>>12973745>The thing is, I wouldn't call it intelligence. I'd be fine calling it "motor ability", but to me intelligence should only refer to thinking ; you don't need motor ability in order to conduct scientific research.I would argue you do need motor ability to conduct research, my current research requires me to do so. And if I didn't have the ability to "acquire and apply knowledge and skills" in a motor capacity, I'd never have been able to become proficient in said research (of which the mainstay atm is pipetting, etc)
>Sure, but since it's unrelated to thinking I wouldn't call it intelligence for the same reason as above. Also, you can be super empathetic, if you have an IQ of 80 life will be a struggle.You can also have an IQ >130 but no emotional aptitude, also making your life a struggle.
>Check out the criticism section of wikipedia's page on howard gardner's theory of multiple intelligence.They debunk the MI theory, sure, and actually that part on "g factor" I find to be rather interesting, more so than the IQ tests in and of themselves. But nothing I found was denying the possibility of emotional intelligence, if you have some thing please forward it.
"She argued that despite this, the ideas of multiple non-g intelligences are very attractive to many due to the suggestion that everyone can be smart in some way" it's a real 'montasori school' way of thinking but even Einstein had that famous fish quote about this.
>I wouldn't say they were unintelligent, for I don't whether or not they were, but I would certainly NOT call them intelligent based on their music only. I do suspect they were pretty smart, since they composed very complex music which I assume must engage the same kind of cognitive processes as logical thinking does.I used these examples specifically because they've been called geniuses for their musicality, their proficiency in creating an emotional response in the listener.
