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

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. 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. 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.