qualitative differences between thought processing.
Answers have to be weighted! Let us subscribe to the adage: “who can the
most can potentially the less, the contrary is not true”.
Also, by preoccupation for pragmatism, it is important to admit that the
IQ value has to be ascribed to a “performance”, a product, and not to the
person. “Here and now” character of the note, because, among others, of the motivation,
persistence and other bias. From this data, it is supposed that the testee can
at least similar performances at other well correlated tasks.
because of the lack of familiarity of some people with particularities
of even a priori culture-fair items (e.g. dominoes), the untimed nature is a
less evil.
In life, there
are often several solutions for a same problem.
|
|
|||
|
auditory |
|||
contextual/functional/operatory/application
|
componential/conceptual/comprehension |
||
|
interpretation |
composition |
||
|
Synthetical |
analytical |
synthetical |
|
|
|
|
|
|
operatory/application
conceptual/comprehension
exploration
pointillism abstraction, perspective
intrapersonal
Interpersonal
Conceptual abstraction (qualitative)
Operative abstraction (formalism)
Similarities between CHC and Gardner sub-categories
Broadest Carroll’s taxonomy: level and speed factors; but speed is
secondary and implicit.
Performance effectiveness fluidity
Depth persistence (emotions
[what we call EQ is already more complex than emotions] will)
If
we agree on the definition of a “genius work” as the particularly successfully
done fruit of the particularly harmonious marriage/combination/convergence of
divergent and convergent thoughts, “creativity” cannot be simply distinguished
from intelligence. Creativity is one of the ways for intelligence for
expressing itelf.
Genius
as purest expression of intelligence. It doesn’t seem logical to explain Genius
by the combination of intelligence with something of lesser quality.
Or
would Genius be the art of using creativity?
Essentially
combinatoric
When and where logic reaches
its limits: auto reference, infinity: recursivity
Below
is an attempt of extension of the definition of intelligence going beyond the
notion of “pure performance” in order to include factors such as artistic-aesthetic, sensitivity, creativity, empathy, consciousness, wisdom… The idea is the following: since it is
currently impossible to elaborate a precise enough definition (both simplest
and most general), the most reasonable and rigorous attitude consists in
including a maximum of the probable components rather than in making the bet
that intelligence can be reduced to very narrow abilites.
-
Ability to selectively register information?
(Ability to just register info? Not so, since inanimate matter can do it as
well)
-
Ability to use information (registered in
sensory, short [cache], mid [ram], or long [hard] term memory)
-
Ability to search information in order to:
. solve an existing problem (no new info)
-
Ability to produce information in order to:
. solve an existing problem (new info)
. formulate a new problem & solve it
(two new information)
-
Faculty of wondering what the ability to
selectively register, to search, to use and to create information is
-
Faculty of wondering what intelligence is
-
Faculty of being conscious of this questioning
-
Faculty of infinite auto-reflexive questioning
(infinitely recursive meta-process)
Ability
to see, memorize, use, create connections between basic homogeneous and/or
heterogeneous set of codes in order to create and/or solve problems or without
any precise [conscious] intention.
Information = combinations of elementary elements,
which are of course themselves already “info”!
(Information theory; Basket/dance; genetics…)
divergence
(creativity) and convergence have something in common
Learning
solving
learning
to solve
Here
the synthesis board completed with the assessment suggestions
Of
course, all this has to be refined.
This
made:
First
step consists in designing the items
Second
step: normalisation
Third
step: psychometric study-factorial analysis
Since
we reason in terms of potential, the score to a test constitute a minimum &
one can keep the best score
A
greater rigor would consist in talking about a “performance” on a precise test
at such or such moment & place.
|
gs Physico-math |
gs Linguistic |
gs Spatial |
gs Musical |
gs Bodily-kinaesthetic |
gs Interpersonal |
gs Intrapersonal |
gs Naturalist |
gs Existentialist |
|
Symbolic |
Semantic (Verbal)
|
Visual Gv |
Auditory Gu (Rhythmic) |
Behavioural (Spatio-dynamical) |
Behavioural |
Behavioural |
Behavioural (olfactive-gustative-touch) |
Behavioural |
|
The
second intellect that Armstrong mentions is Logical and Mathematical
Intelligence. This is defined as the ability to reason well and
effectively via the use of numbers. One using this intellect to its fullest
potential must have sensitivity to logical patterns and relationships,
statements and proportions, functions, and other abstract mathematical
concepts. This intelligence is used in categorization, classification,
calculation, inference, generalization, and hypothesis testing ( Armstrong 2). 1.
