Do you agree that all nine of Gardner's intelligences are really forms of lntelllgence? If so, choose one of the non-academic intelligences and explain why it qualifies as a form of intelligence. If not, choose one and explain why you think it is not a form of intelligence.
Step 11 of 2
There is no empirical evidence for Gardner's intelligences theory, there is no support from experimental psychology. Intelligence tests support the theory of general intelligence rather than multiple intelligences. The theory has been criticized by mainstream psychology for its lack of empirical evidence, and its dependence on subjective judgement. This refers that abilities and skills are being inaccurately equated with an intelligence in this theory. For example, this may imply that music or kinesthetic abilities are not an intelligence but perhaps just a skill.
The answer to this heavily depends on the definition of intelligence that we will measure Gardner’s theory against. Within the scope of this question, I define intelligence as the natural tendency to perform better at a certain area paired with competence and expertise in it, so yes I believe that according to this definition we can consider Gardner’s nine intelligences to be forms of intelligence.
For example, since we know it’s true that some people possess a natural tendency and insight towards analyzing and debating larger-context philosophical ideas, and since it’s possible for this tendency to be honed with experience and training (like getting a degree in philosophy for instance) that will increase the person’s competence in this area then we can consider existential intelligence to be a form of intelligence according to the definition we discussed in the last paragraph.
this question requires you to support a position on the topic of "whether or not Gardner’s nine forms of intelligence can actually be considered intelligence". Accordingly, there’s no right and wrong answer here as long as discuss and build a logical argument supporting your position.