Scholar Howard Gardner once proposed that there’s not one, but seven different intelligences (which is silly because we have only one brain).
Charles Murray described the enormous range of these seven abilities in his book Real Education:
Bodily-Kinesthetic: from someone who trips over his feet to Fred Astaire
Musical: from tone-deaf to Mozart
Spatial: from someone who gets lost two blocks from home to Daniel Boone
Linguistic: from unable to form sentences to Shakespeare
Logical mathematical: from unable to understand cause and effect to Aristotle
Interpersonal: from autism to Bill Clinton
Intrapersonal: from an undisciplined narcissist to Confucious.
I don’t agree that an undisciplined narcissist lacks intrapersonal intelligence, but more on that later.
Gardner also selected seven famous persons to personify each of his seven intelligences:
Linguistic (T.S. Eliot)
Logical-Mathematical (Einstein)
Spatial (Picasso)
Musical (Stravinsky)
Body-Kinesthetic (Martha Graham)
Intrapersonal (Sigmund Freud)
Interpersonal (Mahatma Gandhi)
Arthur Jensen once asked Gardner to estimate the lowest IQ one could possibly have and be included in a list of names such as this and he replied, “About 120.” On page 260 of the book The g Factor, Jensen writes:
Gardener has stated that the manifestation of one of his multiple “intelligences” at a level of scientific, artistic, or social significance such as illustrated by his list of famous exemplars depend on a threshold IQ of at least 120. This minimum IQ cutoff of 120, of course, excludes the 90 percent of the population who are below this level. (Many psychologists would probably set the threshold at IQ 130 or more, thus excluding 98 percent of the population.) It is noteworthy that so-called idiot savants who manifest one of the multiple “intelligences” despite having a very low IQ are never considered as outstanding mathematicians, musicians, artists or dancers; and exceedingly few, if any, are able to earn a living by their special talent. An average or above average level of g seems an essential condition for the intellectually or artistically significant expression of any special talent in the cognitive domain.
But does one really need an IQ of at least 120-130 to achieve extreme eminence in one of Gardener’s seven domains? Given that Gardener’s list reflects the best (mostly white) achievers of the 20th century in each domain, and given that roughly 1.22 billion whites have lived sometime in the 20th century, we can say that all of Gardener’s Geniuses are six standard deviations (SD) above the mean of a normalized white distribution in their particular domain. However some domains correlate more with g (general intelligence) than others.
Outstanding math achievement
Perhaps the most g loaded domain is “mathematical intelligence”. The best measure of raw fluid mathematical talent is probably the Figure Weights subtest on the WAIS-IV which has a g loading of 0.78. However great achievement requires more than just raw talent. It also helps to have 10,000 hours of practice, among other things. Raw talent seems to explain 66% to 70% of the variance in various cognitive performance, suggesting talent correlates 0.82 with performance. If we assume that the correlation between g and math performance is caused simply by their shared correlation with math talent, then the correlation between g and math performance is simply the product of these two correlations: 0.78*0.82=0.64.
So if the greatest math achiever of the 20th century is +6 SD above the white mean in math achievement, he should be 6(0.64) = 3.84 SD above the white mean in IQ. Since IQ is scaled to have a mean of 100 and an SD of 15 in the white population, that equates to 158. With a correlation of 0.64, the standard error around the estimate would be 11.53, so we can say with 95% certainty that the greatest math achiever of the 20th century would have an IQ of 135 to 181. I suspect Einstein would be a lot closer to 135 than 181 given the small brain he had at autopsy.
There are also reports that Richard Feyman had an IQ of 125 but this might be because he was tested in childhood (many genes for IQ might not get expressed until puberty) and the test may have had a low ceiling, particularly in the areas where he excelled.
Outstanding linguistic achievement
But not every field requires a near genius IQ of 135+ to be a Genius. Let’s take “linguistic intelligence”, exemplified by T.S. Eliot. According to a study reported in the WAIS-IV technical manual, the written expression subtest of the WIAT-II correlates 0.6 with WAIS-IV Full-Scale IQ. 0.6 multiplied by the 0.82 correlation between talent and performance suggests a 0.49 correlation between IQ and writing achievement.
