<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Seven different types of intelligence &#8211; trumps the classic IQ test</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.cavemanpower.com/blog/seven-different-types-of-intelligence-trumps-the-classic-iq-test/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.cavemanpower.com/blog/seven-different-types-of-intelligence-trumps-the-classic-iq-test/</link>
	<description>Diet, Fitness and exercises of primal man.</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Thu, 02 Feb 2012 23:25:13 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Avalanche</title>
		<link>http://www.cavemanpower.com/blog/seven-different-types-of-intelligence-trumps-the-classic-iq-test/comment-page-1/#comment-90</link>
		<dc:creator>Avalanche</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 26 May 2011 16:40:56 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.cavemanpower.com/blog/seven-different-types-of-intelligence-trumps-the-classic-iq-test/#comment-90</guid>
		<description>Tam wrote: &quot;IQ tests are culturally biased.&quot;   Do you think that&#039;s why those tests show that (on average) black children are a full standard deviation below whites -- but Asians (mainly Japanese) are almost a full standard deviation ABOVE whites?  Because those eeeeevil whites slanted these tests to be culturally biased TOWARDS Asian people?!  That&#039;s kinda idiotic, isn&#039;t it?

And I believe the &quot;standard&quot; IQ test does, in fact, provide a pretty GOOD indication of who will, and more importantly will not, excel in the academic, technological (modern-day!)  working world than those who score lower.  I agree that the standard IQ test does not &#039;test&#039; for emotional, physical, musical, etc. &quot;intelligences&quot; -- but it DOES pretty adequately indicate which people are more likely to  succeed in modern Western technological societies!  (The occasional exception does invalidate that. Most people to do poorly on the standard IQ test also do poorly in this society that requires a high(er) IQ!  You cannot &#039;write off&#039; the test results because they miss a couple hundred people, but accurately register a couple million!)   Pretending that &quot;musical skills&quot; will help thousands of children make a living in this society is craziness!  &quot;Body&quot; intelligence may be very useful for the very, very, very few who will be able to make a living as athletes -- but the vast majority of children who do well on the &quot;physical IQ&quot; test, but poorly on the standard IQ test, are going to have trouble supporting themselves.   

It&#039;s a USEFUL test, within it&#039;s own parameters. Deciding that because it&#039;s sometimes *mis*used to deny people access to something (not guaranteed success at it, merely access to try), that therefore the TEST is wrong, is as idiotic as deciding that, because other tests can show physical or musical &quot;intelligences,&quot; that therefore folks with high physical intelligence can succeed as physicists or computer programmers (or in any highly academic programs!).  Let&#039;s use it for what it measures accurately:  it shows a higher chance of succeeding in academic and technological fields; the kinds of fields this society is made of!   Surely you wouldn&#039;t be intending to say that low-IQ (low &quot;standard-test&quot; IQ) people can do just as well as high-IQ people in ALL fields?!  Would you want your doctor to be low-IQ?  How about your eye surgeon?  

