In Reply to: Re: Critical intelligence posted by Carol on September 22, 2004 at 21:58:04:
I was goingto give a reference to that very same page but I decided not to.
I subscribe to constructivism but I have problems with the idea of "intelligence" in general. Gardner's idea is well substantiated but almost as a principle I await more proof of how to measure. Without minimizing qualitative methods, what cannot be meassured is not real. I say this as a proof-matters type of person but phenomena exist without objective standard to measure them: love, sorrow, happiness, etc.
One methods is intriguing to me and you may be familiar with: psychometrics. The problem is that in emotional subjective phenomenon these measures are difficult to collect and callibrate.
I find that the discussion of intelligence has always been bias towards a particular component (in the constructivist view) rather than to the whole. And there is no agreement as to what is more important, the component and its role or the system as a whole. Of course, this is because we don't know enough to determine a half-baked answer.
I think behavioral psychology still has a strong hold in academic halls, thus empirical research is still rocking the boat of theory. On the other hand, cognitive psychology is better equiped to deal with measures and perhaps provide some strength to what we already know of previous paradigms.
My knowledge and understanding of constructivism is at least about 12 years old so I am sure there is a lot I don't know about it. It is a theme that fascinates me so I will happily read what you know about it, which I am sure is a whole lot more than me.