Thus, assuming TS Eliot is 6 SD above the white mean in linguistic achievement, he would likely have an IQ that is 6(0.49) = 2.94 SD above the white mean (IQ 144). We would expect, with 95% certainty that his IQ is anywhere from 118-170. So writing is a field where Genius level achievement seems to require a minimum IQ of about 120 although there are always freak exceptions. JD Salinger reportedly tested at 104.
Using the Jonathan Wai method on the 20 most recent white national book award winners for fiction, I found that 40% of them have IQs of 134+, suggesting an average IQ of about 130. Of course winning the national book award does not necessarily make one a literary Genius.
Outstanding musical achievement
In the book Real Education (pg 28), Charles Murray writes “Several studies of musical ability and g have been done, and they find a correlation of about +.3.” However in his book Race Differences in Intelligence, Richard Lynn writes:
The association between intelligence and musical ability has been shown in two studies carried out by Lynn, Wilson, and Gault (1986). In the first, a sample of 217 10-year-olds were given a number of tests of reasoning, vocabulary, visualization, and perceptual speed abilities together with four musical ability tests (pitch, memory, chords, and rhythm). All the tests were positively intercorrelated and loaded on the first principal component as a measure of general intelligence (g). The loadings of the four musical tests lay between 0.45 (cords) and 0.59 (rhythm). This shows that the musical tests are measures of g. In the second study 93 9-11-year-olds were given three tests of musical ability (pitch change, chord analysis, and memory) together with the Standard Progressive Matrices, a measure of g. The three musical tests were significantly correlated with the Progressive Matrices at 0.27, 0.40, and 0.37. This
confirms that musical ability is associated with intelligence. Further evidence for this association has been provided by Carroll (1993).
I think it’s likely that a composite score on a wide battery of musical tests would correlate about as well with IQ as the most g loaded musical abilities (i.e. rhythm 0.59) which is similar to the 0.6 correlating between writing talent and IQ. Once the correlation is reduced (by multiplying by 0.82, see above) for the non-talent aspects of musical achievement (i.e. practice), I would expect musical Genius achievement to require the same amount of IQ as literary Genius achievement.
Outstanding intrapersonal and interpersonal achievements
In the book Real Education (pg 28), Charles Murray argues there’s a moderate positive correlation between IQ and intrapersonal and interpersonal intelligence. Unfortunately he makes his case by citing studies showing a positive correlation between IQ and various personality traits such as leadership (+0.27), conscientiousness (+0.28), and extroversion (+0.31). Although I respect Murray’s work quite a bit, it’s very irritating how even the most learned experts in the field keep conflating personality traits with abilities. As commenter “Jorge Videla” noted:
indeed. the fictional character House, M.D. had very high social cognitive ability, but at the same time was a jerk, a cynic, selfish, etc.
in fact, i think this may be the usual outcome. in the case of dealing with people, one can be too smart. that is, if he sees people as they really are, he becomes a misanthrope and a cynic.
and it’s been my observation countless times that the “popular people” are not especially clued in to the motivations and “frame” of other people. they’re just the one’s for whom being liked is most important and at the same time have no gross defects like ugliness or poverty.
the first question for the socially intelligent isn’t, “is what this guy’s saying true?” it’s, “why does he care about this at all? why is he saying anything at all?”
Another example of a fictional character with an extremely high social IQ, but a completely dysfunctional personality is Hannibal Lecter
However Murray, to his credit, cited autism as an example of extremely low interpersonal intelligence. And it’s important to note that the reason autistics lack social intelligence is not because of dysfunctional personalities (since personality is NOT a cognitive ability) but because they lack Theory of Mind (which is a cognitive ability). Theory of Mind seems to correlate about 0.43 with (verbal) IQ. Reducing this correlation (multiplying by 0.82) for the non-ability aspects of achievement (i.e practice) puts it at 0.35.
