This is my first op (? is it) so hello to the crew. Been lurking around for a while but certainly don’t have everyone
placed - probably never will.
Psychologists used to model the components of intelligence as a cube made up of smaller blocks representing
various aspects of intelligence, for example: math skills and verbal skills were each smaller blocks of the larger
structure. The placement of the blocks also had something of a resemblance to a periodic table relationship between
them in that simmer abilities were grouped close by. Is this view still current and if so what are the component parts
these days? I’ve looked around the net but have not come up with anything specific. Any input or links? Have not had
that much time to poke around and what I have had been spent on trying to understand Geezers last few posts which
ain’t easy for me.
**PS[/] this certainly is not a philosophical question, at least intentionally.
David/Trouts1
please don’t put hard returns in unless you intend to make a paragraph.
A psychologist is the last person I’d ask about intelligence.
Psychologists are often more nuts than the patients.
Now that we’ve all gotten our editorial comments in. . .
This won’t be a complete answer, but I think it’ll get you on the right course. The current accepted view (and these things change over time) is that “intellegence” is a blend of a variety of skills. This isn’t complete, but I think the skills include verbal (reading and using words, mathematical (numbers), spatial (properly interpreting the physical world), kinesthetic (movement and coordination), music, and I believe one which has something to do with how we interact with others.
I can’t talk about psycologists, but educators use these categories to develop teaching methods. For example, traditional reading and lecture techniques work best with verbal students, while a skit or play will work better with students who process best through movement and music.
While most people accept that people learn in different ways, this is still a controversial theory. However, it’s done in practice in such techniques as whole language versus phonics in reading, number problems versus word problems in math and sign language versus lip-reading in deaf communication.
kunilou
Right, thats the type of breakout I was thinking about. As I remember it it was something like 16 skills when I first studied it. Years later I saw a breakdown that was much more complex but as I mentioned I have not been able to find any sites yet for this. I’ll probably have to hit the library for this.
There are eight commonly acknowledged intelligences used by many psychologists.They are:Linguistic, Naturalistic, Bodily-Kinisthetic, Logical-Mathmatical, Intrapersonal, Interpersonal, Musical, and Spatial.
Now is the time for all good men to come the the aid of their gazorninplatt.
Templeton
Wow, looks like all the “dumbing down” everyone barks about is true. There are now fewer skills than before. You’ve given me some search tags though so I’ll snoop around and see if I can dredge up that old cube model.
Thanks
Dumbing down, eh? 
Well, the leading view in education and psychology right now is actually the 7 intelligence model. Basically what Templeton had listed, but without the naturalistic one. So we have…
Linguistic
Kinisthetic
Logical
Intrapersonal
Interpersonal
Musical
Spatial
Hmm… not that I think of it, there might be one that’s wrong, but I think I’ll leave something for you all to shoot down
Ha - found scads of theories at: http://www.gwu.edu/~tip/theories.html
From Triarchic Theory: http://www.gwu.edu/~tip/stern.html
http://users.rcn.com/trouts1/sd/tri.jpg
To my old buddy, Gilford’s Theory: http://www.gwu.edu/~tip/guilford.html
http://users.rcn.com/trouts1/sd/gil.jpg
[quoted]
In Guilford’s Structure of Intellect (SI) theory, intelligence is viewed as comprising operations, contents, and products. There
are 5 kinds of operations (cognition, memory, divergent production, convergent production, evaluation), 6 kinds of products
(units, classes, relations, systems, transformations, and implications), and 5 kinds of contents (visual, auditory, symbolic,
semantic, behavioral). Since each of these dimensions is independent, there are theoretically 150 different components of
intelligence.
[quoted]
Guilford researched and developed a wide variety of pyschometric tests to measure the specific abilities predicted by SI
theory. These tests provide an operational definition of the many abilities proposed by the theory. Furthermore, factor
analysis was used to determine which tests appeared to measure the same or different abiltiies.
[quoted]
Parenthetically, it is interesting to note that a major impetus for Guilford’s theory was his interest in creativity (Guilford, 1950).
Gilford’s is the Structure of Intellect model from 1967
The seven intelligences model of **Multiple Intelligences/b] by Gardner from the 1980s and 90s is a bit more current.
I like this description:
(i) the componential subtheory which outlines the structures and mechanisms that underlie intelligent behavior categorized as metacognitive, performance, or knowlege acquistion components,
(ii) the experiential subtheory that proposes
intelligent behavior be interpreted along a continuum of experience from novel to highly familar tasks/situations,
(iii) the contextual subtheory which specifies that intelligent behavior is defined by the sociocultural context in which it takes place and involves adaptation to the environment, selection of better environments, and shaping of the present environment.
The triarchic theory is a general theory of human intelligence. Sternberg has used the theory to explain exceptional intelligence (gifted and retardation) in children and also to critique existing intelligence tests.
Quoted from the same place as above.
Well, the basic point seems to have been gotten across pretty well by Nickrz and handy, but I’ll put up here the response to the title of this thread that I was going to give:
What do intelligent people think psychologists are?
Ray (Check out the theories of chiropractors, theosophists, astrologers, etc. while you’re at it. And why aren’t Timothy Leary’s ideas presented here?)