The Instigator
Topaet
Con (against)
Losing
2 Points
The Contender
Adam_Godzilla
Pro (for)
Winning
4 Points

Gardner's Multiple Intelligences vs General Intelligence Factor "g"

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 1 vote the winner is...
Adam_Godzilla
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/11/2018 Category: Science
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 3,279 times Debate No: 118934
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (14)
Votes (1)

 

Topaet

Con

Howard Gardner proposed his theory of multiple intelligences which suggests that there are many forms of mental abilities and that they are unrelated which leads to the conclusion that general intelligence does not exist. (Deary, 2001)

Gardner proposed eight different "intelligences":
1. Musical-rhythmic,
2. Visual-spatial,
3. Verbal-linguistic,
4. Logical-mathematical,
5. Bodily-kinesthetic,
6. Interpersonal,
7. Intrapersonal,
8. Naturalistic.
(Slavin, 2009)


I will be arguing that "g" general intelligence exists and accounts for a significant amount of the variability in cognitive ability in the general population and that Gardner's theory of multiple intelligences does not hold up.
Meanwhile, My opponent will be arguing that no general intelligence factor exists and that Gardner's separate multiple intelligences do exist.

Have fun arguing/reading the debate and please ensure that you use academic sources for fact-checking purposes (this should be considered while awarding the "sources" points. )
Adam_Godzilla

Pro

I've already said this in the comments. The winner for case 1 will be whoever loses more. There is no evidence for Gardner's theory AND for general intelligence factor. I'll show you why.


Case 1: Gardner's theory is real

I concede this. There is no evidence. However, I'll show you how Con won't have any evidence for his case 1 either.


Case 2: General intelligence factor is not real

I remind voters that for me to win this debate, I have to convince you that there is LESS reason to believe in GIF than MI (multiple intelligence/Gardner).

Thus, I have to create a third case:

Third case: MI is more convincing than GIF.

I don't need to make case 2, Because I can just refute Con's case 1. My rebuttal of con's case 1, Is my case 2 as you'll see.

So now my only case and argument is: MI is more convincing than GIF

I'll start.

Logically:

P1) On balance, A neutral theory is more convincing than a theory with negative evidence.
P2) There is evidence AGAINST GIF. There is no evidence against MI. Mi simply lacks evidence as it is so hard to measure.
C) MI is more convincing than GIF.

P1 is obvious. Notice I said it is more convincing. Not it is "better". I think the voter can agree this is fair to both parties.

Now I have to prove P2. P2 is simple. I just have to provide negative evidence for GIF.

To do this, I combine logic and statistic:

GIF can't exist if different ability tests do not correlate. For example, If you're good at maths, You're good at solving puzzles.

And :), This is EXACTLY what a group of researchers found. They conducted a study testing 100, 000 participants (which is a thousand times more than the standard) and gave them an ability test testing different cognitive skills:
1. Memory
2. Reasoning
3. Attention
4. Planning

"The results showed that when a wide range of cognitive abilities are explored, The observed variations in performance can only be explained with at least three distinct components: short-term memory, Reasoning and a verbal component. " - (Adam Hampshire Study, Imperial college, Can't put a link it crashes DDO).

They even went a step further and did brain scans and showed that different parts of the brain were responsible for short-term memory, Reasoning and verbalisation. But if you study neuroscience, You already know that. The point is that these things are independent and a person can have an advantage in one area than another.

If you test only one aspect, And I fail, I could still be intelligent in another aspect.

Thus GIF has negative evidence and is less convincing than MI.


Thank you. Over to Con.


Debate Round No. 1
Topaet

Con

Case 1 – A General Intelligence Factor Exists (rebuttal of Con’s Case 2):

Argument 1: Correlations on tests of mental ability

Data Set 1: Wechsler (1997)

The average correlation between the 13 subtests of the Wechsler’s Adult Intelligence Score (WAIS), Which is the most commonly used IQ-test worldwide, Is 0. 5 with some of the subtests having correlations of over 0. 8. Those subtests correlate so highly that they can be separated into four different hypothetical indexes (Processing Speed Index (PSI) with 2 subtests, Working Memory Index (WMI) with 3 subtests, Perceptual Reasoning Index (PRI) with 4 subtests and Verbal Comprehension Index (VCI) with another 4 subtests) these 4 indexes do however also correlate very highly (between 0. 6 and 0. 8) which means that they can be put down to a general intelligence factor (g). It can, Therefore, Be concluded that g accounts for about 50% (~0. 7 correlation) of the variability in cognitive ability in the general population (Wechsler, 1997) which shows that g both exists and amounts for a significant amount of the variability in cognitive ability.

Data Set 2: Spearman (1904)

Spearman (1904) found that the scores of schoolchildren’s different academic subjects were all positively correlated and that this positive correlation was almost entirely due to differences in g, Not due to differences in separate abilities.

Therefore, It can be concluded that g exists as whenever a group of people is tested on a range of mental abilities, The correlations between the scores are almost entirely positive (e. G. 0. 7 correlation on WAIS). (Deary, 2001).