Thus we’d expect someone who is 6 SD above the white mean in interpersonal achievements to be 6(0.35) = 2.1 SD above the white mean in IQ (IQ 132) with 95% falling between 104 and 160. Thus one needs to be only slightly above average (IQ 104) to be a Genius in the interpersonal range (though being brilliant helps), and possibly also in the intrapersonal range since (as a commenter pointed out) self-awareness is sometimes described in the academic literature as Theory of Mind directed at one’s own mind. “First-order Theory of Mind”, I believe, is the technical term.
The relatively low correlation between “social intelligence” and IQ can be seen from the fact that many autistic people are extremely intelligent, with some even winning Nobel prizes in fields like literature and economics and there is constant speculation that some of the greatest minds in the history of science and Silicon Valley were/are autistic. Conversely, some mentally retarded people seem to function quite well socially. On page 28 of the 1962 book Know Your Own IQ, H.J. Eysenk writes:
The case is recorded of at least one mental defective with an I.Q. of just under 70 who was released from an institution on the application of his wife and who became a successful salesman owning a large house in town, a villa at the seaside, several cars, with all his children away at the university.
Outstanding spatial achievements
The type of spatial reasoning tasks on an IQ test are probably quite g loaded, however the type of spatial talent for which folks like Picasso are considered Geniuses probably are not. The Draw a Person IQ test only correlates about 0.5 with more accepted IQ tests, and although it’s not designed to measure artistic skill, but rather accurate knowledge of the human form, a good artist is an accurate artist.
Multiplying by 0.82 to reduce this correlation for the non-ability aspects of achievement (i.e practice) puts it at 0.41, and so a recognized Genius in the visual arts who is +6 SD above the white mean in artistic achievements, should have an IQ of 0.41(6 SD) = 2.46 SD above the white mean, or roughly IQ 137, with a 95% chance of falling anywhere from 110 to 164. Thus one needs to be only somewhat above average (IQ 110+) to be a Genius in the visual arts, though being a brilliant as always, increases the odds.
Outstanding Bodily-Kinesthetic achievements
Of all of Gardner’s seven intelligences, the one that least belongs is bodily-kinesthetics ability. Since physical coordination is controlled by the brain, Gardner feels justified in labeling it an intelligence, however just because something is controlled by the brain does not mean it’s controlled by the mind, which is the higher part of the brain that came later in evolution. Only the abilities of the mind are mental abilities.
Nonetheless, since the mind is part of the brain and since the brain controls the body, there is about a 0.35 correlation between IQ and physical coordination according to technical studies by the U.S. Department of Labor. Multiplying by 0.82 to reduce this correlation for the non-ability aspects of achievement (i.e practice) puts it at 0.29 and so a recognized physical Genius who is +6 SD above the white mean in bodily-kinesthetic achievement, should have an IQ of 0.29(6 SD) = 1.74 SD above the white mean, or roughly IQ 126, with a 95% chance of falling anywhere from 97 to 155.
And since most “Geniuses” in the bodily-kinestheic domain are black, and blacks tend to score 15 points lower than whites in Western countries, we might reduce the likely IQ range of bodily-kinesthetic Genius by 15 points to 82 to 140. The range might be lower in fields like boxing which require, in addition to physical coordination, extremely high weight/height ratio, violent behavior, and self-danger (three variables negative correlated with IQ). The fact that at least two boxing Geniuses reportedly had IQs in the borderline retarded range (though the validity of the testing was questionable) indicates this is a field with minimal IQ requirements (assuming one has other traits).
Conclusion
The assertion that one needs an IQ of 120, or possibly 130, to be a Genius in any of Gardner’s seven domains is mostly false. Although some of his domains require a vaguely minimum IQ of 135 (logical mathematical) or 118 (lingustic (writing) and musical), the spatial (visual arts) seems to require only 110, and inter-personal and intra-personal require only 104, with body-kinesthetic requiring only about 82.
This demonstrates that even people like Howard Gardner, who have devoted their lives to undermining the importance of IQ, greatly overestimate the importance of IQ. I wonder what intrapersonal Genius Freud would say. Of course, I of all people think IQ is hugely important, but given that the average IQ of Northwestern Europeans is 100, and the average IQ of the entire World is about 90, it’s absurd to think greatness is the exclusive property of the 120+ IQ.
