Post by Auburn on Dec 22, 2016 17:22:49 GMT -5
I see.
Yeah, I saw a vid about multiple intelligences (last week? ...Howard Gardner i think) and felt that was quite apt/curious. But I also felt that his 8+ intelligences, though true in general (I like the break away from 1 or 2 intelligences) were very vaguely or arbitrarily decided. But he mentions this, and that his main point was to just break the monopoly IQ has on the concept of intelligence. He's not so much concerned with how many exactly we may have, but to have the culture acknowledge that there are different kinds. A kind of dialogue opener, which I agree with.
But zooming in here.. this starts to become relevant to the thread, because it crosses over into cognition.
A la, nardi's brain map:
Howard Gardner's 8 intelligences are:
Looking at this list, and then back at Nardi's map's descriptions of the sections... isn't this really describing efficiency in cognitive utilization? Someone with poor interpersonal intelligence would have a low use of T5,T3,F7 regions. Or someone with poor spatial intelligence would have poor O1 activity. Most of Gardner's list is accounted for here, and then some.
So "intelligence" may be better defined as the adequate and masterful use of our brain (brain development), or any brain region in particular. A complete intelligence would mean being able to use the whole brain brilliantly, but most of us have specialization in certain fields (and also brain circuits). For example, an SeTi would differ from an FiNe in terms of kinesthetic intelligence. And so this crosses over into Type.
Going back to Wilber...
Hmm.. this is taken from integrallife.com
I think Wilber may be using his Lines of Development concept as a replacement for what is essentially "differences in personality"? In other words, a kind of substitute for a fully fleshed out typology theory. Instead, his typology uses the multiple intelligence concept? Yet this doesn't seem to offer any "Why" as to why people are different. It just makes note of the difference, it seems, so its quite unsatisfactory. In this I think I'd prefer Nardi's cognition explanation which can be a lot more precise, but also answer the 'why' question.
Again, I'm suuuuper ignorant about this. ...just thinking out loud as I learn. I'm sorry if this is way off! I'm eager to read your recommended book after finishing Abnormal Psychology.
@ Spirituality
Yeah, I've seen that the Integral Life Practice (ILP) kindof encourages involvement in all kinds of things. And if there's any 'core' it seems to be listed as:
Body, Mind, Spirit, Shadow
Though I would put Spirit and Shadow in the same camp, as dark/light aspects of mysticism.
The Emotional isn't listed as a core module, hmmm, curious. All in all I see this as a very interesting Ti Castle in the Sky; a classic Ti exercise in subjective logical convergence/integration of polarities and universal human concepts. As a fellow Ti, I can respect his attempt, but I think we can do better!
Heron, I wonder if you have any ideas about how to create a better cohesive theory of psychology? How would you modify Wilber... or integrate enneatype and ct type better?
I feel like i've been doing waaaay too much talking here.
Yeah, I saw a vid about multiple intelligences (last week? ...Howard Gardner i think) and felt that was quite apt/curious. But I also felt that his 8+ intelligences, though true in general (I like the break away from 1 or 2 intelligences) were very vaguely or arbitrarily decided. But he mentions this, and that his main point was to just break the monopoly IQ has on the concept of intelligence. He's not so much concerned with how many exactly we may have, but to have the culture acknowledge that there are different kinds. A kind of dialogue opener, which I agree with.
But zooming in here.. this starts to become relevant to the thread, because it crosses over into cognition.
A la, nardi's brain map:
Howard Gardner's 8 intelligences are:
- linguistic intelligence
---use language/poets/orators - mathematical/logical intelligence
---scientists/math proofs/etc - musical intelligence
---conduct music/notice tones/etc - spatial intelligence
---know your location, surgery - bodily/kinesthetic intelligence
---sports, craftsperson - interpersonal intelligence
---how to work with humans, lead them, collab with them - intrapersonal intelligence
---self-understanding, who you are - naturalist intelligence
---taxonomy, make distinctions
Looking at this list, and then back at Nardi's map's descriptions of the sections... isn't this really describing efficiency in cognitive utilization? Someone with poor interpersonal intelligence would have a low use of T5,T3,F7 regions. Or someone with poor spatial intelligence would have poor O1 activity. Most of Gardner's list is accounted for here, and then some.
