Mike wrote:
> many years ago, i read an article in a magazine on different types of > intelligence. the article spoke of intellectual intelligence, of course. > it also spoke of artistic intelligence and included many examples from the > 'high arts'. another type of intelligence the article covered, and it was > the first time it had occured to me as such, was physical intelligence. > michael jordan, then in his prime, was the example they chose to illustrate > 'physical intelligence'. > > 'physical intelligence' was described as being intelligent in a physical > way not an intellectual way. it is not use of the body as being designed by > a reasoning mind. it is non-verbal. proprioception is an example of > physical intelligence. michael jordan is a proprioceptive genius, so is > larry bird, so is tiger woods (so too was seve ballesteros until he 'lost > it').
Mike, I'll tell you the truth: THAT is crap!!! :-) It's the same as saying music is a different kind of language. That's changing the meaning of the word language completely while still taking advantage of the usual perception of what language is.
Physical intelligence is a politically correct way to say: physical ability. It's a way people like Howard Gardner found to justify why they can't teach some people to read and understand a text:
Parent: My son has been in this school for years but he still can't interprete what he reads. What's wrong about this school? Teacher: It's not our fault. Your son''s brain is wired to jump, not to read. Parent: So... my son was born to be stupid!? Teacher: Not really. He's 'physically intelligent'.
So, why not:
Parent2: My son can't read either. And he still keeps stealing things from the grocery store. Teacher: He probably has a 'criminal intelligence'. Parent3: And mine can't even walk. Teacher: She has a 'stationary inteligence'...
Intelligence is the ability to acquire, process and relate information. It has always meant that. If you're only 'physically intelligent' you're stupid. But a good athlete, and maybe RICHER! ( I'd rather be that kind of stupid! )
> singing can be part of physical intelligence. however, if the attempt > is made to verbalize control over singing, then, it is no longer of physical > intelligence, it is mental.
That's the problem of the simplification people like Gardner promote: Michael Jordan is not only 'physically intelligent', but also 'strategically intelligent' ( just to respect Gardner's multiple crap ). And that is mental, though probably intuitive ( non-rational, not from the Cosmos, please! ), intelligence.
When you learn a physical ability, like typing, it's first completely commanded by the higher area in the brain, the neo-cortex, which is the one that 'holds' reasoning. When it becomes automatic, it's dealt with by lower areas, and you don't have to care about that anymore. The same goes for speech-like singing: it was first learned with a conscious effort by the child until it became mastered in such a way that it's taken for granted. Opera singers are only redoing that ( and so are pop singers whose speech-like singing is not good ).
Bye,
Caio Rossi
|
| |