Salinger with 104, mi dios …quite surprising…. With his filigreed language… His Raise High the Roof Beam, Carpenters is one of the most beautiful examples of English – at least for your Ruskie ))
BTW Mozart – apart from being a quick learner for everything – was described as disproportionately big-headed
I’m pretty sure I’ve mentioned this several times before, but in the John F. Kennedy biography “An Unfinished Life” by Robert Dallek, the author mentions that JFK tested at 117 and 119 in high school, which is above average but not really genius level.
When running for president, he debated arguably the smartest person to be elected to the office in the past 50 years: Richard Nixon (IQ likely above 140). And of course, he completely demolished Nixon (although those who heard the debate on radio instead of watching it on TV thought it was a close call).
Many people, both scholars and laymen, regard JFK as one of the most brilliant presidents ever.
Of course, this all just repeating what you’ve more or less stated many times in the course of your blog: the correlation between IQ and success in most fields is modest. But it’s also linear throughout the whole range. So the IQ threshold for Genius in most fields isn’t that high, but it always helps to have more of it.
In fact, knowing someone’s IQ doesn’t really tell you much about a person’s chance for success, outside of extremely g-loaded fields like math, physics, and engineering. IQ is much more interesting at the group level than at the individual level.
As far as IQ and music, I’ve always noticed a big dichotomy between the people I know who play classical music and the ones who play popular genres. The classical ones are almost uniformly brilliant, with IQs above 120, with wide-ranging knowledge and often with significant talents in areas like mathematics or languages.
The ones I know who play rock/jazz/blues generally range much more widely in intelligence, with a few real dum-dums.
But guess what? I find the people who play rock/jazz/blues to be more creative than the ones who play classical. The non-classical guys write their own songs, improvise, and seem more adept at playing by ear. A lot of the classical people I know wouldn’t even attempt those things.
So I’m guessing somehow the creative talents of the rock/jazz/blues guys are much less g-loaded, while playing classically must be much more g-loaded. Maybe something to do with reading music? But given the g-loading of rhythm ability, identifying chords, and pitch discrimination, classical guys should be able to crossover and do what the non-classical guys do just as well as them. I guess they’re not interested in trying…
If you consider the all-time musical greats, I feel that the Beatles, Coltrane, Prince and Hendrix were all musical geniuses, though it’s possible that none of them had IQs above 120 (Hendrix didn’t even graduate from high school!).
I just found this:
Sir Paul McCartney had a higher IQ than George Harrison when they were 11, according to the former Beatles’ secondary school entrance exam cards. In 1953, aged 11.2, Sir Paul had a rating of 137, while in 1954, aged 11.6, Harrison had one of 117. The cards will be auctioned at Phillips on March 30.
http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2001/mar/06/1
Given that the Beatles are the most popular band of all time, the average IQ of these two men (IQ 127) is an interesting preliminary estimate for the average IQ of popular music Geniuses (at least white ones)
Wow, I didn’t know about those scores. Very interesting.
Are the scores really similar to IQ (M=100, sd=15)?, I did not find anything in internet about it
This was so-called 11+ exam, I think
I believe one needs to be above average IQ to be musically adept!
“In fact, knowing someone’s IQ doesn’t really tell you much about a person’s chance for success, outside of extremely g-loaded fields like math, physics, and engineering.”
Actually, I should qualify this statement. IQ does actually predict a lot about life outcomes, just not to the degree some people would like to believe. I still think IQ is more interesting when talking about groups/nations/organizations rather than individuals, even though we do a lot of the latter on this very blog!
I have a belief that people who have an IQ between 120-140 (i am sure kennedy had not 119 but more than 120 because he has a relatively big head and gave his speeches without a teleprompter (so i have read) ) will make better political leaders (or have better leadership qualities) than those who have IQ above 140 whose intelligence leans more towards the academic side. I posted something to this effect before. And your comment seems to prove my point even more. Why do i believe so? IDK. Just a feeling 🙂
On second thought: Maybe they have better interpersonal and organisational intelligence (a combo of which lead to political intelligence) than those above 140 who have more mathematical-logical and spatial intelligence, i suppose.
