IQ does a far better job of measuring intelligence than it does social status or economic status. Or this obscurantist concept of "socioeconomic" status.
If you're going to just make stuff up, at least be realistic.
If you're going to just make stuff up, at least be realistic.
How good you are at thinking about stuff.
Or even if you try thinking about a real problem, you won’t get the right answer because the way to do that is experiments, not thinking about it a lot.
It does not take into account perceptive intelligence, emotional intelligence, and others.
Until there's a new standard, or they see a need to do something different, scientists interested in intelligence are going to stick to measuring IQ.
What we have can and should be discussed and challenged. Not having a complete, new and better solution, doesn't prevent us from pointing at flaws. All the while working on the new thing.
The main fault of Gardner’s theory is that it has no empirical backing of any kind[1], which effects its popularity with Ed schools not at all.
Sternberg’s theory at least actually works. It’s just that it is extra work and complexity for no increase in predictive validity. There’s no way to distinguish it from straight g.
[1]According to a 2006 study, many of Gardner's "intelligences" correlate with the g factor, supporting the idea of a single dominant type of intelligence. According to the study, each of the domains proposed by Gardner involved a blend of g, of cognitive abilities other than g, and, in some cases, of non-cognitive abilities or of personality characteristics.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_multiple_intellige...
By whom? Previous comment: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31376980