So "intelligence" may be better defined as the adequate and masterful use of our brain (brain development), or any brain region in particular. A complete intelligence would mean being able to use the whole brain brilliantly, but most of us have specialization in certain fields (and also brain circuits). For example, an SeTi would differ from an FiNe in terms of kinesthetic intelligence. And so this crosses over into Type.
Going back to Wilber...
Hmm.. this is taken from integrallife.com
Lines of Development: I'm Good at Some Things, Not-So-Good at Others....
Have you ever noticed how unevenly developed virtually all of us are? Some people are highly developed in, say, logical thinking, but poorly developed in emotional feelings. Some people have highly advanced cognitive development (theyβre very smart) but poor moral development (theyβre mean and ruthless). Some people excel in emotional intelligence, but canβt add 2 plus 2.
Howard Gardner made this concept fairly well-known using the idea of multiple intelligences. Human beings have a variety of intelligences, such as cognitive intelligence, emotional intelligence, musical intelligence, kinesthetic intelligence, and so on. Most people excel in one or two of those, but do poorly in the others. This is not necessarily or even usually a bad thing; part of integral wisdom is finding where one excels and thus where one can best offer the world oneβs deepest gifts.
www.integrallife.com/member/ken-wilber/blog/integral-operating-system-part-iii-lines-development
Have you ever noticed how unevenly developed virtually all of us are? Some people are highly developed in, say, logical thinking, but poorly developed in emotional feelings. Some people have highly advanced cognitive development (theyβre very smart) but poor moral development (theyβre mean and ruthless). Some people excel in emotional intelligence, but canβt add 2 plus 2.
Howard Gardner made this concept fairly well-known using the idea of multiple intelligences. Human beings have a variety of intelligences, such as cognitive intelligence, emotional intelligence, musical intelligence, kinesthetic intelligence, and so on. Most people excel in one or two of those, but do poorly in the others. This is not necessarily or even usually a bad thing; part of integral wisdom is finding where one excels and thus where one can best offer the world oneβs deepest gifts.
www.integrallife.com/member/ken-wilber/blog/integral-operating-system-part-iii-lines-development
I think Wilber may be using his Lines of Development concept as a replacement for what is essentially "differences in personality"? In other words, a kind of substitute for a fully fleshed out typology theory. Instead, his typology uses the multiple intelligence concept? Yet this doesn't seem to offer any "Why" as to why people are different. It just makes note of the difference, it seems, so its quite unsatisfactory. In this I think I'd prefer Nardi's cognition explanation which can be a lot more precise, but also answer the 'why' question.
Again, I'm suuuuper ignorant about this. ...just thinking out loud as I learn. I'm sorry if this is way off! I'm eager to read your recommended book after finishing Abnormal Psychology.
@ Spirituality
Yeah, I've seen that the Integral Life Practice (ILP) kindof encourages involvement in all kinds of things. And if there's any 'core' it seems to be listed as:
Body, Mind, Spirit, Shadow
Though I would put Spirit and Shadow in the same camp, as dark/light aspects of mysticism.
The Emotional isn't listed as a core module, hmmm, curious. All in all I see this as a very interesting Ti Castle in the Sky; a classic Ti exercise in subjective logical convergence/integration of polarities and universal human concepts. As a fellow Ti, I can respect his attempt, but I think we can do better!
Heron, I wonder if you have any ideas about how to create a better cohesive theory of psychology? How would you modify Wilber... or integrate enneatype and ct type better?
I feel like i've been doing waaaay too much talking here.