This gave me another thought: Maybe gardner should ‘dump’ musical intelligence (which is more of a talent than intelligence) from his kinds of intelligences’ list and add ‘political intelligence’ to the list.
What do you think PP?
JFK was a good looking guy born into extreme privilege so it makes sense his IQ would have been way lower than 143 IQ nixon’s who became president despite being ugly & unprivileged: Nixon had to do more adapting because he started at a disadvantage
More U.S. presidents have IQs around 130 than around 145, but this might be explained by 130ish folks vastly outnumbering 145ish folks
Gardner already includes interpersonal intelligence
There’s been multiple biographers to confirm JFKs IQ of 117 and 119.
I never implied jfk’s IQ was higher than nixons. My point was he would have been higher than 120. Also, he held his own in the debate with 140 IQ nixon.
Edit: Never mind. If there were multiple biographers saying kennedy IQ was between 117 and 119, then there is no point in me trying to say other wise, unless i can ‘prove’ it.
That shit is possible with a 119 IQ. It’s said that 115 IQ is the threshold to break to hold your own against anything,
I don’t think there’s anything magical about a 115 IQ. The higher the IQ the higher the probability of Genius achievements
That’s not what I meant. A higher IQ helps, I’m only talking about possibility. That being said, I’m sure someone with an average IQ can become a genius, they just have to be extremely interested in what they do.
115 IQ is generally considered the IQ threshold to be able to do anything, of course, around here you’d have to work very hard, but it’s possible to achieve the highest.
There’s literally nodifference between 119 and 120 IQ- hell, there isn’t much difference between 110 and 120 IQ.
According to a member of Prometheus, problem solving speed doubles every 5 or 10 IQ points, so there may be huge differences between 110 and 120.
That’s only speed, not necessarily ability. A 110 can solve any problem he/she wishes, it might take time though. Also, do you really practically see a difference between 120 and 125?
Spatial intelligence is problematic to define. Is it artistic ability? Mechanical ability? Navigational ability? Construction ability? I know people are good in one of those areas but not the others.
Also, the IQ threshold to play most sports can’t be that high at all. The great Washington Redskins defensive end Dexter Manley was illiterate until he reached his 30s!
And I’m interested in knowing where Charles Murray found his studies correlating IQ with personality traits. As far as I had always read, there is no correlation between IQ and personality (except possibly a modestly positive relationship between IQ and Openness, and maybe a slight negative one between IQ and psychopathy).
In the notes sections he cites the following studies:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9100487
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15161411
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160289605001273
I take that back: I remember seeing a study showing pretty significant variations in Wonderlic scores depending on football position. Offensive linemen almost invariably had the highest scores. So there probably is some threshold for doing well in some sports/positions, but as you said, the threshold is likely very low in activities requiring violence/self-endangerment.
Gardner later included naturalistic and existential intelligences, which both sound like a load of baloney to me.
Where would actors fall? Inter/intrapersonal intelligence?
A lot Hollywood types seem unstable, so it’s probably not intrapersonal.
Wait, so Kanye is a genius still right?
I saw Kanye West live several years ago after winning some tickets. I went with a friend. I don’t think either of us were prepared for the experience. Talk about debauchery!
I’m not a fan of most current music, but I was interested in experiencing prole pop “culture” up close and personal. A popular rapper by the name of Kendrick Lamar opened for Mr. West, and thus began the contortions into dancing all around. The music was realIy loud, and I was almost deaf for the next two days. Anyhow, to make a long story short, a lot of people were doing drugs in my general vicinity, and I started feeling really tired halfway through the night, but I stuck it out.
I don’t consider what Kanye West was doing (or really, rap in general) to be particularly worthy of the appellation “genius”, given the extremely simplistic nature of it (it’s like comparing a cartoon to the Mona Lisa), but everyone around me seemed utterly enthralled! So you can’t help but get caught up in the general feeling. And the stage production was pretty elaborate, although the stage itself looked kinda cheap.
