header image


Posted by: | September 12, 2011 | No Comment |

These are your results. Remember that these results reflect an aptitude for a particular intelligence, not an actual measure of that intelligence:

<b>[ERROR: Javascript not present hence cannot process test]</b>Linguistic:    53

[unavailable]The ability to read, write and     communicate with words. Authors, journalists, poets, orators and comedians     are obvious examples of people with linguistic intelligence.

Logical-Mathematical:    40

[unavailable]The ability to reason and     calculate, to think things through in a logical, systematic manner. These     are the kinds of skills highly developed in engineers, scientists,     economists, accountants, detectives and members of the legal profession.

Visual-Spatial:    51

[unavailable]The ability to think in pictures,     visualise a future result. To imagine things in your mind’s eye. Architects,     sculptors, sailors, photographers and strategic planners. You use it when     you have a sense of direction, when you navigate or draw.

Musical:    64

[unavailable]The ability to make or compose     music, to sing well, or understand and appreciate music. To keep rhythm.     It’s a talent obviously enjoyed by musicians, composers, and recording     engineers. But most of us have a musical intelligence which can be     developed.

Bodily-Kinesthetic:    60

[unavailable]The ability to use your body     skillfully to solve problems, create products or present ideas and emotions.     An ability obviously displayed for athletic pursuits, dancing, acting,     artistically, or in building and construction. You can include surgeons in     this category but many people who are physically talented–”good with their     hands”–don’t recognize that this form of intelligence is of equal value to     the other intelligences.

Interpersonal:    37

[unavailable]The ability to work effectively     with others, to relate to other people, and display empathy and     understanding, to notice their motivations and goals. This is a vital human     intelligence displayed by good teachers, facilitators, therapists,     politicians, religious leaders and sales people.

Intrapersonal:    39

[unavailable]The ability for self-analysis and     reflection – to be able to quietly contemplate and assess one’s     accomplishments, to review one’s behavior and innermost feelings, to make     plans and set goals, the capacity to know oneself. Philosophers, counselors,     and many peak performers in all fields of endeavor have this form of     intelligence.

Naturalist:    50

[unavailable]The ability to recognize flora and     fauna, to make other consequential distinctions in the natural world and to     use this ability productively – for example in hunting, farming, or     biological science. Farmers, botanists, conservationists, biologists,     environmentalists would all display aspects of this intelligence.

More detail

While Gardner’s theory is a clearly vast improvement over traditional     academic methods, it still has some shortcomings. Gardner himself has     postulated the addition of a spiritualist category because there are     people out there clearly greatly in tune with spirituality – despite that     traditionally western religions have discouraged them (eastern religions are     far more spiritual). My own thoughts that his decision to not this was     probably the right one because I feel it would be almost entirely a     combination of Intrapersonal and Naturalist.

Speaking of which, the generally held main failing of Gardner’s theory is     lack of distinction between the groups – generally if you have a high     aptitude in one it is positively correlated in all the others. This I would     personally say is inevitable because humans, being a system, will compensate     the failings of one area by using other areas eg; to divide something by two     can be done geometrically or arithmetically or indeed a few other ways.     Hence poor natural interpersonal skills can be partially helped by     application of mathematical theory (eg; like I myself do).

However, there is a mechanistic alternative to Gardner (which I     personally don’t agree with) called Anderson’s Theory of Intelligence and     Cognitive Development which basically says each area of intelligence works     at different speeds of basic processing and it uses this to improve on     Gardner. Search for it on the web if you want to know more.

under: Uncategorized

Leave a response

Your response: