Multiple Intelligence Theory

I think there may be a difference between athletic intelligence and athletic ability.

Some athletes tend to rely on brute strength, speed, & agility to excel in a sport, while others tend to be more calculating. They have an understanding of how to function within a space.

I heard a story this weekend about a friend's son who housesits in Tiger Woods' neighborhood. Tiger came over to play ping-pong, which was this kid's specialty. Tiger creamed him. I have no doubt that Tiger has a gift for understanding space & angles and how to manipulate objects within it. I would suspect that he would be a good billiards player also.

I have also known several multi-sport high school athletes, and I doubt that it is coincidental that these kids are exceptionally bright. I believe they are good at so many sports because they understand them.

The study I'm doing on how male and female musicians think is based on a similar premise. I believe that male musicians score high on the musical intelligence, while female musicians are actually higher on logical-mathematical and bodily-kinesthetic. Most trained, professional female musicians are more like skilled craftsmen in their field while men tend to "feel" it more.

To wit--I scored in this order:
Intrapersonal
Logical
Linguistic
Visual/Spatial
Kinaesthetic
Musical (yes, I'm a professional musician)
Naturalistic
Interpersonal

Auburn jokes please!

:nono1:

Naturalistic/Musical -tie for 1st
Body Smart/Word Smart -tie for 2nd
People/Myself/Picture Smart- tie for 3rd
Number smart- dead last

Killing time waiting on Mr. K's plane...now two hours late.

Interpersonal (people smart)
Naturalistic (nature smart)
Linguistic (word smart)
Intrapersonal (myself smart)
Logical, Visual (tie)
Kinaesthetic (body smart)
Musical (wtf?, I thought I could dance?)

I think my child is extremely smart, ( doesn't every parent feel that way) ...
But, I don't really know how smart she is because It's difficult to find an intelligence "test" for under three years old. Any ideas?

If you are near a big college, contact their psychology department about testing. They typically perform tests, so if they can't test your child, they can usually tell you who can. 3 is probably pretty young to get an accurrate test -even tests when they're older really vary, which is why I don't put much credence in them.

90% of parents think they kids are gifted, but only 10% are (I'm sure your kid is in the 10% though ;-).)

As far as sports and intelligence - the truly successful athletes are very intelligent people who use their intelligence to amplify their abilities and then parlay their sports success into a variety of successful businesses. Don't judge all athletes by the idiots who flunk out of a state school while majoring in gym or golf and end up on the news or in the poorhouse! :roll:

sunspotbaby, I've posted this article before under the homeschooling thread, and find it interesting enough about how we view our children to post again:
They're No Baby Einsteins http://www.newsweek.com/id/84554

actual giftedness occurs in only about 5%. but that's not the point really. if your kid is really really smart, she'll let you know. I don't think you need to worry about any assessments at this age unless you are seeing problems in hearing, vision, behavioral, etc. regardless of her IQ level, she needs to be encouraged to participate in and enjoy each and every phase of her physical and mental development. I've heard some of the parents at our school talk about how they have learned not to push their child, based on what they think of the child's ability, and just let them enjoy being exactly where they need to be at each particular phase in their young life. did you know that some parents love to talk about how their child skipped crawling and went straight to walking. and there are child dev studies showing that there is a direct link between the missed crawling phase and reading problems. there is a development pattern in the brain that did not get the time it needed because the child did not learn to coordinate its arms and legs and body in a crawling motion over a period of time. reading uses similar patterns as our eyes learn to interpret letters and words, going from left to right, etc. its really interesting, and this is only a tiny sample of what teachers and parents are learning from child development specialists, occupational therapists, etc.

what is my point? I wouldn't worry about testing or intellectual potential right now. you will learn about these things at the appropriate times a little later, when it will make a difference in her school placement, etc.

your local public schools offer basic testing free of charge for children beginning at age 3 or 4 - and they typically offer this to all children in the community. but this isn't IQ testing. they can probably offer this too if you want to check into it.

Do you watch football/baseball/basketball? Or do you just hang with the ladies when you go to parties?

The criteria of an intelligence is that it is an attribute valued by and beneficial to the society. Obviously, men really value this trait because they talk about sports a bit more often than they discuss philosophy -- at least in my circles. As for the beneficial, well I think historically those with kinesthetic intelligence would have been among the most valuable -- hunting, defense.

When I first learned this theory, I'd just met Tiger Woods at a golf tournament where I volunteered. I remember that instantly he jumped to mind because I remember just being fascinated by watching him move -- walk, swing a club, anything -- he was so fluid, he appeared to literally flow. Like a ballet dancer, but more graceful and gentle. I'm always bruised and can rarely tell you how it happened, it struck me at the time -- I bet he's never tripped or bumped into a door frame in his life. I'd say that's an intelligence, and it's made him quite successful.