And a lot scantily clad women were there. I guess that was nice too.
Stravinsky didn’t like Jews. Quite interestingly, with a name that sounds like one. History has shown that a few of them didn’t like their own kind, usually the truly talented ones had no regard of their own.
polish surname / russia citizenship (originally) . and he looked like a Jew
LOL, I’m sure if you were at the premiere of “The Rite of Spring” you would’ve been one of the main rioters. And then you would’ve ascribed the terribleness of the work to Stravinsky’s “Jewishness”, even though he has none!
Since ” Jewishness” is quite sensitive topic for many, I want to be understood better. By my previous comment I just wanted to put that the surname was Polish, that’s it. Poland was a part of Russian Empire back to those days , Igor Stravinsky ‘s parents, to my best knowledge, were Russians and his father probably had some portion of Polish blood. But , yet, Igor Stravinsky , anecdotally, according to many sources, looked like a Jew. Even among his friends there were jokes like “Igor looks like Jew and drinks like Russian”
But, to be precise, JC was right in something. Polish surnames are popular among Jews, for instance in Russia. I have an example – some friend of mine ‘s name is Roman Polanski (It’s not a joke, his mother named him Roman after the famous man in a hope that her son’s life would be unusual, and now it really is, but this is another story). He is all Russian rural boy, but, technically saying, nationally, he is a Polish-Jew- German mix.
PS:if PP blocks us for off-topic, he will be right))
“ethnically” might be better than “nationally’ in this context.
PP, can you explain why kinesthesic intelligence / motor skills arent a part of intelligence ?
“Scholar Howard Gardner once proposed that there’s not one, but seven different intelligences (which is silly because we have only one brain).”
But doesn’t the glorious Wechsler measure multiple intelligences? Verbal, math and spatial? Maybe more?
Naturalistic, bodily-kinesthetic and intrapersonal seem like PC-isms.
The Wechsler measures different PARTS of a SINGLE intelligence, while Gardner claims there are multiple intelligences.
It’s like a house has a kitchen, a washroom, and a bedroom, but Gardner is claiming each room is its own separate house and thus you can’t add up the total square footage (analogous to IQ).
The other problem with Gardner’s model is bodily-kinesthetic talent is probably NOT a mental ability. Yes it’s controlled by the brain, but that doesn’t necessarily mean it’s entirely controlled by the mind.
MOST people don’t know about your strenghts and weaknesses, starting with you guys!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
MOST people can’t win a race with a great sprinter…
someone here to do***
if most of you can’t do it so this skills seems to be genetically disposed.
the idea of a single compartimentalized intelligence is quasi the same idea that the ”all is the same”.
a correct caste system will produce a perfect social system.
”a study found specific genes that predispose some people to be musically-leaning” blablabla
Every study like this show to us that no there just a single one mental ability/intelligence and obviously prove the theory of ”multiple” (combination of) intelligence’s.
THIS IS SO DIFFICULT TO UNDERSTAND IT *******
YOU guys don’t want accept that you’re not this precious snowflakes who you are thinking…
IQ-
TAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAARD
”The other problem with Gardner’s model is bodily-kinesthetic talent is probably NOT a mental ability”
You say things so SHOCKINGly stupid, i really don’t know where i could start!!!!!!
Breath is a mental ability too, every behavior is a ability, is important to overall well functioning of a hierarchically mechanic system.
Obviously that race for example will require less complex mental faculties but this doesn’t mean that it’s not a mental ability itself.
The other problem with Gardner’s …. is that kinesthetic talent is not a mental ability”
oh gosh, call me low iq histerical, will be Cheer on your part.
Is in your face and you don’t want to see it, incredible!!!!
real intellectually smart people break a information and look for all of your parts and don’t just buy it completely, what stupid people usually to do, like the bullshit ”race don’t exist” or ”race exist”.
real intellectually smart people has this nasty habit to scrutinizing every nuance of information, check it by all sides before taking a final verdict. However, sometimes, it is in the nose, too obvious to be refuted.
This is a healthy reasoning.
Iq is good for many things and is inconvenient for other that obviously will be related with intelligence’s.
