At 11:54 AM 20/05/99 -0400, James Veverka wrote:
>Right on Psypher, Most tests measure strict verbal and/or spacial/math
>capabilities. I read something from Harvard that found 9 different
>types of intelligence. How about social or kinesthetic intelligence?
>Would not a socially intelligent worker have a superior grasp as a
>counselor than some of our "rational" geniuses?
I've come to the conclusion that intellegence is simply pattern
recognition, no more, no less.
Of course, the patterns available to be recognised can be quite subtle and complex. "Kinesthetic" intelligence is, therefore somewhat of a red herring in my estimation.
Pattern recognition ability can be quantified, but like all other human endeavours, the efficacy of the final result is one part intent and one part competence. Any attempt to measure pattern recognition ability where an individual expresses this ability mostly in the social sphere, would be hobbled by vehicles such as written tests. The point is, they're still using basic pattern recognition regardless (not irregardless :-) of the sphere in which they use it.
Why their intelligence should be expressed more in one sphere than others is a little more complex, and has to do with the evolved sense of aesthetics since birth (what a person _likes_ to do or think about, the recursive basis of which is a chapter in itself), as well as each individual's congenital cognitive modifiers. Cognitive modifiers are mental resources that are not strictly part of an individual's pattern-recognition ability per se, but provide this basic intellect with a tool to exceed in certain areas, much like I would use a calculator, since I suck so dearly at simple arithmetic.
The brain's language centres would be another example. Much like a co-processor in a computer, these function-specific centres are not very good at general purpose tasks, but they excel at specific tasks that provide a definite evolutionary edge, and off-load what would be a very resource-hungry task from the basic intellect.
I hope I've explained this conjecture well, I really don't relish degenerating into a "Webster's Collegiate Spiral" ;-)