And for it's practical application -- I have a good friend who has a reputation as one of the best early intervention autism special educators. I visited her about a year ago and went to observe her class one day. I was blown away by one of the techniques she used with a little 3 year old boy who had pretty severe autism. He would get all worked up and start grunting and flailing. She asked me to put him on a balance ball (lying on his back, draped over it) and rock it. After 30 seconds, he suddenly gained control of his body and started balancing himself, rocking back until his hands touched the floor, pushing off and ouching his feet. It looked impossible, but he could do it back and forth, with no side to side movement. He calmed, and while he had total focus on his body, she had me read the day's words to him. He could say them back, and understood them when I asked questions back about them. Frustration can be overcome when you find your strengths.

Punzy, I volunteered at an early intervention school for 2 years, read many books, and have encountered many techniques. I disagree that calming the child's sensory issues (rocking and balance) had anything to do with his ability to read back words to you. Two separate parts of the brain. You obviously can not get any child to listen to someone when they are upset, tamtruming. You have to calm them down first to be open to learning, listening and absorbing. If implementing Gardner's ideas in education are so successful, why are there so many children on medications for ADD and other issues?

I have no idea what Tiger Woods IQ is, but let's say for arguments sake that that he was weak in every other area of Gardeners pie chart, with the exception of his athletic ability, would one suggest he be educated on the golf course in between holes?

Punzy, I volunteered at an early intervention school for 2 years, read many books, and have encountered many techniques. I disagree that calming the child's sensory issues (rocking and balance) had anything to do with his ability to read back words to you. Two separate parts of the brain. You obviously can not get any child to listen to someone when they are upset, tamtruming. You have to calm them down first to be open to learning, listening and absorbing. If implementing Gardner's ideas in education are so successful, why are there so many children on medications for ADD and other issues?

I have no idea what Tiger Woods IQ is, but let's say for arguments sake that that he was weak in every other area of Gardeners pie chart, with the exception of his athletic ability, would one suggest he be educated on the golf course in between holes?

I think the whole idea of the child on a ball was to relax his body and mind so he could focus and learn. and these are techniques we used with babies, children and adults with a range of disabilities way back when at UofA when I was a special educator. another lifetime ago. especially small babies and toddlers - we used a lot of physical handling or positioning intended to facilitate strength and development, vision/focus, feeding techniques, you name it.

Thanks for that article Tootsie.
I don't really think my girl is gifted...she just impresses the heck out of me on a daily basis and I guess I'm just a little curious...for myself.
I just kind of roll along and let her explore and try to teach her everything I can.
I enjoy all of the opinions and views on psychology topics...I just find it all so fascinating the many different ways that people learn.

I think the whole idea of the child on a ball was to relax his body and mind so he could focus and learn. and these are techniques we used with babies, children and adults with a range of disabilities way back when at UofA when I was a special educator. another lifetime ago. especially small babies and toddlers - we used a lot of physical handling or positioning intended to facilitate strength and development, vision/focus, feeding techniques, you name it.

Tootsie, can you elaborate on the handling/positioning to facilitate vision/focus? The reason I ask: My brothers baby doesn't seem to be focusing and her eyes move back and forth a lot. She is 2.5 months old and has hypothyroidism. Any comments?

Thanks for that article Tootsie.
I don't really think my girl is gifted...she just impresses the heck out of me on a daily basis and I guess I'm just a little curious...for myself.
I just kind of roll along and let her explore and try to teach her everything I can.
I enjoy all of the opinions and views on psychology topics...I just find it all so fascinating the many different ways that people learn.

you're welcome. your child very well could be gifted. the point is not to push it either way. we want the kids to be well grounded nice productive loving and kind people, who will grow up to be hard working and caring human beings. many parents today are keeping their kids from achieving this by declaring them gifted, and then making them feel they are so smart and at the same time never having any real expectations of them. and then giving them every single thing their little material hearts desire. you know some of these parents/kids. its kinda scary. some of these kids are growing up to have unrealistic expectations of themselves and of the work place and of life.