Frequently argues ideas 2. Grasps abstract concepts with ease *IS
ABLE TO EFFECTIVELY QUANTIFY THINGS: "I LIKED THE BOOK, I'D RATE IT AN
8.7" or "WE PROBABLY WALKED 5.6 KILOMETERS TODAY" *NOTICES SLIGHT CHANGES/DYNAMICS *STATES THINGS IN A CLEAR AND ACCURATE
MANNER *HAS THE ABILITY TO BREAK DOWN COMPLEX
CONCEPTS INTO MORE BASIC COMPONENT CONCEPTS *CAN EXPLAIN THINGS THAT HAVE NOT BEEN
FORMALLY TAUGHT TO HIM/HER *TENDS TO QUALIFY THINGS "THIS
HAPPENS IN THIS
CASE, BUT NOT IN THE CASE OF THIS..." |
The
first intelligence he mentions is Linguistic Intelligence. This is
defined as the ability to use words effectively, both orally and through the written
word. Linguistic Intelligence incorporates rhetoric (convincing others to
take a specific course of action), mnemonics (using language to remember
information), explanation (informing others using language), and metalanguage
("using language to talk about itself"). 1.
Enjoys listening to stories 2. Enjoys telling stories 3. Writes creative stories *THIS
MIGHT BE TOO SUBJECTIVE--- A TEACHER MIGHT NOT UNDERSTAND THE DEEP
CREATIVITY INHERENT IN A STUDENT'S WORK 4. Reads books of varied interests 5. Tells jokes with puns, riddles, or 6. Has a strong thirst for knowledge 7. Enjoys playing with words and
language 8. Likes to talk communicates
effectively attempts
alternative or new methods *UNDERSTANDS
AND EFFECTIVELY USES PROPER
SYNTAX, WORD CHOICE, GRAMMAR, |
The thirdly explained intelligence is Spatial
Intelligence. This is defined as 1.
Enjoys looking at maps 2. Creates detailed drawings *THIS MAY BE ANOTHER AREA IN WHICH BOTH EXTREMES COULD BE CORRECT.
CREATING A DETAILED DRAWING IN TERMS OF "PRECISION" IS
CERTAINLY IMPRESSIVE, BUT VAN GOGH THOUGHT THAT HIS PAINTINGS WERE EXTREMELY ACCURATE
BECAUSE THEY CAPTURED THE "ESSENCE", THE "MOOD" OF A PLACE. YET
HIS PAINTINGS ARE CERTAINLY NOT "MEASURED" OR
"ACCURATE". 3. Has a good sense of direction 4. Appears clumsy 5. Thinks outside of conventionally
accepted ways 6.
stylism 7. Strips drawing/caricatures ( this is difficult, as you stated
Van Gogh did perceive his paintings as being correct) Actually I think that each type of
artistic expression calls for different mental types of mental “focus” areas.
If he is making Extreme realism you need highly analytical skills and a
strong perception of reality, Extrovert perception. If the artist are making
an abstract painting he will still need the same, but on different targets
(not reality but maybe feelings derived from the composition and colours, introvert perception) Another aspect of art is the
ability to have continuity in the production, an artist has to perform on a
continuous basis both in terms of style and quality. One painting will not make an artist. |
Musical Intelligence is the next idea that
Armstrong discusses. He defines it as "the capacity to perceive,
discriminate, transform, and express musical forms" ( Armstrong 3). Inclusive is the sensitivity to pitch, rhythm, tone color, etc. 1.
