3 ms·

I read your contribution as "it's good because that's what we have", which I think is a fallacy. What we have can and should be discussed and challenged. Not h

• barry-cotter 4y ago
  Researchers have been looking for a multi-factor theory of intelligence for a long time. People are extremely highly motivated both on a careerist basis and an ideological one to find a better model for intelligence than g/IQ. It’s been tried. The two most famous are Gardner’s Theory of Multiple Intelligences and Sternberg’s Triarchic Theory. The main fault of Gardner’s theory is that it has no empirical backing of any kind[1], which effects its popularity with Ed schools not at all. Sternberg’s theory at least actually works. It’s just that it is extra work and complexity for no increase in predictive validity. There’s no way to distinguish it from straight g. [1]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, of cognitive abilities other than g, and, in some cases, of non-cognitive abilities or of personality characteristics. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_multiple_intelligences https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_multiple_intellige...