No matter what you or anyone else has told you, I’m here to
state an important fact today: You are intelligent. Every single one of you.
Before you start to argue with me, let me also state that
some of you are intelligent in ways that the standard metrics don’t see.
In Education, we study Howard Gardner’s Multiple
Intelligence theory, which delineates at least nine distinct forms of
intelligence. While the standard ones of
verbal/linguistic and logical/mathematical are often
classified as evidence of smartness by teachers and peers alike, others like musical, bodily-kinesthetic, and interpersonal intelligence go unnoticed
or noted as talents, but not signs of intelligence. Yet they are and harnessing their power can
help even the weakest student learn new things better.
Here’s the deal- you possess all of these intelligences, just
in varying amounts. Some of them are
super high, others in the middle ground, and a few are low. But another plus to Gardner’s theory (which
is also supported by Dweck’s growth mindset model) is that ALL intelligences
can be developed to a higher mastery.
AND nearly every intelligence can be used to support or supplement other
more traditional learning models, if you know what you are doing.
So why am I blabbering on about all of this?
Because over the next nine weeks, I want to dive into each
of these intelligences (with a little help from Brad who will be doing a guest
post for me) and how we can use it in our quest to learn languages. I’ll also try to give tips on how to boost
that particular intelligence, in case you find it to be a weak rather than a
strong point. Hopefully, you’ll find
some new methods that will help you maximize your own unique gifts, or at least
try something new.
For today, I want to just give a brief overview of each
intelligence, as well as some notes on how easily it relates to languages. Let’s dive in, shall we?
(Word) Intelligence: People with high linguistic intelligence are good with
language, both in terms of deduction and creation. Generally people with high verbal-linguistic
intelligence enjoy reading and writing (or oral story-telling). They enjoy plays on words and appreciate the
effort expelled to create a pretty sentence.
Obviously, most people who consider themselves good at languages likely
have high verbal-linguistic intelligence.
In the article on this one, we’ll focus more on how to develop this
intelligence to a higher level, as most of the typical activities we think
about for language learning fall under this intelligence anyhow.
(Logic) Intelligence: People with high logical-mathematical intelligence
are often good with numbers or putting together logical statements. Computer programmers very often have high
levels of this intelligence, as do people who work with numbers such as engineers
or accountants. At first glance this may
not seem to connect to language well, but I’d disagree. I think many people with logical-mathematical
intelligence are good at deconstructing grammar and creating sentence formulas
to help them communicate. They often can
organize information well, especially if they also have strong visual
Intelligence: This can go two directions.
The more obvious one is being able to represent things and ideas
visually. We often think of artists in
this group, but if you know someone who creates incredible mind maps or other
visual representations of their notes, chances are they have high visual intelligence. Another way to manifest this intelligence is
being good with understanding spatial concepts.
You know that person who NEVER seems to get lost, even in brand new
places, even when their GPS doesn’t work?
Or the person like my mother who can eyeball a cup of flour or tell you
exactly which rooms are directly above which in a house she’s walked through
once? Often people with high
visual-spatial intelligence initially struggle with language because the words
feel too abstract, but once they start adding pictures or other visual elements
to their learning programs, they catch up quick.
(Physical) Intelligence: This is
another one with multiple directions, but often simply stated as “learning by
doing.” Athletes and craftspeople often
fall into this category- they demonstrate intelligence through physical action
and creation. Drama can also often fall
in with these two as the physicality of theater is often the most critical
piece (think of those early silent film actors and actresses and how key their
actions and facial expressions were). If
one is learning a sign language, the connection to language is clear. But I find that even for spoken languages,
utilizing physical motions helps solidify vocabulary retention. AND let us not
forget the ever important learning of gestures and of course pronunciation,
which have physical components.
Brad will be writing the guest post for this one, but I’ll go ahead and introduce
it. These are people who are good with
rhythms and melodies, whether by playing an instrument, singing, composing
music, or even quality critics who can distinguish between large numbers of
pieces. Musical intelligence lends
itself nicely to language learning. Many
of us have learned vocabulary in simple songs or enjoyed music in the language
we are studying. Also chants and rhythms
can help us memorize information, as well as make it easier to learn both
prosody and tones of a language.
(Nature/Science) Intelligence: I am less familiar with this one as it was
added after I completed my formal study, but from my reading, I understand it
to be related to being able to classify natural systems as well as recognize
and even derive natural laws. Think
Charles Darwin out there sketching his finches and developing the theory of
evolution, without it already being written in a book for him to study- just
making connections among the physical evidence.
My cousin was the type who with a little bit of science knowledge at 8
could extrapolate how it applied to all sorts of situations, while I needed
much more direct explanation. While this
one has a very low connection to language naturally (pun unintended), I believe
we can make that classification aspect work for us.
(People/Social) Intelligence: This one is fairly self explanatory, but not
as limited as some think. As the name
suggests, this is the ability to interact with people well, often associated
with high emotional intelligence. These
are the great conversationalists, the people who read others well, and who know
how to work a crowd. This does NOT
always mean they are extroverted though.
Many introverts ARE highly intelligent in interpersonal matters, they
just need time to recharge. And many
extroverts are not as good at this as they think- we all know that person who has to be the center of attention, even
in the most inappropriate situations (e.g. the brother of the bride who makes
an arse of himself at her wedding).
Obviously, interpersonal intelligence can be highly useful to an
aspiring polyglot because one needs to talk with people to practice! Also people with high interpersonal intelligence
are likely to pick up on and acclimate to new cultural norms with ease, making
them blend in faster.
Intelligence: This is in many ways the reverse of the former, though that
does not mean one can’t be highly versed in both. Intrapersonal intelligence is all about
understanding yourself, knowing what makes you tick and how to motivate
yourself. It means understanding how you
learn best and what brings you both joy and stress and how to effectively deal
with both. Again, this plays a high role
in what many call emotional intelligence.