Plays a musical instrument 2. Has diverse musical interests 3. Works with music playing in the
background 4. Enjoys dancing to music 5. Is part of a musical group 6. Sings along with songs out loud
7. Can’t live without a daily dose of music ( can interpret music into other
“out-puts”, words, painting etc.) |
The next intelligence described is Bodily-Kinesthetic
Intelligence. This is defined as "expertise in using one's whole
body to express ideas and feelings (e.g. actor, mime, athlete, dancer)"
( Armstrong 3) and having the ability to use one's hands to transform and produce
things. (e.g. sculptor, surgeon, craftsperson, mechanic, etc.) 1.
Uses exaggerated hand or facial gestures when speaking 2. Bored easily with didactic
instruction 3. Enjoys acting or taking on the role
of others 4. Sports 5. Dance 6. Gym . “Bored easily with didactic instruction” This goes for an artist and a
muscisan as well « fine motoric
abilities » « Rythm » |
The final intelligence that Gardner has
defined is Interpersonal Intelligence. This is defined as the ability
to act accordingly and adaptively on the basis of self-knowledge. Inclusive
in this intelligence is having awareness of inner moods, possessing an
"accurate picture of one's self" (by examining strengths and
weaknesses of the self), by acknowledging and understanding various
intentions, temperaments, desires, and motivations. Another facet of
Interpersonal Intellect is having "the capacity for self-discipline,
self-understanding, and self-esteem" ( Armstrong 3-4). 1. Autonomous 2. Works without approval 3. Pursues strong areas of interest 4. Stands up for convictions *AGAIN, A LOW SCORE HERE COULD
INDICATE GIFTEDNESS ELSEWHERE. A PERSON MAY NOT
STAND UP FOR HIS/HER CONVICTIONS BECAUSE HE/SHE DOES NOT THINK THAT
ANYONE ELSE WILL UNDERSTAND THOSE CONVICTIONS TO BEGIN WITH, WHICH MAY
POINT TO VERY COMPLEX THOUGHT AND HIGH INTRAPERSONAL ABILITIES. 5. Appears to have well-developed
morals 6. Requires little direction from
teachers 7.
Dreamer 8. Considered rebellious towards adults 9. Stubborn in beliefs 10. Attempts to distinguish him or
herself 11. Is not liked by peers 12. Prefers to spend time alone
13. Has difficulty getting along with others It seem that some aspects are
interrelated, like “dreamer” you will find in other areas, like Visual
perception and musical. |
The sixth intelligence discussed is
aptly named by Gardner as Interpersonal Intelligence. This is defined
as "the ability to perceive and make distinctions in the moods,
motivations, and feelings of other people" ( Armstrong 3). One can execute their Interpersonal Intelligence by being
sensitive to gestures, facial expressions, and voice; and by having the
ability to "respond effectively to those cues in some pragmatic way
(e.g. to influence a group of people to follow a certain line of
action)" ( Armstrong 3). 1.
Takes risks 2. Tends to rely on others 3. Is sensitive to other’s feelings 4. Takes responsibility for actions 5. Exhibits leadership within a group
of peers 6. Admired by peers *AGAIN, LIKE SO MANY ADVANCED MINDS,
SHE/HE MAY SEE HIS PEERS AS "LESSER"
AND THEREFORE MAY COME ACROSS AS EXTREMELY ARROGANT. HOWEVER, THE POLITICIAN, TO
USE THIS EXAMPLE AGAIN, IS THE OPPOSITE, YET COULD ALSO BE VERY
GIFTED. 7. Makes new friends easily 8. Empathy 9. Social consciousness 10. Militants |
1.
Prefers spending time outdoors 2. Loves animals
3. Sensitive to natural beauty A sense for the paranormal. Believes in ancient methods of
prediction. Romantic ? |
1. Attends religious services on a
regular basis 2. Lucidity 3.
Wisdom |
Acrobat
Gymnast
Juggler
Illusionist
Repartees-jokes-humorist
Do-it yourself enthusiast
critical mind, detection of
errors-mistakes-typos & ability to correct them (disassembly)
love of debates-contradictory mind
-technics
fluidity/ability (soccer/basket...)
