March 13, 2006

I know far too many highly intelligent people who somehow always manage to do poorly on conventional intelligence tests to take the Intelligence Quotient at the conventional near-worship level. It is a test of analytical problem-solving, nothing more: which has the effect of reducing the only "valid" intelligence to what can be neatly pigeonholed ... in effect, reducing into near-nothingness those gifts the Age of Reason is incapable of perceiving, by forcing them into a one-size-fits-all framework for which they were not made.

In fact, one of the brightest persons I know has never been able to finish an IQ test. They simply don't make sense to her: yet she is an award-winning author and additionally works as a professional translator, and I only wish I had the same degree of fluency in her language as she has in mine. I make battle with other languages, mangle them until they cry uncle. Another is a gifted evangelist of idea with a terrifyingly powerful force of personality: "terrifying", I say, because until I stepped in her way to keep her from completely overwhelming all discussion in our discussion group, she had no idea just how powerfully she was coming across, no sense whatsoever of her gift ... in fact had underestimated herself specifically based on measurement against the "norms" identified by that IQ test. (Vitality of discussion groups sprouts out of mutually accepted difference of opinion.)

Thus far, the best alternate approach I had yet been able to track down is Howard Gardner's, who has defined seven distinct types of intelligence: nearly all of which (except the logical-mathematical, and to a lesser extent the spatial) the traditional Intelligence Quotient test omits.These last two have sometimes recently been repackaged as "EQ" (Emotional (Intelligence) Quotient):Is it just coincidence, that the forms of intelligence which seem to most commonly be overlooked are also those which tend to be absolutely unique to the individual (in the sense of being largely non-delegatible); and thus don't translate well to a business model and an assembly-line environment?

Comments:
oh so that what it was?
 
Post a Comment



<< Home