Intelligence

[davewitley]

--- In HPFGU-OTChatter at y..., "Shaun Hately" <drednort at a...> wrote:

> The problem is that if you  include too many things, [in the 
definition of intelligence] you can wind up making the 
> term virtually meaningless. Educationally speaking, it is very 
important to be able 
> to identify specifically where issues are - by using a tight 
definition of intelligence 
> (as is done in IQ testing), it allows us to look for problems 
revealed by the testing. 
> Other things are important as well - some of them can be 
significantly more 
> important - but if you cast the net too wide, there is a real risk 
that if a problem is 
> noted, you won't know where to look.

I feel I am losing track of the terms of the debate.

If the (presumed measurable) quantities that go into intelligence 
and/or educational achievement are multidimensional, aren't you bound 
to lose information by condensing to a single thing 
called 'intelligence'?

If all the kids you deal with fall into a cluster in this space 
(especially if that cluster is at one end of a linear structure that 
represents the rest of the population) then it's OK to do that.

But if, as I suspect is the case, the special educational needs 
population in general, and gifted kids in particular, are scattered 
widely, then surely you need to retain multiple measures to properly 
assess needs.  Some of your post implies that you do do just that.

But in that case it seems invidious to single out one dimension and 
call it 'intelligence', because, whatever the experts do, the public 
will latch onto it, and stigmatise their children accordingly.  That 
seems to me to be just as important an issue as ensuring that 
particular groups of kids get the right educational provision for 
them.

David