Friday, February 16, 2007

Attacking Multiple Intelligences

I had tolerated all the theories of Multiple Intelligences because I thought that the academic enviroment will ensure debate on this subject. However I notice that it became even stronger and stronger and above all other theories on intelligence.

My theory, that claims to be treating intelligence in general and boldly called Intelligence Theory had never been quoted and mentioned, let alone criticised.

I may not be a well known researcher, but my theory is already been used in similar manners by previous Engineering Researchers, especially G.N. Saridis. At least these people are highly scientific in their approaches, unlike these theories on Multiple Intelligences.

In the engineering world, most research on Intelligence centres around making devices, treating definitions lightly. This had left a vacuum to psychologists to define intelligences in their peculiar ways that are in most cases completely unscientific and therefore unfounded.

The greatest weakness in all these Multiple Intelligences is that they assume that they know the desirable outcome perfectly. They interpret high intelligence as having success in solving problems.

So they assume that successful people have high level of intelligences. However this failed to withstand the logical test. It used to be emotional intelligence. So they assume that powerful people are the most successful. It ignores peole such as Einstein and Bill Gates.

Eisten is among the best scientific mind there is. While Bill Gates is the richest man on Earth, Bill Clinton, is the most powerful leader of the World by being the President of the USA, at least for the duration of 8 years. Similarly for Bush.

By their assumptions, Bush may be the most intelligent human being on earth.

It is pointless to find out the characteristics of successful people but this is vital which made them popular for fund raising work.

Useful work can still be done even without defining the degree of sucess of any behaviour. This is well proven by Shannon in his Information Theory.

Information is just defined by its physical characteristics, not its usefulness to humans or groups of humans.

It is theoretically possilbe for us to find out this usefulness characterictics but they are not fixed and are very complex and varible because it depends on so many factors, which make data finding almost impossible to get right.

Mastering Intelligence Scientifically

That is the proposed title for my proposed book which is still under development.

I'd just like to welcome criticisms and discussions on a scientific definition of Intelligence.

For more information you may refer to my previous publications in my homepage

In creating this blogspot, I notice that there are two other blogspots, intellignece and intelligencetheory.

I'd like to visit all blogspots that want to discuss alternative definitions of intelligence. I am well aware of the "emotional intelligence" theories but I consider them as useless because they are not scientific.

I'm disappointed that many academicians are abandoning scientific principles in their research and analysis.

Any criticism is most welcomed.