Michael Jackson, Howard Gardner, Norm Ming discussed on The Psychology Podcast

Automatic TRANSCRIPT

Of howard gardner's theory Tells his book comes out. frames of mind comes out. Nineteen eighty four. So so so. So you seven these. Yeah so you're his book comes out and you look at his book and like what do you make. What do you think of it. How does it relate to your multiple intelligences theory. I mean. I know the answers. But i want i want. Our listeners was good you know the answer. You tell me ridge. No impression was the same as that of many people in the field and that is that they were competing modern theories that they were sort based is off. Put it on a different metaphor than that. Is that these. Were more systems theories rather than just the psychometric factor this kind of geographic thing. Then it's over here. In this fact today. I would say that. We dealt with different aspects of intelligence. He was dealing with different domains in other linguistic domain. The quantitative to main to spatial domain the musical there and at that point i was dealing with processes and i actually just published recently Paper on musical intelligence. Where showed that you could actually cross his domains with the processes in my theory disagree on some things like some of his intelligence as i probably wouldn't see as intelligence as he probably has some problems with my theory but i think what we were both trying to do in. Different ways is to expand the way people look at intelligence. I think that was a common goal. I mean it seemed like something was in the air. Then you know. The michael jackson era like you there so there was something in the air then about you know. It's time to go beyond standard metrics of intelligence. I'm not really that to michael jackson. And the i'm thinking about that timeframe eighty four. It was what i was working. I working on this in the early eighties. And then he picked it up to but a lot of people you know. The time then became more conservative. I think in a lot of people in the field when back to g and you know it's i think it's rally a mistake and the reason i think it's a mistake is you can see in the world today would be his bod- if i can change the topic just a little. Can you tell people what she is. I mean our audience might not deligence right. It's it's what you know. It's it's a a large portion of what you get out of an iq tests that you get a few other things that have been iq tests but it's kind of related to what you measure and the problem is that during the twentieth century g general intelligence actually went up. I mean you know. They slightly broader thing. Iq's when our thirty points it wasn't all g it was other things too. but i he's went up thirty points in the twentieth century which is so called splinter fact and the only reason that average cute and go up to under thirty is the test. Publishers kept. We norm ming the test. To make the average hundred so an iq of a hydrate in two thousand meant very different thing from what it meant in one thousand nine hundred and i q one hundred and two thousand would have been about one hundred thirty nine thousand nine hundred incredible difference in what bothers me about our fixation on iq. Is that if you look at the problems facing the world today. Iq shire's and saw him. I mean you know like with god so many different kinds of problems in the world and we have these high. Iq people who go to prestigious colleges and universities and get very impressive degrees and then when it comes to solving roller promptly. Make massive them. So i really wish that. The field would broaden their consideration of what intelligence is because you know high key. People are good at solving multiple choice problems and that are very well-structured. You know they have a beginning middle and end you you you know you read the problem with contains all the information you need. The information is valid. it's not emotionally arousing. It has no real world these just kind of like this area academics think and that's so different from solving problems in the real world and we know that in problem solving the fact that you've got at one kind of problem solving another kind of prior. I mean. Some people are good at work in their terrible in their personal relationships. Some people are getting their personal relationships in their terrible at work. And so we're asking for a level of generalization from iq test sinisi tease sat's gre's and m cast and so on that just doesn't so we're picking the wrong people time and we're getting people who are good as long as give them five choices and emotionally on arousing problem with no real world consequences. But they're not necessarily people are good at solving real bombs. What do you make of like linda. Goffin since arguments. She would disagree with that statement right. She would say that That general intelligence has shows a lot of strong correlations in everyday life Especially in the workplace that The correlations are actually very strong. What would you say well. A few things. One is of never been someone who said that. Iq is worth us. I know some people do. I'm not one of them In fact i q tests mostly measure knowledge then analytical reasoning skills and. That's part of my own theory. So i am not anti accused. That's my problem is that is that. That's not all there is doing is that's part of it So you would expect iq to show some correlation with lots of things in life because you need to do analytical reasoning In your life. So i don't have any disagreement with in terms of fairly strong correlations. I i don't know if you'd say they're strong. A lot of the correlations you read about in the literature are corrected which means that. They're raised to account for unreliability of test in restriction of range of attest that whatever else so they're not the original karoshi some people would say those better. But they're not the actual correlations get from the test but the fact that there's a correlation of iq. With a lot of things. I don't find surprising. And it's not contrary to my theory to the extent i ever complaint is that you know if you get a correlation say of point four. Sometimes do that. Seems like a fairly typical median code. You're talking about accounting for sixteen percent of the variants in the criteria. So if you're predicting i dunno income or you're printing grades in school or you're predicting how quickly a graduate so what brings for sixty percents various. That's that still leaves. Eighty four percent left. that's not real high. Just a second problem. Which is a bigger problem in. The bigger problem is that the correlations don't take into account that the fact that you did well on these tests give you opportunities to succeed. So that the correlation would go off. Let me explain what i mean. This is important. Let's say we selected people in our society to go to college not on the basis of sat's and grades. I mean you know. Those are so subjective but on something really objective height because you can measure objectively. Everyone agrees that you take a tape measure. You don't argue about testses so now to get into harvard yes to be six five sixty five inches talking into yale. Maybe six four to get into dipsy doodle. State may be have to be a three seven..

Coming up next