[/size]

Tootsie, can you elaborate on the handling/positioning to facilitate vision/focus? The reason I ask: My brothers baby doesn't seem to be focusing and her eyes move back and forth a lot. She is 2.5 months old and has hypothyroidism. Any comments?

focusing is a hard thing for any small baby. but if there seems to be a problem, I would ask the pediatrician for a referral to a child developmental specialist or physical or occupational therapist who specializes in children. these professionals can evaluate, provide therapy and/or provide techniques to the parents in handling, and helping the child with development.

you're welcome. your child very well could be gifted. the point is not to push it either way. we want the kids to be well grounded nice productive loving and kind people, who will grow up to be hard working and caring human beings. many parents today are keeping their kids from achieving this by declaring them gifted, and then making them feel they are so smart and at the same time never having any real expectations of them. and then giving them every single thing their little material hearts desire. you know some of these parents/kids. its kinda scary. some of these kids are growing up to have unrealistic expectations of themselves and of the work place and of life.

Yup, Toots. We want to be sure that our children don't label themselves as "gifted", "smart", "not-smart" etc., because (at least according to the research): (1) kids who label themselves as smart may try too hard to live up to that reputation, and may avoid taking risks and learning new things because they may be afraid of not looking smart - they also may overinvest in their "smartness" and not enough in being hard working and caring human beings - they may think being smart can carry them through life the same way it carried them through school (and it usually won't be enough); and (2) people who label themselves as "not smart" may not try as hard or take risks because they may not realize that effort can make a big differences (and that traditional analytic ability is not the only characteristic that can help them have good, meaningful, contributing, successful lives).

At the same time, if children have special talents, we want to be sure to put them in schools/environments where they can use/develop those talents.

Both of my kids have been tested at school/day care when they were younger and I never tried to find out how they did on the tests because I don't want to know, nor do I want them to know at this point. then again, the schools they're in aren't too easy or too hard for them, so it's not an issue (but it could be an issue/important for others).

Multiple intelligences is pervasive in educational theory around here. In fact, the city's elementary schools are now called "multiple intelligence academies." One elementary school is heavy on fine arts, another on mathematics/sciences, and another in linguistic intelligences.

One of my professors this semester is buddies with Gardner, and he told us quite a bit about how the theory is still being tweaked.

I think the whole idea of the child on a ball was to relax his body and mind so he could focus and learn. and these are techniques we used with babies, children and adults with a range of disabilities way back when at UofA when I was a special educator. another lifetime ago. especially small babies and toddlers - we used a lot of physical handling or positioning intended to facilitate strength and development, vision/focus, feeding techniques, you name it.

I am not disputing that there are certain intellegences. My issue comes with keeping kids in their comfort zones all the time based on tests like these, and in schools how this has become so pervasive as Nohall stated. I wish she had elaborated more on it. This is a basic example, but if someone is scared to learn how to surf because they have balance issues, how do you teach them those skills if they won't get in the water? My nephew had sensory issues when younger and wouldn't go on rides at amusement parks. It wasn't until he saw me doing it, trusted me, and came on several and with physical therapy that his brain was in essence re-trained, re-wired to develop his spatial skills. This takes time, but it wasn't done by allowing him to stay on a bouncy ball all day. I'm all for encouraging certain skill sets, but to make academies out of elementary schools? sounds too early to me for a developing mind based on a psychologists theories. I'm just not buying. The brain is a complicated organ which science still has much to learn about.

I am not disputing that there are certain intellegences. My issue comes with keeping kids in their comfort zones all the time based on tests like these, and in schools how this has become so pervasive as Nohall stated. I wish she had elaborated more on it. This is a basic example, but if someone is scared to learn how to surf because they have balance issues, how do you teach them those skills if they won't get in the water? My nephew had sensory issues when younger and wouldn't go on rides at amusement parks. It wasn't until he saw me doing it, trusted me, and came on several and with physical therapy that his brain was in essence re-trained, re-wired to develop his spatial skills. This takes time, but it wasn't done by allowing him to stay on a bouncy ball all day. I'm all for encouraging certain skill sets, but to make academies out of elementary schools? sounds too early to me for a developing mind based on a psychologists theories. I'm just not buying. The brain is a complicated organ which science still has much to learn about.

I think you are right, and we're all talking about different and vague learning styles, issues, problems, techniques, etc.

the ball thing is for children with rather moderate to severe physical or other limitations. and its only one of many techniques used by educators who work with children who have a range of physical or other developmental problems, usually due to congenital disorders. each child is very different and the teacher finds effective ways to help that child to develop and learn in various ways that works best for him. I hope no one is teaching a kid on a ball all day. My aunt is an occupational therapist who specializes in children with physical and/or other disabilities. the kinds of therapies they use to reach and teach these children are truly inventive to say the least. and they pass on these therapies to the children's teachers and families. these professionals are so great in their field, I can't say enough.

regarding nohall's post on elementary schools, I haven't seen much of that here. but we do have a language immersion school in PCB where at least 2 families I know have enjoyed the education experience offered. the children are totally immersed in Chinese language this year. it isn't really something I would choose, but I am happy that alternatives are out there for families and children. my friend's child was adopted from russia and learns second languages so well that her parents wanted to give her the language immersion opportunity and see how it worked out for her. it has been great. she'll probably be there for 2 years and move on to public school. or maybe back to the montessori school where she did very well also. choice is very important for many. I know it is for me.