Argument 2: There is a scientific consensus between researchers that g exists

Data Set 1: Neisser et al. , (1996):

In 1995 the American Psychological Association (APA), The largest and most authoritative professional psychological society (Dreary, 2001), Issued a report titled “Intelligence: Knowns and Unknowns” in response to the “serious misunderstandings” in the public about intelligence. They appointed a task force to establish through very wide consensus among psychologists what was known and what was not known about human intelligence. The report had the unanimous support of the entire task force and established several “knowns” about g.

  1. The g-based factor hierarchy (general abilities tested through subtests à indexes à g, As explained in Argument 1) is the most widely current view of the structure of abilities.
  2. There is a consensus that g is not just a statistical artefact, But does, In fact, Exists.

Data Set 2: Snyderman and Rothman (1987):

Stanley Rothman and Mark Snyderman surveyed 1020 experts (psychologists, Sociologists and educationalists) on their views on intelligence and aptitude testing. In response to the question “Is intelligence, As measured by intelligence tests, Better described in terms of a primary general intelligence factor and subsidiary group and special ability factors, Or entirely in terms of separate faculties? ” 58% favoured a general intelligence factor, Whereas only 13% felt that separate faculties (such as Gardner’s multiple intelligences) were superior.

Both data sets indicate that there is a general agreement between psychologists/experts that a general intelligence factor (g) does exist and, Furthermore, Only a marginal minority believes that intelligence is best understood as separate faculties. Therefore, It can be concluded that there is a general acceptance of the evidence (see Argument 1) in favour of a general intelligence factor while there seems to be little (as pro conceded) argument in favour of Gardner’s multiple intelligences.

Case 2 – Gardner’s multiple intelligences do not exist (Rebuttal of Con’s case 3)

Dataset 1: Visser, Ashton and Vernon (2006)

A g factor can be derived from the markers of Gardner’s multiple intelligences which correlated by 0. 76 with the g derived from the Wonderlic Cognitive Ability Test (a standard general intelligence test). It was further found that each of the domains proposed by Gardner appears to involve a blend of g (e. G. Verbal, Mathematical and Musical intelligences are strongly positively correlated and linked thereby to general cognitive ability. ), Of cognitive abilities other than g (group factors), And, In some cases, Of non-cognitive abilities or of personality characteristics (e. G. Physical intelligence and interpersonal intelligence are not considered cognitive skills but a set of motor skills and a set of personality traits. )

Therefore, By Con’s own standards, G is more believable than Gardner’s multiple intelligences as 1. There is positive evidence in favour of g, While Con conceded that there is none for Gardner’s theory and 2. There is evidence showing that Gardner’s theory is flawed as it actually measures g instead of separate intelligences and abilities that are not considered intelligences at all by the scientific community.

  • Hampshire has published over 90 studies, Please provide the name/date of the study that you are referring to for my rebuttal in round 3.
Adam_Godzilla

Pro

Con's Case 1 - "Data Set 1: Wechsler (1997)"

Con's data supports only the viewpoint that some factors of intelligence correlate. It does not show that intelligence as a whole can be generalised. Con's own study goes against his case. For example, One of his study's categories are Processing Speed, Working Memory, Perceptual Reasoning and Verbal Comprehension. Just because they all correlate, does not mean factor g exists because there could be a hundred more subcategories of intelligences.

Put it this way, Imagine you have 100 dogs. You see that 13 dogs have 3 legs. Then you say, "I guess this means dogs, In general, Have 3 legs! ". When it comes to highly complex subject matters like con looks at, I can see why he's made this lapse in logic.

In order for this study to work in con's favour, It must prove that their subcategories are all that exist. And that's impossible. It's why warned Con that he won't have good evidence, But he's ignored it and put in a whole bunch of studies. It's better to find negative evidence for MI if he wanted to win this debate. But I knew that he won't be able to, Hence, Why I think I've already won this debate.

Con's case 1 - "Data Set 2: Spearman (1904)"

"Spearman (1904) found that the scores of schoolchildren’s different academic subjects were all positively correlated and that this positive correlation was almost entirely due to differences in g, Not due to differences in separate abilities. "


Excuse me? How does this support your argument? Even con's own researcher admits to differences in intelligence. The readers don't have time to read a
100 page report to understand this theory. Con fails to make a comprehendible argument.

Con's case 1 - "Data Set 1 Neisser et al. , (1996)"

Con commits ad
populum fallacy. I don't think any of the readers would be fooled. Con's argument here is basically: "other scientists says so, So it must be true" and is a weak argument.

Con's case 1 - "Data Set 2: Snyderman and Rothman (1987)"

I don't understand why con continues to provide evidence that goes against him. Con's own study says: "58% favoured a general intelligence factor". Which is in direct contrast to the argument/study above.


"Only a marginal minority believes that intelligence is best understood as separate faculties. Therefore, It can be concluded that there is a general acceptance of the evidence (see Argument 1) in favour of a general intelligence factor while there seems to be little (as pro conceded) argument in favour of Gardner’s multiple intelligences. "

Ad
populum/ appeals to authority arguments are not good arguments. Don't appeal to authority. You're only suppose to use these kinds of arguments to manipulate gullible people. The readers are smarter than that. The reader should ignore these faulty arguments. What con is left with are weak arguments at best.

