Multiple Intellgences == Participation Award

>Is it basically a participation award?
What else could it be? It allows ashamed idiots and the parents of slow children to claim that it's because they're simply "picture smart" or "emotional thinkers" and that's why they have to count with their fingers.

I like to give the example of the da Vinci in response to this type of argument. For whatever you might think of him, the man was agreed to have been:
>an excellent artist
>an excellent draftsman
>in excellent physical condition: tall, muscular and handsome
>brilliant

He's far from the only one of his kind, and there are examples from history and modernity of men who spent their lives striving towards perfection and making themselves great men because of their efforts.

If you want to be great, you have to conquer all fields. You must be physically powerful, full of guile and well-read, never resting. There is no excuse and there are no exceptions.

I'm not mentally retarded, I'm body smart user!

>If you want to be great, you have to conquer all fields. You must be physically powerful, full of guile and well-read, never resting. There is no excuse and there are no exceptions.

>won't even give me the (You)
I'm right though.

>nature smart
The fuck

What does that even code to?

>throw Da Vinci into the middle of the jungle
>laugh as he tips his cap and talks about the super-umano while failing to forage and hunt
>dissect his body

I can think of relevant skills that could be described as "intelligence" for all of those listed, except for the "naturalistic intelligence". No idea what that is even supposed to mean.

& Humanities at it again.

Something where it's important to be able to be self-critical - which many people here are sorely incapable of.

>mixing up knowledge and intelligence

>self smart
nuff said

At the risk of disrupting your "KIDS THESE DAYS"-tier virtue signaling, no. The concept of intelligence as a single linear value is asinine, especially in the contemporary era where true polymathy is extinct and specialization is king. Now that's not to say that this mess of a pie chart is correct, but it at least gets across the idea that different people are more or less apt in different things.

le leonardo was le smartest man evur xD

>you have to conquer all fields. You must be physically powerful, full of guile and well-read, never resting.

People's value isn't measured by abstracting them into d&d character sheets. I notice you fail to mention any kind if empathy in what you consider a "great man". You sure feel sentimental about meme individuality tho.

According to Gardner it's not considered plain knowledge but an aptitude for classification and systems that heavily depend on mereological or taxonomical hierarchies and how they relate to each other.

all me

Only actual smarts can be applied to this.

5th year psychology student here
If you're really interested in this subject and most importantly WILLING to accept things you might not agree with (which could be a long shot considering your post), I suggest you read up on the history of psychological testing/differential psychology. You'll eventually come to understand the context in which these kinds of models are formulated.

IQ tests have been heavily criticized in the past couple of years because they only provide an assessment of basic cognitive functions (such as logical reasoning, verbal skills), which does not qualify as a systemic approach of intelligence. You might have an IQ of 140, which tells us that you perform on a higher level than most people when it comes to basic cognitive functions, but still be considered as a total moron when it comes to music, interpersonal relationships, health and exercise, because these things are not necessarily correlated to your "general cognitive operating level". It is important however to keep in mind that it's only a theory among others.

On another note, EQ (emotional quotient) has been proven (sorry don't remember the article, but I think a 5 minute google scholar search will do) to be better than IQ when it comes to predicting future success in life (work, personal, love life).

If questions subside, fire away

music/interpersonal relationships/health-exercise are not conductive to majoring in physics or math, nor are they conductive to engineering, or creation of technologies/medical discoveries that help the human race advance further

You only hear about "emotional quotient" to give a retarded sub 100 IQ some sort of fool's comfort.

>music/interpersonal relationships/health-exercise are not conductive to majoring in physics or math, nor are they conductive to engineering, or creation of technologies/medical discoveries that help the human race advance further
Good luck cooperating and working on a team with retarded emotional intelligence.

You realize all that technology and engineering relies on teamwork because 1 superintelligent human can't do it all by themselves, right?

Knowing how to cure cancer doesn't mean shit if you can't actually make the cure or communicate with someone who can.

You don't need a high "Emotional Quotient" person to manage a team of engineers/physics/doctors/scientists. An average joe from the dirt can do it.