-vista/opportunism/tactic
-will
-strategic/global
vision
-creativity
(divergence/logico-divergence)
-charism
To
search infos & realize a personal essay/production on a favourite topic. Or
another kind of performance.
But
what do we really want?
Utility
in a restrained acceptation?
Fantasy
imitation commercial create/argue rules
Against
the grain, recursive reasoning
[the
emphasis is put on g as root]
We
have considered the product of a process. We now go to the root of
intelligence.
The
great advantage of the diagram is the emphasis on the dynamical side of the
process
Degrees
in intelligence: adaptation,
Learning
solving
learning
to solve
MI is not without any empirical support, even
if pointed out by other people than Gardner.
-
Damasio, for example, showed that brain-damaged
people checked a very selective reduction of some of their capacities.
-
"idiots-savants" remain unexplained
cases
-
in the same spirit, the case of gifted people
with heterogeneous aptitudes is challenging
-
Plasticity of the brain: modification of the
motor and somato-sensorial cortical areas (tomography/imagery by functional
magnetic resonance) in relation to shadow organs (memory of the initial
arrangement of the cerebrals area supports the idea of a genetic pre-instruction)
-
consideration of intelligence in an evolutive
rather than crystallized/static
-
g is not really
invariable
·
IQ of divorced parents childs
·
IQ of maltreated babys
-
what are special talents if they are not
legitimate components of intelligence? In what are they different from the
primary mental abilities?
-
Of
course it's insufficient, but it's a starting point
The
potential of the potential
-
Initially, emphasis in IQ tests was put on time
pressure: first level potential.
-
But psychologists realized that the slow or
moderately fast thinkers were penalized to such a point that some of them could
solve more, & more difficult items than fast thinkers once the time
pressure removed: untimely or reduced time pressure tests: reference: RAPM; 1
of the reasons of the existence of the online power tests & scales:
extension of the notion of potential!
Is it the limit of the potential? NO!
-
Let's consider the case of people who don't
score significantly better despite of the reduction of the time pressure or who
don't even score the maximum: with some explanations, some of them will
understand, others won’t; we obviously cannot put on the same level the two
categories of testees! So, we have a new extension of the notion of potential!
-
At this stage, the following extension will
lead us to the famous Socrates "reminiscence"!
-
In other words, it is clear that intelligence
cannot be reduced to the notion of IQ, unless this notion was seriously
enlarged! only
What about a designer who could not solve all
his items?
-
Could a perfect solver create such items?
Timed
tests would allow to detect superficial abilities implying low level of
maturation: sensory and working memory.
Power
tests would allow to detect deep abilities implying high level of maturation:
mid- and long-term memory.
And
in addition to the fluid/crystallized dichotomy, it would highlight degrees of
“fluidity”
When
one solves partially culturally biased items, one have to use an information
already registered in our mind and to detect the analogy imagined by the
designer. The inability to solve the problem doesn’t mortgage the ability of
someone to detect new analogies in matters de facto not taken into account by the
designer of a test. A contrario, the ability to solve the problems conceived by
a designer doesn’t imply necessarily the ability to “create”, to develop
original analogies/connections. As for the “culture-fair” items, they seem to
be too specific, too restrictive to
Numerous
reflections and observations lead us to infirm the strong belief in an under-tapping
of our mental natural resources.
Instability
of the items
present
in a so recognized tool as the WAIS-scale & even the RAPM which contains an
item with an alternative incomplete but pertinent answer, & if I remember
correctly, the answers are not weighted; in other words, there is 1 & only
1 correct answer expected by item;
in
the case of the WAIS, the weighting of some verbal items is problematic
according to me, but of course, these test & scale remain excellent
material, & before all extremely well-normed!
as for online power tests, fortunately mentalities change & more & more designers take into account non-expected but pertinent answers.
