9 Types of Intelligence

[Doctor Cringelord]

I've too took the test [MENTION=19700]Anaximander[/MENTION] referred to and got existential intelligence as well. The test seemed quite biased towards existential intelligence, in my opinion. I'm trying to find a good test on 9 intelligences because the concept is quite intriguing.


I'm good at philosophizing and I'm always trying to make sense of the world around me. I remember being quite young and trying to understanding the meaning of life, the principles behind it, why society behaved in certain ways etc. While kids were playing, I used to sit and ponder about life and everything related to it.
I also always loved learning languages and playing with numbers. Which lead me to good language and math/logical skills.

I agree, it's not the best test.

 

[Cellmold]

I don't mean to spam Jordan Peterson videos like some devout follower (I'm not, he just often makes a great deal of sense) but [MENTION=26281]geedoenfj[/MENTION] what do you think of this:

 

[MyCupOfTea]

The question about intelligence vs. talent is interesting. Is it just nitpicking over concepts, or is there more to do with it? Would there be positive concequences, if in schools, we started talking about intelligence in sports, art and crafts, not just within the academic subjects?

Personally, I think that there's a difference between the concepts of intelligence and talent, though. To be talented in something, you need motivation and right conditions to develop that talent. Intelligence is more general concept, and it can "come alive" in various forms, for example via talents.

 

[geedoenfj]

I don't mean to spam Jordan Peterson videos like some devout follower (I'm not, he just often makes a great deal of sense) but [MENTION=26281]geedoenfj[/MENTION] what do you think of this:

I think to understand this more comprehensively, we need to identify the terms talent and intelligence..

A talent is a natural aptitude or skill that a person is born with..

Intelligence is the ability to acquire and apply the knowledge and skill..

Intelligence is a stepping stone to blossom the talent, whether it is mathematical talent, physical talent, interpersonal talent etc. and the reality shows that majority of people only have the ability "intelligence" to develop few areas of talent, some ought to work harder than others to develop the talent depending on how much natural skills and intelligence degree they have, some even build a talent when they don't have one..
I remember back at school, there was a student who lack the mathematical skills, and the rest of us had to explain the theory to her many times before she can actually understand, not to mention the common sense mistakes she used to make during the class, but she was a hell of a hard worker, I used to rarely see her not practicing math problems, even during breaks! She eventually scored A+ which is higher than some more mathematically talented students..

The example that he mentioned about a comparison of really good dancers and a brilliant mathematicians, saying that if dancers are more intelligent than mathematicians, then they must be as well better with numbers than mathematicians, likewise, according to his same conclusion, if mathematicians are more intelligent than dancers, they ought as well to be better dancers than good dancers!! It doesn't correlate, not even when he assumes there are few specific areas to measure the capabilities of human brain, however, he's entitled to his opinion..

 

[Cellmold]

I think to understand this more comprehensively, we need to identify the terms talent and intelligence..

A talent is a natural aptitude or skill that a person is born with..

Intelligence is the ability to acquire and apply the knowledge and skill..

Intelligence is a stepping stone to blossom the talent, whether it is mathematical talent, physical talent, interpersonal talent etc. and the reality shows that majority of people only have the ability "intelligence" to develop few areas of talent, some ought to work harder than others to develop the talent depending on how much natural skills and intelligence degree they have, some even build a talent when they don't have one..
I remember back at school, there was a student who lack the mathematical skills, and the rest of us had to explain the theory to her many times before she can actually understand, not to mention the common sense mistakes she used to make during the class, but she was a hell of a hard worker, I used to rarely see her not practicing math problems, even during breaks! She eventually scored A+ which is higher than some more mathematically talented students..

The example that he mentioned about a comparison of really good dancers and a brilliant mathematicians, saying that if dancers are more intelligent than mathematicians, then they must be as well better with numbers than mathematicians, likewise, according to his same conclusion, if mathematicians are more intelligent than dancers, they ought as well to be better dancers than good dancers!! It doesn't correlate, not even when he assumes there are few specific areas to measure the capabilities of human brain, however, he's entitled to his opinion..

I think his point about the dancing and multiplying digits in their heads was a hypothetical to prove how difficult it is to abstract out those as set, different intelligences, he even says himself right after that it doesn't follow that a better dancer would also be a better mathematician.

He's talking about the nature of the word intelligence as a definition and how you can 'mess up the wording' (getting stuck in semantics) which renders it vague and almost meaningless.

This is probably because he comes from a strong position of the validity of IQ, he has a series of videos on it which are very interesting. So he probably perceives intelligence as being an overall which is largely set by nature, because of the strength of evidence that shows that people who score highly on IQ consistently outperform those who score lower, part of the factor of g.

It's true however that high IQ doesn't guarantee success, but it does create a higher chance of it occurring. Peterson subscribes strongly to the Big 5 personality theory, which is also a strongly correlated set of variables in a person.

What you described above about the intelligence which allows talent to flourish is mainly a factor of conscientiousness more than anything else. But, for example, a high IQ, low conscientiousness person doesn't need as much effort to reach the same level as a high conscientiousness, low IQ person, despite being likely to tend towards poor motivation, which is where the contention comes in.

I have work early in the morning but I will come back with some videos on this subject, particularly of the controversy of IQ and the fact it has become popular to dismiss it as a factor in life success.

 

[cascadeco]

I've seen this list of different types of intelligence before, but it was a good, succinct video.

My strongest are Naturalist, Mathematical/Logical, Existential (I guess... since I seem to do that a lot... though this 'intelligence' was one I haven't seen before), and Intra-Personal (didn't take any test - just purely based on my life/school/natural abilities and leanings).

 

[Galena]

I took the test and got spatial...surpriiiise. I admit I lack some gratefulness for the strong preference, because it's felt like a dirty secret more often than not. Reason being that my success in any area has always been kind of scarily dependent on my finding a way to make it visual, so you think I'd make a beeline after occupations in that kind of area, but for better or worse I tend to lust after the unavailable magnetize toward activities that compete with my natural preferences rather than embrace them readily. For now, I have a lifetime of practice at translating it all into my own language and am still going strong, but the quiet goal of all of that is to one day support a space for myself where I don't have to do that anymore. It feels more private to me than it probably has to be, like something I can only rely on myself to support.

 

[Shiver]

I already know my highest is Spatial. My mind's eye is every bit as adept as my physical ones, and often far more enjoyable to use.

 

[Metis]

Spatial, linguistic.

I remember back at school, there was a student who lack the mathematical skills, and the rest of us had to explain the theory to her many times before she can actually understand, not to mention the common sense mistakes she used to make during the class, but she was a hell of a hard worker, I used to rarely see her not practicing math problems, even during breaks! She eventually scored A+ which is higher than some more mathematically talented students..

Got a teammate right now who makes the same multiple memory errors repeatedly, despite being corrected over and over again. One of my favorite teammates right now, though, because he's always ready to pitch in and pull his own weight to do whatever needs to be done.

In contrast, some of the other folks don't even know their team equipment or where to find anything, let alone where to put it back, because they leave all the work to others. Then they want to negotiate with the teacher over their grades.

 

[Maou]

I remember taking this test in high school for my senior project.

I scored maximum on spatial intelligence, but there were only 5 types in the test. I can't take the psych2go one yet, but from what I know. Im very Naturalist as well, since as a kid I spent most of my time in the woods, I know I am rather adept at surviving.

I am also great with math, and logic puzzels. I am way better with algebra than I am geometry etc. It just depends on if you can teach me.