my university's pedagogy department swears by the multiple

>>8897706
Suppose Tim is an expert at playing chess, but Bob is an expert at selling a product. Furthermore, Bob is weak at chess, and Tim is weak at selling products. Furthermore, assume Tim and Bob have the same looks, and differ only in mannerisms and actions.

It turns out this is quite common in the real world. The "geek" vs the "people person."

Is it as simple as saying that since Chess is a game of computation, that Tim is universally more intelligent than Bob? To say Tim is universally more intelligent than Bob, you have to prove that high-level Chess is a harder "game" than, say, getting laid or selling something. If what Bob does is so simple, and Tim is so much smarter, why is Tim still a virgin at 29?

>>8897738
g has empirical evidence, multiple intelligence theory doesnt
that's all you need to know

>>8897738
>. If what Bob does is so simple,
What Bob is doing isn't simple.

>and Tim is so much smarter, why is Tim still a virgin at 29?
Because being smart won't get you laid.

>>8897741
Sometimes to find empirical evidence, you have to seek it, which means you must first posit its existence. History shows us that until the invention of the microscope, the concept that invisible microbes are the carriers of disease was regarded as the raving of a madman.

There's plenty of empirical evidence of the multiple intelligence theory. Go to the engineering building of your local university right now and you'll see many geeks who understand very difficult concepts, yet can't understand how to convince a girl to spread her legs.

>>8897766
>What Bob is doing isn't simple.
That's my point. It's very complicated, and Bob is good at it. Thus, we can't prove Tim is more intelligent than Bob. If Chess didn't exist, we'd be calling Tim an idiot.

>>8897771
things like "social intelligence" have already been posited by hacks like Gardner and, of course, found out to also correlate to general intelligence g

>>8897778
>of course, found out to also correlate to general intelligence g
But this doesn't contradict the concept of social intelligence.

Here's an analogy: consider the metric of "bodyweight."
"Muscle mass" is correlated with bodyweight.
"Height" is also correlated with bodyweight.
"Body fat" is also correlated with bodyweight.
By your logic, we should refuse to acknowledge that there are different types of high weight people: that we should ignore muscle mass, height, and body fat exist, and only focus on one hamfisted metric.

>>8897801
>But this doesn't contradict the concept of social intelligence.
It does contradict the thesis of multiple, independent intelligences. they're all connected to g

>>8897804
This is only true if you hold that "g" as we currently measure it is the only measure of intelligence.

There might be some level of general cognitive function underlying your intelligence, but that doesn't really mean that someone who's very good at one cognitive function is automatically a polymath capable of mastering and understanding everything, or even going to be equally skilled at learning it.

>>8897824
>but that doesn't really mean that someone who's very good at one cognitive function is automatically a polymath capable of mastering and understanding everything
who said that?

File: settle down.png (444KB, 1139x358px) Image search: [Google]

444KB, 1139x358px

>>8897804
>correlation with g suggests that g is the only intelligence
wrong

social intelligence could also be more strongly correlated to another intelligence, let's call it "f", that we currently don't measure, which "g" is a poor predictor of. 30 year old engineering virgins are great at g, but retards at f

>>8897706
>Social science swears by an unscientific theory

Seems par for the course.

>>8897883
>could
we could be god's brainfarts
the evidence available points to a general intelligence correlated to all cognitive processes

>>8897828
The autist ITT that insists g is the end all be all of predicting intelligence.

>>8897893
ok, let's accept your evidence as proof that only g exists

then i posit that 30 year old engineering and math virgins with high "IQ" have the lowest "true" g. their lack of mental acuity is proven by their inability to read social signals