Finally,
a word about the type/quality of the items;
as
they are the more susceptible of being the less culturally biased, spatial items,
to which one can add "dominoes-type" & some kind of number-series
items, are particularly valued by our community, & psychologists; both
official & non-official items of this type are of very high quality;
now,
intelligence-scales like the WAIS or the St.-Binet show that the verbal
questions are as much & sometimes more indicative of the "g", but
this kind of items are more difficult to design to avoid cultural bias; &
before all, the degree of difficulty is far from being very high, which is
perfectly logical since these scales are not intended to measure highest IQ.
In
my eyes, only very high quality conceptual items can significantly increase the
power of predicting the highest level of abstraction; and they can be expressed
in very simple terms, not more abstruse than those used in the instructions
given to people who take the... most culture-free tests like RAPM &
Cattell!
A
non expected but pertinent answer will be taken into account in the raw score,
and weighted according to its degree of quality. The designer, in some cases,
cannot consider all the possible answers. A way of taking into account the
creativity at a statistical level.
???
Snapshot: number of variables unknown
Because of the decreasing saturation in g,
it would be more serious to talk of mega-power rather than a mega-IQ
Factorial
analysis can quickly lead to chaotic/turbulent zones (3-bodies problem???)
If the general factor g can always be found
from the correlation matrix of a battery of mental tests by using a large
number of factor analytic methods as long as the number of tests is large and
the number of items is diverse, it is well known too that the rotation of the
factors in order to optimize their position & so maximize the variance of
some tests and minimize that of others can lead, especially when orthogonality
is not conserved, (oblique factors) to very different views on the structure of
intelligence.
What is a significant correlation? Is the
“mean” an arbitrary limit? Is 100 not fluctuating/varying?
V =
value of the deviation to the mean
V’ = threshold value
If V > V’, independence is rejected
Normality of the curve has to be questioned
-
Plasticity
of the brain
-
Evolutionary
rather than crystallized perspective: the necessity of optimal solutions
That would
lead to question the normality of the curve. The irrepressible need of symmetry
could finally not be satisfied.
Supporters
of egalitarianism would be more inspired in questioning the normality of the
curve rather than reducing the power of the genetic factor!
Methodological error in the arrangement of the
different strata
With probabilities and statistics, the
important point is the possibility of very improbable events!
Creativity: distinction between
adequate/effective creativity & other, purely free creativity:
free relations, associations vs. attempt to
see/discover relations, associations!
complexity
power & persistence
productivity audacity
ingenuity
creativity originality
Logico-divergence: systematics/combinatorics:
autoreference-recursivity-infinite
Pure divergence: emergent thoughts/ideas
(sometimes “anti-logic” according to current standarts!)
Wild
intelligence
All IQ tests = visual or auditory; what about the
other senses?
Eysenck
Piaget
Meta
Meta meta
Weighting-degree is necessary
~In short, ability to see, to search, to use
and to elaborate pertinent relationships.~
degrees in fluidity, including creativity,
& with the distinction between adequate/effective creativity & other,
purely free creativity
Normal distribution, gaussian curve? Too
simple!
Flynn
effect:
-
so obvious impact of learning strategies 639
(92) 214 (fluid here & now becomes crystallized later & there )
-
nurturing
-
complexity of current conceptual realizations
made by 1 person are similar to those of the previous centuries
-
strong impact of the hyper-visual environment
series:
-
to discover & formulate the algorithm: 0001
0010 1000 0100
? (0100)
-
to use an existing algorithm/to find a
strategy: how many moves until back to the initial configuration?
stats: 70% married women 55% married men
15/27
Avoid riddles
At which level is a correlation significative?
0.7? the correlations between the different types of intelligence would not
have to be nul!
|
Raw g genotype |
▬▬▬►→
the
“Cre-lox” and Tetracyclin methods of the conditional genetics highlights the
importance of the specificities of the metabolism functioning
* “Much work remains to
be done in the factor-analytic study of cognitive abilities. The map of abilities provided by the
three-stratum theory undoubtedly has errors of commission and omission, with
gaps to be filled in by further research, including the development of new
types of testing and assessment and the factorial investigation of their
relationship with each other and with better established types of assessment”
(Carroll, 1997)
|
|
|
|
|
|
je vote
pour ce site au Supercompteur de Francité
ÓNEUROLAND2000Ò