>An average joe from the dirt can do it.
If that is the truth why isn't the average joe doing it, why do leadership and team management almost always make higher wages? Because they have higher IQs? Lol.

Managers usually are average joes, particularly lower and middle managers.

>You might have an IQ of 140, which tells us that you perform on a higher level than most people when it comes to basic cognitive functions, but still be considered as a total moron when it comes to music, interpersonal relationships, health and exercise, because these things are not necessarily correlated to your "general cognitive operating level"
If you have and IQ of 140 you can easy dominate those fields if you set your mind to it, whereas people who dominate those fields (except for music) before they dominate fields that a high IQ person usually dominates (such as mathematics and linguistics) have a harder time dominating the latter.

>You don't need a high "Emotional Quotient" person to manage a team of engineers/physics/doctors/scientists. An average joe from the dirt can do it
I don't even agree with the other guy, but you're an absolute retard if you think that. Truth is, most people can't lead others. That's why there are so few leaders in comparison to followers.

To sum up your point of view :
>art/social relationships/health play no role in science therefore they are useless
Einstein was a big music buff if I remember correctly. Why though ? Because classical music had a profoundly beneficial effect on his mind, which in turn helped him do his scientist's work. Einstein had a family right, friends ? Which represent a social structure that also helped him get through his tiring load of work every single day. Last point, let's imagine young Einstein comes to break a bone in his foot, wouldn't you want a physical therapist to help him walk right instead of lumping his entire life ?

>EQ was invented to make people feel comfortable
EQ was invented because smart people started noticing that IQ wasn't that integrative as they originally thought

>If you have and IQ of 140 you can easy dominate those fields if you set your mind to it, whereas people who dominate those fields
This is just plain wrong. I have friends who do MMA and they have way higher "body intelligence" than any student I know. They might not be candidates for the Nobel Prize, but given the right measures you would quickly realize that they are WAY more in tune with their bodies than most people. You might THINK of yourself as capable of achieving such a level of body control, but the truth is that the chances are rather slim, because you didn't focus on that kind of training when young (therefore developing your body intelligence). Same goes for the arts, you might think that after 5 years of painting you'd be an amazing painter. Truth is you're probably still going to be worse at it than 10 year old kids. How do you explain that ? Picture intelligence

IQ test was never supposed to be integrative. It was, by design, a test to show the differences between people.

That's not what I meant sorry, english isn't my first language. I meant integrative in the sense of "integrating as many cognitive functions as possible into one general measure". Bad choice of words on my part

Only g matters. Only reason someone is smart in some area and not others is through repetetive practice. Give them something outside of their comfort zone then they will get confused.

People who are actually smart are actually smart. In all areas, including social ability.
So no, being a nerd isn't an excuse for being socially retarded.
Only reason "normies" have betted social skills is through repetetive social interaction while nerds hide in their rooms masturbating to chinese cartoons. Smart people who have social skills are called "manipulators" by butthurt nerds and normies.

>Knowing how to cure cancer doesn't mean shit if you can't actually make the cure or communicate with someone who can.
A computer scientist writes a networking program, an engineer designs the hardware to run the network. A computer technician builds a computer for the doctors to access the network and share their findings.

Average joe to clean up the laboratory after the work is done.

There fixed it.

Those manipulators are called bullies in local terms. Bullies use physical intimidation to force others to do things because they can't do it through vocal communication.

Since the overwhelming majority of the people in any given area are stupider than the smartest, they dictate the social norms and rules. This means bullying of nerds and infatuation with Chads/Stacies.

HOL UP
*can't count beyond 10*
SO U B SAYIN
*dabs, wips and nay nays*
U SAYIN
*Raps and traps*
WE B MUSIC SMARTZ AND BODY SMARTZ
*breathes through teeth*
SHEEEEEEEEET

I see IQ as MMR in videogames.

Two 6k MMRs aren't automatically equally skilled. But someone 9K will be definitely better skilled.