Intrapersonal intelligence may not initially seem super connected to
language learning (which after all, often has communication as its focus) BUT
knowing how you learn is critical to the autodidact
(self-taught learner- favorite word of a friend) and knowing how to boost
your own motivation is even more essential.
Therefore intrapersonal intelligence can be a great asset to a language
(Philosophical/Spiritual) Intelligence: Please forgive me, as I may falter
on this explanation. This is another one
that was not included in the list when I was formally studying this
information. But, from the reading, this
seems to be focused on people who ponder and come to interesting conclusions
about the BIG questions: why are we here,
what happens after we die, what does it mean to be “good”. I had to think a long while how this
intelligence would interact with language learning. Ultimately, I think this intelligence helps
one assign purpose (and therefore encourage motivation) to the activity and
also perhaps help one deal with the more abstract aspects of language
learning. We all know those expressions
that you have to feel more than learn in a formal respect- this is the
kind of thing that existential intelligence may help one acquire.
I hope you will find the next few weeks interesting as we
look at each intelligence in depth and give suggestions on how to both develop
this intelligence as well as how to use it to improve your language
learning. I’ll try to include some links
along the way for those interested in knowing more. Until then, peace out my Polyglot Peeps!
'Girls,' 'The Americans,' Network Presidents Panels Added to ATX Lineup
The ATX Television Festival is solidifying its lineup.
Girls, The Americans, Fear the Walking Dead, Fargo, The Leftovers, Playing House and The Mick are several of the latest scripted series headed to Austin for the sixth annual festival, which will take place June 8-11.
For the first time in the festival’s history, ATX will host a networks president panel, featuring NBC Entertainment president Jennifer Salke, Hulu head of content Craig Erwich, HBO programming president Casey Bloys, FX president of original programming Nick Grad and Showtime programming president Gary Levine. The panel will cover topics such as branding, audience growth, the changing models of picking up and distributing series, and creating series for TV’s ever changing landscape.
Several upcoming series will also screen at ATX, including John Singleton’s FX drama Snowfall, Mark Duplass’ HBO anthology Room 104, AMC’s Western The Son, Freeform’s Bella Thorne starrer Famous in Love and magazine drama The Bold Type, the Farrelly brothers’ AT&T Audience network comedy Loudermilk and truTV’s Andrea Savage-led half-hour I’m Sorry.
The ABC drama October Road will reunite at the festival, joining previously announced ATX reunions for The Comeback, Designing Women, Northern Exposure and thirtysomething as well as the writers of Alias, among others.
ATX is also pushing into unscripted with a panel on the history of MTV’s reality series, featuring exec producers from The Real World, Road Rules, The Challenge, Jersey Shore, The Hills and Teen Mom. TruTV will also present its new game show Talk Show the Game Show.
Other shows headed to ATX include This Is Us, Grace and Frankie and I’ll Have What He’s Having.
So last night I was doing a bunch of exponential function math stuff til late and listening to Five Year Mission (a Star Trek band) [yeah I’m super cool] and this morning I got excited and wrote a little exponential function for the Tribble population growth model as in “The Trouble With Tribbles” and as it turns out, when Spock says there are 1,771,561 (I don’t have that memorized) [just kidding, I do] Tribbles in the container… He is correct.
#the more you know
“NEW GROWTH/STRATUM MODEL, 2009 New Growth: Stratum Model reflects a merging of the natural and the built environment. Designed to operate at once as landscape and architecture, the schematic of stacked planes seen from a bird’s eye view toggles between topography map and building in plan. There is an illusion from this vantage point that the form has been compressed into a single plane. But viewed in elevation or perspective these horizontal levels decompress and expand to suggest accessible spaces. As in previous work I am interested in the notion of how a scale model with an unspoken ratio might operate. That is, the model might represent at once a microscopic landscape made large to allow human scale spelunking and an imagined sprawling cityscape shrunken to miniature size. The notion of growth refers both to the way that biological models have informed the design of the individual forms in the sculpture and the way in which the edges of these stacked planes create a kind of provisional boundary. It is a model for a built environment where edges converse with the particulars of a natural site - rivers, extreme changes in elevation, encroaching marshland. Urban growthcan be developed from the top down with leveling, grid planning and other kinds of imposed schematics. But such growth also occurs from the inside out, directed in a manner more akin to cellular organization in response to environment. New Growth: Stratum Model was created for Suyama Space in Seattle, Washington, an alternative space for experimental sculptural projects created by curator Beth Sellers with the support of architect George Suyama, and located in the architectural firm of Suyama Peterson Deguchi.
Stratum A horizontal layer of material, especially one of several parallel layers arranged one on top of another. Geology. A bed or layer of sedimentary rock having approximately the same composition throughout. Any of the regions of the atmosphere, such as the troposphere, that occur as layers. Biology. A layer of tissue: the epithelial stratum. A level of society composed of people with similar social, cultural, or economic status. One of a number of layers, levels, or divisions in an organized system: a complex poem with many strata of meaning.”
what’s with the whole inane “wealth is not a zero sum game” bullshit libertarian talking point
wealth is a representation of the level of access to resources someone has, and resources are finite. logically, increasing everyone’s resource access to the level of access that the hyper rich have would deplete these resources, unless we assume an absolutely inhuman level of restraint and self-control.
so no, libertarians, it is not possible for everyone to become billionaires. there is not enough metal in the earth for everyone to have a fleet of yatchs. and most significantly, this means the project of alleviating poverty, that is, increasing the resource access of the poor, necessarily involves reducing the resource access of the rich. no way around it.