You say things so SHOCKINGly stupid, i really don’t know where i could start!!!!!!
Breath is a mental ability too, every behavior is a ability, is important to overall well functioning of a hierarchically mechanic system.
Do you understand the difference between a mental ability and a physical ability?
😔
I will not answer this question.
”Do you understand the difference between a mental ability and a physical ability?”
A difference between central and peripherical nervous system.
PP,
Could there be something called ‘financial intelligence’? Like being smart with money. Yeah it could fall under mathematical /logical, but what i want to say is knowing what to invest your money in or knowing which assets will grow in value? and which wont etc.
I doubt financial intelligence exists. It’s probably a combination of general intelligence, math IQ, social IQ, and experience
Just because it’s a combination doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist in its own discrete second-order combination category that’s measureable.
I think it’s useful to think of second-order intelligences like that, it’s much more organized than having to go to the root repeatedly.
Yeah, Robert Lindsay probably has a high similarities and matrix reasoning score, which would indicate a strength in Math, but he’s shit. Others with lower scores are much better at math.
About Howard Gardner’s Multiple Intelligences Theory- I affirm his theory, I’ve been a social inept person all my life so far, but I’m fairly academically intelligent. I’m good at History, some Math, and Creative writing- while being absolute shit at Geometry.
There are many people who are amazing artists, a lot of them have average IQs. It would be unfair to say these people aren’t intelligent (average IQ doesn’t necessarily mean not intelligent).
I was trying to say Robert Lindsay was shit at math, not that he’s shit.
NO. Either it’s a combination of second-order factor (and then it’s a third-order skill) and you have to determine wich factor are combined and in which proportion. Either it’s a specific second-order and you have to proove it. That’s the only way to do it :
You create different kind of tests that involves solving financial questions. Then you should determine for each set of items the correlation with g (all mental activities positively correlates). Then, it’s easy – factor analysis – to substract the g from the results and see what you’ve got left.
If there is still a correlation, the Occam’s razor impses to identify correlation with existing second-order intelligence : verbal, math, spatial, processing speed, work memory … and subtract those.
If there is nothing left (marginal error and specific to the test that doesn’t correlate), you could say that the financial intelligence express itself by xG + yS1 + zS2 (where x+y+z+…=1 and Sn are the specific second-order intelligence).
If the financial tests still correlates among each other, you’ve got your specific specialized second-order factor, the “financial intelligence”.
Both ways, the result would be interesting. I guess someone could do a Phd about that and teach in a business school. This could be a lucrative field of research. All people are interested in recruiting people that have a higher chance of making money.
The following might be relevant:
https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=mark+grinblatt+iq&hl=en&as_sdt=0&as_vis=1&oi=scholart&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjC26GT5_3VAhUIOiYKHTn3DHUQgQMIGjAA
Researcher who studies IQ and financial success.
If you have to go to the bathroom in the middle of a timed test, would it be a spoiled subtest? Also, if that was the case, can’t someone who knows that the subtest he’s about to do will tap into his weak point, and the substitution subtest will tap into his strength, just go to the bathroom during that particular subtest?
I think presence of existential intelligence is valid, but is heavily influenced by intrapersonal intelligence. Or it could be some higher from of intrapersonal intelligence itself.
Naturalistic intelligence i agree may not be a valid inclusion. Or could there be something like a sensory intelligence?. Mentally excelling on things picked up by the physical senses? And musical intelligence and stuff like naturalistic intelligence be part of this?
PP,
Would you do a theory of intelligence?. I swear i am not asking this because of your earlier reply to me. XD. I have been thinking about doing this myself since the last two days. And when i came across this article again now, it occurred to me to ask you this.
Different theories explain intelligence and/ or intelligences slightly differently. This theory doesnt describe levels fully, while the triarchic theory is too general. There is also a theory that describes grades of intelligences. Not the spiritual grades of which there is another theory. But things like low grade and high grade intelligence. But doesnt describe types of intelligence. Is there a way to integrate all these and the kind of stuff i said in this comment if valid and makes sense, into an explanatory whole.
When you have the time ofcourse.XD