(And again -- you CANNOT decide these things based on the exceptions!   Just because a few people overcome their inability to do well on standard IQ tests does NOT mean that ALL people who do poorly on them can!)</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Tam wrote: &#8220;IQ tests are culturally biased.&#8221;   Do you think that&#8217;s why those tests show that (on average) black children are a full standard deviation below whites &#8212; but Asians (mainly Japanese) are almost a full standard deviation ABOVE whites?  Because those eeeeevil whites slanted these tests to be culturally biased TOWARDS Asian people?!  That&#8217;s kinda idiotic, isn&#8217;t it?</p>
<p>And I believe the &#8220;standard&#8221; IQ test does, in fact, provide a pretty GOOD indication of who will, and more importantly will not, excel in the academic, technological (modern-day!)  working world than those who score lower.  I agree that the standard IQ test does not &#8216;test&#8217; for emotional, physical, musical, etc. &#8220;intelligences&#8221; &#8212; but it DOES pretty adequately indicate which people are more likely to  succeed in modern Western technological societies!  (The occasional exception does invalidate that. Most people to do poorly on the standard IQ test also do poorly in this society that requires a high(er) IQ!  You cannot &#8216;write off&#8217; the test results because they miss a couple hundred people, but accurately register a couple million!)   Pretending that &#8220;musical skills&#8221; will help thousands of children make a living in this society is craziness!  &#8220;Body&#8221; intelligence may be very useful for the very, very, very few who will be able to make a living as athletes &#8212; but the vast majority of children who do well on the &#8220;physical IQ&#8221; test, but poorly on the standard IQ test, are going to have trouble supporting themselves.   </p>
<p>It&#8217;s a USEFUL test, within it&#8217;s own parameters. Deciding that because it&#8217;s sometimes *mis*used to deny people access to something (not guaranteed success at it, merely access to try), that therefore the TEST is wrong, is as idiotic as deciding that, because other tests can show physical or musical &#8220;intelligences,&#8221; that therefore folks with high physical intelligence can succeed as physicists or computer programmers (or in any highly academic programs!).  Let&#8217;s use it for what it measures accurately:  it shows a higher chance of succeeding in academic and technological fields; the kinds of fields this society is made of!   Surely you wouldn&#8217;t be intending to say that low-IQ (low &#8220;standard-test&#8221; IQ) people can do just as well as high-IQ people in ALL fields?!  Would you want your doctor to be low-IQ?  How about your eye surgeon?  </p>
<p>(And again &#8212; you CANNOT decide these things based on the exceptions!   Just because a few people overcome their inability to do well on standard IQ tests does NOT mean that ALL people who do poorly on them can!)</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Shielding</title>
		<link>http://www.cavemanpower.com/blog/seven-different-types-of-intelligence-trumps-the-classic-iq-test/comment-page-1/#comment-77</link>
		<dc:creator>Shielding</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 15 Feb 2010 17:22:20 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.cavemanpower.com/blog/seven-different-types-of-intelligence-trumps-the-classic-iq-test/#comment-77</guid>
		<description>A lot of people don&#039;t realize, the original IQ test was devised with the sole purpose of identifying mentally challenged children who might otherwise slip through the educational system unnoticed.  No claims were made that it was suitable for establishing a hierarchy of overall intelligence, but the idea of a test that could &#039;prove&#039; how one compared to others in intelligence was sufficiently intriguing to the self-presumed intelligentsia in high academic circles that it has since been adopted and promoted in that context.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>A lot of people don&#8217;t realize, the original IQ test was devised with the sole purpose of identifying mentally challenged children who might otherwise slip through the educational system unnoticed.  No claims were made that it was suitable for establishing a hierarchy of overall intelligence, but the idea of a test that could &#8216;prove&#8217; how one compared to others in intelligence was sufficiently intriguing to the self-presumed intelligentsia in high academic circles that it has since been adopted and promoted in that context.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Tam</title>
		<link>http://www.cavemanpower.com/blog/seven-different-types-of-intelligence-trumps-the-classic-iq-test/comment-page-1/#comment-62</link>
		<dc:creator>Tam</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 30 Jul 2008 17:02:25 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.cavemanpower.com/blog/seven-different-types-of-intelligence-trumps-the-classic-iq-test/#comment-62</guid>
		<description>IQ tests are culturally biased also... a fact that is still largely unaddressed. As a Primary Teacher (and someone who has apparently a IQ of 156 lol) I have found the tests completely useless when trying to teach a child.  The work of Dr Maria Montessori (Italy&#039;s first female physician) is far more comprehensive and accurate an approach to true intelligence... which interestingly is based on concentration, internal motivation and letting nature be our teacher. I think anyone interested in your work, Matt, and who is a parent or is around children would find her work very interesting.

Montessori was a scientist who had to fight against the pigeon holing, labelling and discrimination that IQ tests, and the like, represented. Her method is just over 100 years old but is based on how we learn naturally and intuitively.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>IQ tests are culturally biased also&#8230; a fact that is still largely unaddressed. As a Primary Teacher (and someone who has apparently a IQ of 156 lol) I have found the tests completely useless when trying to teach a child.  The work of Dr Maria Montessori (Italy&#8217;s first female physician) is far more comprehensive and accurate an approach to true intelligence&#8230; which interestingly is based on concentration, internal motivation and letting nature be our teacher. I think anyone interested in your work, Matt, and who is a parent or is around children would find her work very interesting.</p>
<p>Montessori was a scientist who had to fight against the pigeon holing, labelling and discrimination that IQ tests, and the like, represented. Her method is just over 100 years old but is based on how we learn naturally and intuitively.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

