This Twitter-rant is too good not to share here (H/T Tim van der Zee):
This whole paragraph (Gardner, 2011, p. xix) is a train wreck of scientific logic. Basically, Gardner says because he doesn't want to be a psychometrician, he doesn't have to gather data to multiple intelligences… and the theory isn't testable anyway.#psychology pic.twitter.com/WidBCBcqqb
— Russell T. Warne (@Russwarne) September 29, 2018
These are the sort of stupid things that you can only get away with saying if you're a famous Harvard professor, like Howard Gardner (2011, pp. xxi-xxii). #psychology pic.twitter.com/M6qqF9yV3k
— Russell T. Warne (@Russwarne) September 29, 2018
The circular reasoning of Howard Gardner's (2011, p. xxxiv) multiple intelligences theory:
"Why does Anne perform well in chess? Because she has high spatial intelligence. How do we know Anne has high spatial intelligence? Look at how good she is at chess!" #psychology pic.twitter.com/8IKqbyTjOq— Russell T. Warne (@Russwarne) September 30, 2018
My odyssey into Gardner's (2011) book about multiple intelligences continues. I'm on the sections about genetics, and it's a train wreck. Here (p. 34) Gardner confuses the universal presence of an ability (like language) with individual differences in the ability. #psychology pic.twitter.com/cl4mXuETIl
— Russell T. Warne (@Russwarne) October 7, 2018
Another paragraph (Gardner, 2011, p. 36) based on the level of information available in 1981. Unfortunately, most people reading his book will not be aware of how woefully out of date Gardner's information is. #psychology and #genetics have resolved most of these issues. pic.twitter.com/D13TQU6XX7
— Russell T. Warne (@Russwarne) October 7, 2018
Reblogged this on kadir kozan.
[…] study actually answers a question that I’ve had for quite a while: how come some ideas move through academia even if they’re not that good, while great insights sometimes seem to take ages to get around. This new study from Allison […]