Con's case 2 - "Gardner’s multiple intelligences do not exist, Dataset 1: Visser, Ashton and Vernon (2006)"

Con finally debates properly and gives negative evidences for MI (Gardner's theory of multiple intelligence).

"A g factor can be derived from the markers of Gardner’s multiple intelligences which correlated by 0. 76 "

Again, Con's own argument works against him. What markers are you talking about? That means your study didn't even take into
acocount all the markers. So what if some of the factors can blend? That doesn't mean they can't be each their own type of factor. And your correlation wasn't perfect it was only at 0. 76. That's enough to subdivide the factors.

To remind the readers, The factors were:

1. Musical-rhythmic,
2. Visual-spatial,
3. Verbal-linguistic,
4. Logical-mathematical,
5. Bodily-kinesthetic,
6. Interpersonal,
7. Intrapersonal,
8. Naturalistic.


"And, In some cases, [they blend with] non-cognitive abilities or of personality characteristics".

So? Other unknown factors could exist, But that doesn't mean Gardner's factors don't. I don't understand how Con thinks this negates the theory.



"Hampshire has published over 90 studies, Please provide the name/date of the study that you are referring to for my rebuttal in round 3. "

Con criticises that I was not specific in my study. But neither has he. I don't understand why he made that criticism. Also, Con fails to give a rebuttal.


This is only a part of the scientific research: https://scottbarrykaufman. Com/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/Hampshire-et-al. -2012. Pdf

If you want to know more just look it up, '
adam hampshire 100, 000 people study', And you'll see a dozen news sites talking about it. DDO crashes if it gets too many links.

At the end, In the discussion, Hampshire writes: "The results presented here provide evidence to support the view that human intelligence is not unitary but, Rather, Is formed from multiple cognitive components. "

Con seems to like throwing a bunch of studies. I think this confuses readers and impairs their judgement when they are hit with a bunch of jargon. I want to remind readers to keep a logical and focused mind. Thank you.
Debate Round No. 2
Topaet

Con

Topaet forfeited this round.
Adam_Godzilla

Pro

I hold the same arguments.
Debate Round No. 3
14 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Adam_Godzilla 3 years ago
Adam_Godzilla
As expected, My opponent is HIGHLY intelligent.
Posted by Adam_Godzilla 3 years ago
Adam_Godzilla
In other words, A very interesting debate.
Posted by Adam_Godzilla 3 years ago
Adam_Godzilla
HOWEVER, What is interesting, Is Con is attempting to split the BOP. I want to see how he would prove the existence of "g". As I'm sure hundreds of studies would disprove it. And also, How general is general? One variance above half? Let's say six out of ten of intelligence factors correlate. Then con would be right to say the factors coalesce into a general factor. But again, His notion of generality is arbitrary.

So what we have are two losers, Both con and pro. The person who wins the debate is whoever loses more.
Posted by Adam_Godzilla 3 years ago
Adam_Godzilla
@akhenaten another way to look at is correlation. Gardner predicted that a person would be intelligent in one factor but not in another. He predicted that statistical analysis would show low correlation between the multiple factors. However, Research shows there is actually a high correlation. If you're smart in maths, You're probably smart in all the other areas too. Thus supporting the general intelligence factor.
Posted by Topaet 3 years ago
Topaet
@Adam the settings have been changed
Posted by Adam_Godzilla 3 years ago
Adam_Godzilla
Please change debate settings so we have 72 hours to reply. Dw, I don't take a lot of time.
Posted by Topaet 3 years ago
Topaet
Gardner argued that they are of independent origin but work together regardless.

A fitting analogy would perhaps be several authors that are writing a book together, They're not all the same author but they're working together and complementing each other and their work will lead to just one book.
Posted by Akhenaten 3 years ago
Akhenaten
You can't both work together and be independent. Nonsense.
Posted by Topaet 3 years ago
Topaet
@Akhenaten Gardner argued that even though they work together and tend to complement each other, They are independent, Unrelated mental abilities.
". . . There exists a multitude of intelligences, Quite independent of each other. . . " (Gardner, 1993)

Gardner's point of view is that intelligence is not a single entity which means that there is no general intelligence and that intelligence can not be measured via IQ tests.
Posted by Akhenaten 3 years ago
Akhenaten
Gardner never suggests that these intelligences are separate compartments hidden in the brain as you are suggesting.
Quote :https://www. Washingtonpost. Com/news/

"Gardner"s theory initially listed seven intelligences which WORK TOGETHER"
Thus, The intelligences are NOT unrelated.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Leaning 3 years ago
Leaning
TopaetAdam_GodzillaTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:24 
Reasons for voting decision: Analysis, both did fine. Refutation, only Pro really did. Organization, little bit hard for me to understand either side. Con had numerous and relevant sources. Con reason for forfeit is unknown, and while probably had a reason and not trying to be rude, does count as a loss of conduct. Con loses argument first-most because he was not around for round 3 to tie all of his argument together. Maybe he would have lost or won for different reasons if he had been around, but he was not.

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.