Talk:Theory of multiple intelligences

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Education (Rated B-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Education, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of education and education-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

This article has comments here.

WikiProject Psychology (Rated B-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Psychology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Psychology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

This article has comments here.

This article has an assessment summary page.


Add To Do list[edit]

I've just archived old material and would like to add a To Do list for this page but do not know how to add that banner yet.Stmullin (talk) 16:44, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Intelligence citations bibliography for updating this and other articles[edit]

You may find it helpful while reading or editing articles to look at a bibliography of Intelligence Citations, posted for the use of all Wikipedians who have occasion to edit articles on human intelligence and related issues. I happen to have circulating access to a huge academic research library at a university with an active research program in these issues (and to another library that is one of the ten largest public library systems in the United States) and have been researching these issues since 1989. You are welcome to use these citations for your own research. You can help other Wikipedians by suggesting new sources through comments on that page. It will be extremely helpful for articles on human intelligence to edit them according to the Wikipedia standards for reliable sources for medicine-related articles, as it is important to get these issues as well verified as possible. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 22:58, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

By the way, I notice that the way archiving was done on this talk page breaks the functionality of the new section link. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 23:01, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Simple Wikipedia[edit]

Hi. I think that this article should have a page in Simple Wikipedia.Frogger48 (talk) 02:30, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

WP:SOFIXIT. Huon (talk) 03:49, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Pseudoscience category[edit]

I think the reference to p35 of Introducing Neuroeducational Research: Neuroscience, Education and the Brain from Contexts to Practice by Paul Howard-Jones is fairly convincing that this theory belongs firmly to this category. What do others think? --John (talk) 20:33, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

  • Almost six months on nobody has objected so I restored this category. --John (talk) 07:44, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
Can you show that MI is typically characterized in those terms in reliable sources? The psychometric literature is broadly dismissive of Gardner, but few authors are as discourteous as to describe his ideas as pseudoscientific ("armchair theorizing" comes up much more often). Wikipedia categorization should reflect essential and defining features of the categorized articles, and I don't think MI is commonly and consistently referred to as a pseudoscience in reliable sources.--Victor Chmara (talk) 13:54, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
Mmm, that is actually a nice point. Let me think about that, please. --John (talk) 14:17, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
As Victor wrote, we should find more than just one source (how widely used is the cited source, and how noted is the author?) characterizing multiple intelligences theory in that manner before adding the category tagging. All the standard reference works on human intelligence make at least passing reference to Gardner's ideas. The multiple intelligences theory has perhaps not been as productive as its proponents had hoped, but it's more difficult to show that it's flat wrong in the way that most ideas that are regarded as pseudoscience are. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 19:54, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
In case this discussion is revived, I would point out that Gardner (and Bruner and others) have a legitimate methodological disagreement with what constitutes proper evidence and by association what constitutes science. Psychometrics has no special claim on the definition of science. The fact that psychometricians look down on other approaches is not surprising or useful in this context. Bruner, for example, would claim it is the "data-crunchers" who take the untenable view. An encyclopedia should let that disagreement stand. (This differs from certain *applications* of 'learning styles', which clearly fit the definition of psuedoscience). Michaelacaulfield (talk) 02:39, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Lead[edit]

I'm uncomfortable with the new fourth paragraph in the lead:

According to a 2006 study many of Gardner's "intelligences" correlate with the g factor, supporting the idea of a single dominant type of intelligence. According to the study, each of the domains proposed by Gardner involved a blend of g, cognitive abilities other than g, and, in some cases, non-cognitive abilities or personality characteristics.[6] Empirical support for non-g intelligences is lacking or very poor. Despite this the ideas of multiple non-g intelligences are very attractive to many due to the suggestion that everyone can be smart in some way.[7] Cognitive neuroscience research does not support the theory of multiple intelligences.

There are several problems with this lead paragraph:

  1. It is not a summary of the article, but rather a report of a few select articles, one of which is not available in English.
  2. The 2006 article is actually part of a peer-reviewed debate between supporters and detractors of the theory, but only the supporters' opinion is mentioned.
  3. The 2006 article was not a "study". It was a rebuttal to a response by Gardner to an earlier article.
  4. One person's opinion, not otherwise mentioned in the article (imagining why the theory may be popular), is presented as part of the lead.
  5. The criticism section of the article is largely negative concerning this theory, but not entirely so. The lead should reflect this. But there is no mention of supporters of the theory in this lead paragraph. A proper summary should report the criticism without implying that there is a consensus opinion.
  6. Claiming "empirical support is lacking" is inappropriate without mention of Gardner's defense of his research base. Claiming support is poor is a valid criticism accepted by Gardner himself.

I moved the paragraph to the criticism section and reworded some sentences to correct a few of the errors, but my edit was reversed with the explanation "no, the WP:LEAD is a summary of the whole article". --seberle (talk) 11:12, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

The lead as a whole has to summarise the article as a whole. There is no evidence for this theory and the lead needs to include this. --John (talk) 09:17, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Seems to me as if John, having been prevented from getting this theory anathematised as pseudoscience, has settled for the next best thing, a hatchet-job in the lead. Sorry if that's too crude, but it's what it looks like to me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vidauty (talkcontribs) 16:54, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

I was going to create a section here for exactly the same purpose. I'll be frank: the paragraph is very poor quality, and contradicts itself in a transparent way. Specifically:

  1. The paragraph acknowledges the existence of "cognitive abilities other than g" (a true statement, based on the quantitative facts)
  2. The paragraph then claims the opposite (a false claim) saying "Empirical support for non-g intelligences is lacking or very poor" (yes, cognitive abilities are what comprise intelligence, according to the definition), and g can only explain one dimension of variation, when there are certainly several dimensions visible in the statistics. The key point is that the principal component is not everything.
  3. The paragraph contradicts the true statement a second time at the end saying "Cognitive neuroscience research does not support the theory of multiple intelligences"

There is no reference to support the last two claims, and if such a reference existed it would be in conflict with the quantitative facts. The two falsehoods don't become a truth by reinforcement and need to be removed. I would suggest that the paragraph be reworded in its entirety by someone who can deal objectively with the quantitative facts. Elroch (talk) 15:16, 17 June 2015 (UTC)