MI is quackery. Skill is not intelligence, rather, it is skill. So a violinist may be very skilled, and intelligent generally speaking, but the skill is what got her the gig. On the other hand, the conductor of an orchestra is intelligent - he has to know so much more than the players and how to get it all sounding right, and that requires a fair bit of abstraction as well as knowledge of details, though his skill at an instrument may not be all that great.
Oh for goodness sake. Calling someone who is good at sport "bodily intelligent" or a good communicator "interpersonally intelligent" is nonsense. It just redefines the meaning of the word intelligent so "thick" people who are good at other things can feel better about themselves!
Why not simply say "intelligence is not the only thing you need to succeed in life" rather than rewriting the english language.
Its been six months now since I asked, "Can anyone provide even a single article from a serious journal or a paper from a juried conference that documents a link between the use of MI in school and improved performance?"
No one has provided even ONE of these.
I dont intend this as a criticism of those who discuss MI (thats important); rather, its an accurate picture of the lack of valid support for MI.
Improved performance in school - or improved performance in life? If you are just wanting to measure success in academics - this is the wrong place to look.
The premise is that there is more to be successful in "life", not necessarily in school to multiple intelligence. Success in school is far from an accurate predicator of success in life.
Both, school and life. Traditional IQ tests do predict success in school and, believe it or not, in life. I remember being very surprised, and a little skeptical, when I first read this. then I read the research, and its very persuasive. Have a look, its pretty cool.
But again, those promoting MI do claim that there are links to school success. Its fine for folks like us to debate this, but when they take money to do it, they are ethically obligated to offer some evidence. Gardner offers none.
Can anyone provide even a single article from a serious journal or a juried conference paper that documents a link between the use of MI in school and improved performance? Im talking about observations of real school children & tasks.
Self-proclaimed educational consultants (mainly uninformed school-hustling, pedagogy pimps) take thousands of dollars from schools and claim that MI can help schools and children and offer no support for this claim. Can anyone cite ANY VALID evidence?
im a student of Multiple Intelligence International School led by Mary Joy Canon Abaquin and i don't see any difference lol... just more blabla and boring
MI is quackery. Skill is not intelligence, rather, it is skill. So a violinist may be very skilled, and intelligent generally speaking, but the skill is what got her the gig. On the other hand, the conductor of an orchestra is intelligent - he has to know so much more than the players and how to get it all sounding right, and that requires a fair bit of abstraction as well as knowledge of details, though his skill at an instrument may not be all that great.
rh001YT 8 months ago
@rh001YT U havent got the context at all...
farhanbilgrami 3 weeks ago
Oh for goodness sake. Calling someone who is good at sport "bodily intelligent" or a good communicator "interpersonally intelligent" is nonsense. It just redefines the meaning of the word intelligent so "thick" people who are good at other things can feel better about themselves!
Why not simply say "intelligence is not the only thing you need to succeed in life" rather than rewriting the english language.
Deneb1968 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Its been six months now since I asked, "Can anyone provide even a single article from a serious journal or a paper from a juried conference that documents a link between the use of MI in school and improved performance?"
No one has provided even ONE of these.
I dont intend this as a criticism of those who discuss MI (thats important); rather, its an accurate picture of the lack of valid support for MI.
chrismca 2 years ago
Improved performance in school - or improved performance in life? If you are just wanting to measure success in academics - this is the wrong place to look.
The premise is that there is more to be successful in "life", not necessarily in school to multiple intelligence. Success in school is far from an accurate predicator of success in life.
cherstinane 2 years ago
Both, school and life. Traditional IQ tests do predict success in school and, believe it or not, in life. I remember being very surprised, and a little skeptical, when I first read this. then I read the research, and its very persuasive. Have a look, its pretty cool.
But again, those promoting MI do claim that there are links to school success. Its fine for folks like us to debate this, but when they take money to do it, they are ethically obligated to offer some evidence. Gardner offers none.
chrismca 2 years ago
Can anyone provide even a single article from a serious journal or a juried conference paper that documents a link between the use of MI in school and improved performance? Im talking about observations of real school children & tasks.
Self-proclaimed educational consultants (mainly uninformed school-hustling, pedagogy pimps) take thousands of dollars from schools and claim that MI can help schools and children and offer no support for this claim. Can anyone cite ANY VALID evidence?
chrismca 2 years ago
im a student of Multiple Intelligence International School led by Mary Joy Canon Abaquin and i don't see any difference lol... just more blabla and boring
The08Marc 2 years ago