In article <email@example.com>, firstname.lastname@example.org (Brian M. Scott) wrote: >In article <32B78277.email@example.com>, firstname.lastname@example.org says... > >[snip] > >>My argument is that their are many kinds of intelligence, and to argue that >>certain types are more precious than others, in my opinion, is a form of >>bigotry. > >Has anyone done so? At most some have argued that the schools ought >to concern themselves with some and not with others. In fact, I'll >say so outright: I do not think that the development of 'physical >intelligence' (i.e., athleticism) or 'social intelligence' - beyond >a reasonable, useful minimum, at least - is the proper function of >the schools. This says nothing about the value I place on these >'intelligences'; it says a great deal about my view of the purpose >of elementary education.
I believe that the discipline dictates the kind of "intelligence" required to learn it. To the extent that many disciplines must be learned, having an "inadequate" kind of intelligence for that kind of learning is a severe disadvantage, if not almost a disability. As such, lack of the "right" sort of intelligence to learn something important must be strongly fought, redoubled effort must be taken to counterbalance that lack of fundamental skills and to rebuild some of them.
What cannot be done is to modify the discipline and water it down to suit individual preferences. And this sort of thing isn't very relevant to learning anyway: work, exposure and continuity are much more important.