It's the sum of of all the skills that make you good or bad that allows you to reach that level. Someone 6k will have godly aim but poor game knowledge and others compensate for bad mechanics by having good game leading skills. A 9k will have better skills overall.

Memory, logic, adaptation, observation, creativity, patience, focus etc. All of these add up to gaining high IQ.

Bullying isn't dumb. If you can get want you want and get away with it, i'd consider it smart.

Corporations bully each other. Politicians blackmail each other. Lawyers bully witnesses. Terrorists use fear and terror. Marketing Ads manipulate consumers. Nations give "sanctions".

Bullying is part of the game.

Managers are almost always the bully type in school. Its not "smart" but rather aggressive. You may gain short term benefits, but chances are you'll land in jail. And repeat offenders land in jail more often.

And the biggest American bully just became the American President. What is your point?

He's not known for being smart. Which is your point, bully = smart.

He's smart. I'd bet my first born he is smart.

Bullying is smart. Social manipulation is smart.
Your stereotypical bully idiots you shoehorned in our discussiob may or may not be smart.
Bullies exist in Harvard. Bullies exist in high iq society. Bullies exist everwhere from the lowest drug infested slums of Detroit to the Richest cutthroat environment of Billion dollar corporations.

Social manipulators don't only exist as agressive meathead bullies. They can be subtle charmers to outright sociopathic liars. Social manipulations requires high understanding and knowledge of rules and timing. It isn't "dumb".

If you play the game of life you don't whine about mean bullies otherwise you lose.

>the game of life

What an edgy retard

(You)

Life is not a game, life is a serious thing.

It's a game.

You play, you compete. You win, you lose.

Being a sociopathic liar is not smart, thats just sociopathic.

This
The fact that you're criticising yourself is pretty amusing.

>Great music, personal relationship and bodily control don't help the human race
Been a long time since I saw such a concentration of autism.

You win what, what a childish mentality.

Not everyone wants the same things from life.

Depends on how you use it.

If you're smart enough, you could idk, become CEO, get a hot young trophy wife, get 1 million dollars through government subsidies.

If you just lie and lie and lie to get the dumbest of things like jewelry or drugs, you'd just get people to mistrust you. And that is dumb.

What if you lie lie lie lie and the mass of people are dumb dumb dumb dumb dumb, therefore they don't care?

Why the fuck would a smart person want a trophy wife?

You win want you want.

If you consider having a home with a loving wife and children winning, then get that. Stop being a NEEt loser hiding in his mom's basement. That shit is even hard for normies.

If you want to be a monk hermit living in a secluded mountain reading "high grade" literature, you think its easy. You can still fail.

>Stop being a NEEt loser hiding in his mom's basement

Are you projecting you fat American fuckwit?

Life is not a game because the objective and rules are not the same for everyone, as you said.

Depends on what you lie about and how you lie.

So if you are dumb and get lucky you get away with it. Good on you.

But if you are smart and calculating, hmm... Maybe just get lucky.

>objectives
>rules

The fact that fucking game theory can be applied to IRL decisions and situations no matter how different it is for everyone.

It's a game.

Is there some psychotest related? I'm bored.

They even sound more like a real thing

>This is just plain wrong. I have friends who do MMA and they have way higher "body intelligence" than any student I know
I never said that they don't.
My point is that it is probably easier for someone who is book smart to be body smart (peoples smart or any kind of other "smart" you name) than it is for someone who has any other intelligence and isn't book smart to become it.

This is sad even considering the /pol/ invasion. I guess it is expected that sociopaths would hide out among easily manipulated retards, but it is sad that you can't see life as an experience, not a game. You only see the reward at the end rather than appreciate the path of getting there, wanting the ends to justify the means, and ultimately being the kind of poor person that is the weakest link in the social chain.

People-smart is a thing too. Knowing how to manipulate people is the "smart" that pays of most.

I hate /pol/ and I also think like that. Stop saying that people who don't think like you are childish and you think on the only right manner

>tfw naturalist and linguistic

man I must have the autisms

And it's nonsense, none of that is necessarily exclusive to nature