It is obvious that some people are more successful in different intellectual domains than others. Gardner's Multiple Intelligences suggests eight different domains of intellectual skill people can identify with. The domains consist of the following, in which people can score any level in all categories: linguistic, logico-mathematical, spatial, musical, bodily-kinesthetic, interpersonal, intrapersonal and naturalistic. Although his model is impossible to falsify, this idea is important because it serves as a good starting point in which scientists can begin distinguishing what qualifies as an "intelligence" versus a talent. However, it is possible that talents and intelligence are actually the same, when intelligence is defined among Gardner's approach. It is impossible to say Einstein had a talent in math yet didn't identify with that intelligence. A causation approach seems to be inapplicable because research points towards intelligence being considerably stable, while talents can be improved... yet those talents remain in the same realm as its partnering intelligence. This article talks about how there is a controversy on the misuse of his idea into new teaching methods. However, who said that just because someone is intelligent in music means that they will all of a sudden learn geography classes significantly better based on singing the information? They would simply just excel in the musical part of tasks, further concluding their continued talent/intelligence. As suggested in the text, I prefer to conclude I have an intelligence in humor, but one could beg to differ. Overall, I now wonder if someones IQ could actually be the degree in which every arguable intelligence is taken into consideration, then somehow calculated. The WAIS test seems to imply there are different areas of intelligence, so why not add them all...? Oh, how psychology is incredibly ambiguous.
jack0682: November 2011 Archives
The mystery of how video games truly effect children remains varied, however research all points to fairly immediate aggression directly after encounters with repeated, elongated amounts of violence. After viewing the video recording of children's behavior after watching Power Rangers vs. Barney, it should be obvious that there is some effect violence has on people. This study done by Gentile & Anderson (2003) states how their study indicates that repetition of violence in video games where children are repeating violent behaviors as they play has strong effects on a child's aggression. Repetition of the game is key, because repetition increases learning. However, all research cannot apply to each individual as they are. As conjured up from the articles provided in class as well as the textbook and additional research, it is all correlational at best. That being said, it could be very well possible that a third variable would be a child's genes, or maybe the environment they grew up in (or both...?). From personal experience, I have many friends who grew up watching and playing violent video games, however they are all varied across the horizon on their aggression levels. I wonder how a longitudinal study done on children from different backgrounds aligned with studies on possible aggression genes (as this article states) would reveal more information? Could the gene-environment interaction illustrate the idea behind the correlation between aggression and violence in the media? More studies will have to bring us closer to a conclusion.