Rating: 
Summary: Nice theory, application is the problem
Review: On first glance, much of the rhetoric on "multiple intelligences" does not sound particularly unreasonable, which is part of why it is so dangerously insidious. But a deeper look reveals three profound problems: 1. The core problem with this fad is the utter lack of any suggestion as to how such supposed "learning styles" might be OBJECTIVELY and QUANTITATIVELY identified or assessed, or how any of this would translate into effective teaching practices. Ultimately, there is a complete absence of even the slimmest quantitative evidence that any of this has any utility.
2. In an attempt to provide different kinds of exercises and projects for the different "learning styles" of the students in the classroom, spectacular blocks of precious time are wasted that could be better spent.
3. If the education industry really took to heart the notion that different kids require different approaches, then the obvious conclusion is that it's nuts to require all of the students in a geographic district to attend the same school. A student should be sent to the school that best addresses his or her needs, not merely according to which side of the street he or she lives on. There are many good sources for true "critical thinking" and commentary about Gardner's theories. Try looking for "Illinois Loop" and going to the page on multiple intelligences.
Rating: 
Summary: Good, Bad, Interesting, and Important
Review: Perhaps every good book has some axe to grind. In any case, knowing why it was written often helps more than anything else to understand what a book is about. In this case, the book is supposed to help deflate books like "The Bell Curve," and Arthur Jensen's seminal "The g Factor," which together argue that intelligence exists, is sociologically fateful, and highly heritable (i.e., that if everybody had the same genes for it, most of the variation presently observed in intelligence would not exist). This is related to "Herrnstein's syllogism" which says: intelligence significantly determines social status, and is also highly heritable, therefore, under equal opportunity in a free and fair meritocracy, social status will still be significantly heritable. This, of course, is considered politically unacceptible by many if not most Americans today (although Thomas Jefferson apparently accepted it, cf. his "natural aristocracy"), and so Gardner has been warmly received as a foe of it. Gardner's tactic is simple: he denies that intelligence exists, or at least that IQ tests measure intelligence. Instead he postulates "multiple intelligences," such as "kinesthetic intelligence" (physical/athletic coordination/skill), and "social intelligence" (social grace/ability). Musical talent too gets a re-name, but I forget what it is. So as you can see, all this, while certainly interesting (since all these various talents are certainly interesting to explore and very valuable) basically amounts to what an ordinary person with common sense usually calls a "purely semantic argument." In other words, Gardner does not show that there is anything wrong with Herrnstein's heresy besides a choice of words. Remove the term "intelligence," and plug in the term "IQ test score," and the same politically heretical conclusion follows, thus: IQ test score significantly predicts social status, IQ test score is highly heritable, therefore in a free and fair meritocracy social status will be significantly heritable. Gardner has done nothing to forestall the dreaded heresy. He has, however, allowed people to believe that he does, and thus enjoyed an unearned boost from the forces of political correctness, as other reviews will show. How many legs does a dog have, if you call a tail a leg? Four. Calling a tail a leg doesn't make it one. Neither can calling athletic ability, musical talent, and social grace "multiple intelligences" do anything to change the biological heritability (or lack thereof) of socioeconomic status. The meaning of a word depends on how people actually use it. If most ordinary English speakers call athletic ability, musical talent, and social grace "talents" rather than "intelligences," then that's what they are. Conversely, if IQ tests do measure what most people do call "intelligence," then IQ tests measure intelligence. To the extent that these things are true, they're just true by definition. When it comes to the facts behind the words, Gardner's "intelligences" may themselves be just as heritable, if not more so, than traditional IQ test scores, and thus may even add to the expected biological heritability of social class. Gardner's work on the nature of various talents may be interesting, but his reputation as an ally of political correctness is a sham. The only thing politically correct about the MI theory is its capricious abuse of language in the service of an Orwellian attempt to alter reality by changing what things are called. (As if to confirm, by reductio ad absurdum, the political motivation behind Gardnerism, I noticed posted on the wall of my kids' nursery school the other day, a new addition to the quiver of Gardnerian "intelligences." This latest one is called "environmental intelligence," or something like that, and is supposed to be----what else?----the ability to appreciate the natural environment. Obviously this sort of thing can go on to infinity, with each passing political whim giving birth to new Gardnerian "intelligence." No doubt we shall soon discover "democratic intelligence," which is the measurable variation in the natural ability of different children to appreciate the truth of the social-democratic worldview.) However, if you're just looking for a good book on these various human talents, go for it.