I am not disputing that there are certain intellegences. My issue comes with keeping kids in their comfort zones all the time based on tests like these, and in schools how this has become so pervasive as Nohall stated. I wish she had elaborated more on it. This is a basic example, but if someone is scared to learn how to surf because they have balance issues, how do you teach them those skills if they won't get in the water? My nephew had sensory issues when younger and wouldn't go on rides at amusement parks. It wasn't until he saw me doing it, trusted me, and came on several and with physical therapy that his brain was in essence re-trained, re-wired to develop his spatial skills. This takes time, but it wasn't done by allowing him to stay on a bouncy ball all day. I'm all for encouraging certain skill sets, but to make academies out of elementary schools? sounds too early to me for a developing mind based on a psychologists theories. I'm just not buying. The brain is a complicated organ which science still has much to learn about.

Mango, I think what your missing is that the boy on the ball was a small example from my personal experience, which is not extensive. Bob asked how kinetics could be an intelligence. Do I think it should be used to peg kids early on in their lives? Of course not. Is it good to put emphasis on kids' strengths, and broaden those out to a comprehensive education? I think so. Not everyone will become a CEO or a brain surgeon. There are kids who may not excel at verbal skills, but could become very skilled and highly successful craftsmen. Not everyone is meant to go to Harvard, or even college, and not THE answer.

Further, that boy on the ball was severely disabled. He didn't have a touch of autism; he had no verbal, no social, very poor background, and completely unstimulated. He was not mildly autistic child I think you are envisioning.

Mango, I think what your missing is that the boy on the ball was a small example from my personal experience, which is not extensive. Bob asked how kinetics could be an intelligence. Do I think it should be used to peg kids early on in their lives? Of course not. Is it good to put emphasis on kids' strengths, and broaden those out to a comprehensive education? I think so. Not everyone will become a CEO or a brain surgeon. There are kids who may not excel at verbal skills, but could become very skilled and highly successful craftsmen. Not everyone is meant to go to Harvard, or even college, and not THE answer.

Further, that boy on the ball was severely disabled. He didn't have a touch of autism; he had no verbal, no social, very poor background, and completely unstimulated. He was not mildly autistic child I think you are envisioning.

the ball is used in many ways with children and adults with all kinds of disabilities. and has been used for ages to help develop strength, balance, muscle relaxation, movement and stimulation of limbs and hands, and sometimes just to get that kid or person out of a dang wheelchair and onto their belly or side. heck, the ball was used on me in PT a time or two. it is therapeutic as hail.

Of course I was exaggerating that example of the bouncy ball. I'm not an educator, know very little about Gardner's theories, only read one of his papers from 2002, and he explicitly states that he is a psychologist, not an educator, so I am very curious why this is so mainstream in the Ga. schools. I have a vested interest as 2 of my nephews are now students there. I will certainly be reading more about this, so thanks Punzy and Nohall for enlightening me on this subject.

I think it's great when parents can identify a child's interests early on and encourage them, but I worry about pigeonholing kids into certain subjects, interests, and courses of study based on test results, because they're good at it, or because they show an interest in it at a young age.

Just because I built model rockets as a kid doesn't mean I should work for NASA, and while it was funn dressing in one of grandma's old suits, intimidating witnesses, and getting my team bonus points for giving a closing argument w/o notes in Mock Trial, I would be miserable as a lawyer. My brother's coworkers love to give him grief about the horrifying dishes he used to make before he became interested in food and started to train as a chef.

There are so many options and nuances that test questions can't determine and just because you aren't the star doesn't mean you don't enjoy something and it doesn't improve the quality of your life. The number of things I am very good at and the number of things I enjoy doing are vastly different.

My college actually refused to let freshman chose majors (you couldn't sign up for any major specific classes until your first semester sophomore year) because they wanted the students to 1) get a well rounded liberal arts education 2) knew how difficult it is to figure out what you wanted to do for the rest of your life w/o sometimes trying different options.

I think it's great when parents can identify a child's interests early on and encourage them, but I worry about pigeonholing kids into certain subjects, interests, and courses of study based on test results, because they're good at it, or because they show an interest in it at a young age.