Rating: 
Summary: Defining the future of education
Review: This book should be read and adopted by all educators. If more schools used this concept, I am convinced we would have more creative and intelligent adults in 20 years. Gardner is truly a genius in our time.
Rating: 
Summary: Can you Spot a a Liberal?
Review: This is based on opinion:
I had to unfortunately suffer through Mr. Gardner's diatribe as an education student. I have tried to educate my colleagues as to what he is about. Most specifically, we saw him lecture, where he called for a "revolution" in education. When he asked the audience what most people think of when they think of a revolutionist, he showed a picture of Lenin. Thereafter, the lecture blasted Ron Reagan and conservatives, and pointed to the fun aspects of there being a bad person in Iraq or Cuba.
This book is trying to tell you, the educator, that no one is smart and no one is "dumb". Dumb just means your true talent hasn't been discovered. While I agree many students have talents that are not uncovered, and public schools fail with the standardized test, don't tell me the basketball player is as intelligent as the person who invented the MRI; or the poet as smart as the scientist who finds a cure for cancer.
No, we are all not equally intelligent. Some of us are smart, some of us are not. But we are not equal, and we never will be.
This theory is a method to make us all equal--exactly where socialists and liberals lie. Sure the bell of equality rings harmoniously for many; while the aristocrats sit perched at the Harvard tower, controlling their brainwashed flock.
Rating:
Summary: Disappointment for the Psycho "Metrician"
Review: Undoubtedly, you all know of tests to "measure", your intelligence. For bad or good, those results have a strong psychological power. If the score is high, yourlife is said to be "made"--forlife--no struggle, just champagne and success. If the score is low, you are a no good animal--who ought to be "eugenicized". This conclusion is immoral--for thos scoring low; As for those scoring high--they too can't draw comfort--in such promises; becuase they can't be assured of making it in life; and many "high" scorers end upon welfare, or fast food employment. The "power" of a score is, thus political--because the tests are funded by the government, used in public hiring and teaching; and worshipped by the middle claesses, who view them as mealtickets into corporate America, and good universitites; sometimes, as calling cards to exterminate "undesirables". But Gardner's book offers those scoring "low", hope, against the negative psychological baggae, and legal favoritism of the test; against the often unstated negative effects knowledge among others, that one scored low, can have on one. Because, as history makes clear,intelligenc is exhibited in part,by spritied activity in seven areas, whose use and codification into symbol systems,evolved, as evolutnionary processes: music, math,language, social practice, naturalism, insight of others, etc, on down Gardner's list. In shorter terms,one CAN survive--but not only that--even become a valued member,in point of fact, of the the very socity he or she is part of; because the avenues to success are 7 in number--not one, contrarily to the assertions of the bigots who write these "tests". Gardner broadens evaluations--not so much as an innovation, so much, as in keeping with the HISTORICAL definition of a civilized, andcapapble person; in sad contrast to the arbitrary efforttolimit that notion to a "single" faculty. The implications in a wider social sense, are to great to name; in a scientific sense, it is erelvant, if only because it puts social "scientists" on notice--that thier assertions aren't going to be disregarded for their social implication--"fascism", and "eugenicism" will NEVER become part of any just, and decent social scheme--and no one, anywhere, will EVER be "eugenicized" or sterilized. finally, it must be understood, that the current practice of labelling, vulgarizing, and attaking people--will never be justified or allowed in any civilized setting anywhere, "science" or not.
|