Just because I built model rockets as a kid doesn't mean I should work for NASA, and while it was funn dressing in one of grandma's old suits, intimidating witnesses, and getting my team bonus points for giving a closing argument w/o notes in Mock Trial, I would be miserable as a lawyer. My brother's coworkers love to give him grief about the horrifying dishes he used to make before he became interested in food and started to train as a chef.

There are so many options and nuances that test questions can't determine and just because you aren't the star doesn't mean you don't enjoy something and it doesn't improve the quality of your life. The number of things I am very good at and the number of things I enjoy doing are vastly different.

My college actually refused to let freshman chose majors (you couldn't sign up for any major specific classes until your first semester sophomore year) because they wanted the students to 1) get a well rounded liberal arts education 2) knew how difficult it is to figure out what you wanted to do for the rest of your life w/o sometimes trying different options.

I guess some parents are pushy no matter what, whattaya gonna do? this is never good for the kid of course.

great idea to NOT choose a major your freshman year. now I'm hearing some highschools are getting kids to think about and choose majors in Highschool. very very wrong, IMO. I can understand having specific interests. but declaring a major? very few need to do so at such a young age.

Just because I built model rockets as a kid doesn't mean I should work for NASA, and while it was funn dressing in one of grandma's old suits, intimidating witnesses, and getting my team bonus points for giving a closing argument w/o notes in Mock Trial, I would be miserable as a lawyer.

Got pics?

I'm skimming right now (I'm in rehearsals for a show, so time is limited!) but want to throw in another 2 cents. (If someone has already hit on this, just skip me and move on.)

I don't think that Gardner et al intended for the theory of multiple intelligences to be used to pigeonhole students. The identification of intelligences is meant to be used to help educators understand the way a student learns. Some students will not learn from lectures--they must have a visualization. Others need to have kinesthetic activity.

One of my professors had us bring Pla-Doh to class. It helps me to have busy hands while I'm listening. In the absence of Pla-Doh, I doodle in my notes. If I have to listen to a lecture, I write down just about every word. I never read my notes--the act of writing actually serves to input the information into my brain. If I have to memorize something verbatim, I write in out in phrases, like poetry--once again, the writing serves to file the info in my head, and I can also visualize the lines. (And I can tell you all this because of my intrapersonal intelligence.)

Identifying MI should never mean that a musical child shouldn't also learn math or language. It just means that the child will better understand math and language through music.

I'm skimming right now (I'm in rehearsals for a show, so time is limited!) but want to throw in another 2 cents. (If someone has already hit on this, just skip me and move on.)

I don't think that Gardner et al intended for the theory of multiple intelligences to be used to pigeonhole students. The identification of intelligences is meant to be used to help educators understand the way a student learns. Some students will not learn from lectures--they must have a visualization. Others need to have kinesthetic activity.

One of my professors had us bring Pla-Doh to class. It helps me to have busy hands while I'm listening. In the absence of Pla-Doh, I doodle in my notes. If I have to listen to a lecture, I write down just about every word. I never read my notes--the act of writing actually serves to input the information into my brain. If I have to memorize something verbatim, I write in out in phrases, like poetry--once again, the writing serves to file the info in my head, and I can also visualize the lines. (And I can tell you all this because of my intrapersonal intelligence.)

Identifying MI should never mean that a musical child shouldn't also learn math or language. It just means that the child will better understand math and language through music.

and this is the entire idea behind these kinds of theories. to present children material in a way that they will not only learn but excel in ways they are capable of excelling. these theories are so very important in teaching us to teach children. if only our teachers were expected to teach based on such theory. instead they have a test that must be fed to the kids in one way whether they are ready for it or not. sorry, that's another story and I'm sounding bitter because I am bitter about state standards. it totally flies in the face of any learning or intelligence theory.

and this is the entire idea behind these kinds of theories. to present children material in a way that they will not only learn but excel in ways they are capable of excelling. these theories are so very important in teaching us to teach children. if only our teachers were expected to teach based on such theory. instead they have a test that must be fed to the kids in one way whether they are ready for it or not. sorry, that's another story and I'm sounding bitter because I am bitter about state standards. it totally flies in the face of any learning or intelligence theory. have you taken a look at florida's?

Standardized standards just suck. We have to have standards for education, but can we get rid of standardization?

Standardized standards just suck. We have to have standards for education, but can we get rid of standardization?

I know. it is really upsetting me to see it in schools. standard kids, standard teachers, standard teaching style, standard uniform clothing, standard institutional food, the same friggin paperwork, standard low end expectations because all kids are taught at the same level at the same rate... standard hairdos;-), standard piercings and tattoos... it just goes on and on.

okay, uniforms never bothered me before I started thinking of the standardization. now they seem to contribute to the whole picture. same ole same ole.