www.mslaw.edu What is the MI theory? Howard Gardner, author of Five Minds for the Future, discussed his multiple intelligence theory on the television show Books of Our Time with host Lawrence R. Velvel (visit Velvel’s blog at www.velvelonnationalaffairs.com), Dean of the Massachusetts School of Law. Gardner discusses his belief that one’s intelligence cannot be categorized as simply smart, average, or dumb. He suggests that such terms are far too generic as each individual is the combination of what he calls multiple intelligences (MI). He suggests that each skill that one is good or bad at, whether chess or academic pursuits, is a separate intelligence and should be observed as such. Gardner’s theory revolutionizes the human perception of intelligence. Watch the whole interview at
Related Tags:
Google Tech Talk (more info below) August 18, 2011 Presented by Steve Hsu. How do genes affect cognitive ability? I begin with a brief review of psychometric measurements of intelligence, introducing the idea of a “general factor” or IQ score. The main results concern the stability, validity (predictive power), and heritability of adult IQ. Next, I discuss ongoing Genome Wide Association Studies which investigate the genetic basis of intelligence. Due mainly to the rapidly decreasing cost of sequencing, it is likely that within the next 5-10 years we will identify genes which account for a significant fraction of total IQ variation. We are currently seeking volunteers for a study of high cognitive ability. Participants will receive free genotyping. Speaker Info: Steve Hsu is Professor of Theoretical Physics at the University of Oregon and Director of its Institute of Theoretical Science. Educated at Caltech and Berkeley, he was a Harvard Junior Fellow and Assistant Professor at Yale before moving to Oregon in 1998. He is also the founder of two Silicon Valley software startups in the area of information security. He serves as Scientific Advisor to the Cognitive Genomics Lab of BGI (formerly the Beijing Genomics Institute), one of the leading genomics research centers in the world.
Intelligence Repackaged
On Monday Aug 4, 2008 Reuters reported that the pentagon “was closing a controversial intelligence office that had raised concerns about domestic spying by the military after the September 11 attacks.”
The program was known as TALON (Threat and Local Observation Notice), which many of you may have heard about briefly when it was leaked that the database they created had information on citizens of the United States. This is a clear violation of the Posse Comitatus Act and a breach of the 4th Amendment.
TALON was set up to “monitor threats against U.S. military installations, was found to have retained information on U.S. antiwar protesters including Quakers after they had been found to pose no security danger.” We all know how dangerous those Quakers can be, with their whole pacifist ideology. The bigger question is not that they were looking to find terrorists within the United States, most everyone would agree we need to do that.
But, why were they keeping data on citizens that had absolutely no connection to terrorists, and as importantly, why were they doing it without a court order?
The report went on to state “Those responsibilities will now be carried out by a new organization called the Defense Counterintelligence and Human Intelligence Center, overseen by the Pentagon’s Defense Intelligence Agency.”
The Reuters report went on to state that members of Congress were concerned over what they perceived were issues of violations of civil liberties. Now, since Congress has voiced these concerns, the Defense Department, as directed by Secretary Gates, will transfer these functions to a different agency because they could be performed more effectively.
There was no mention of any positive actionable intelligence was ever gained from this program or if a single terrorist was ever captured based on the data collected. We know that this, and other, data mining activities are ongoing within the Department of Defense, for our own safety of course.
A question that has always gnawed at me since 9/11; if we are so concerned with securing our nation, why are we not securing the borders and focusing our efforts on terrorist outside of our country, instead of the citizens within the country? The same tactics and techniques which are used against the enemy are used against this countries own citizens; so who is the enemy?
Should we be fighting terrorism? Absolutely!
Should we be willing to give up a little freedom to feel safe? Absolutely not!
What define us as the shining beacon on the hill is freedom, our liberty, and our belief that individual rights benefit all mankind. If we give up liberty for safety we give up the very thing that sets us up as a shining example to the rest of the world.
Emotional Intelligence
Some executives are better at budgets, analysis, research; the logical stuff. Some, on the other hand, are better at relating to people, motivating their team, gaining an understanding of how customers might think. Of course, some people believe themselves to be good at both skill sets but if you ever think you could improve on the second then think positive because the concept of emotional intelligence might just be of help.
There has been research on emotional intelligence – often referred to as EQ to distinguish it from the more academic-related IQ – throughout the twentieth century and into the twenty-first, but the book that popularised the idea in business circles was Daniel Goleman’s Emotional Intelligence in 1995. Increasingly it has been incorporated into training and coaching practices.
The basic message of Goleman’s work was that success is strongly influenced by personal qualities such as perseverance, self-control and the ability to get along with other people.
That doesn’t sound too controversial to the business world these days. Most of us can probably think of a mid-level executive who may be highly intelligent but whose career has stalled. Perhaps because they don’t understand organisational politics or upset too many of the wrong people or their reputation puts people off wanting to work with them? This person may well need to boost their EQ.
Fundamentally there are two main aspects to EQ:
understanding yourself (your aims, motivations,behavioural responses, etc.) and understanding others.
The business benefits to developing these skills are numerous: increased motivation, productivity, engagement, commitment, harmony within the team; and decreased workplace stress, conflict and unhelpful politics.
The two aspects are divided into five main competence headings, as follows:
PERSONAL COMPETENCES
Self-Awareness – understanding your own emotions, being able to assess yourself accurately, your level of self-confidence.
Self-Regulation – being able to control your emotional responses, being seen as trustworthy, the degree to which you are conscientious, adaptable and innovative. Self-Motivation – your drive to achieve and your commitment, initiative and optimism.
SOCIAL COMPETENCES
Social Awareness – your degree of empathy, the ability to understand customer needs, developing others, the ability to use diversity positively, political awareness. Social Skills – your communication and influencing skills, leadership, change and conflict management, networking and ability to effectively lead a team.
Certainly, put like this, these are all essential skills for the executive in today’s corporate environment. However, there is an argument that for most of us, these skills (or lack of) are set at an early age, usually in childhood. This then begs the question: can these skills be developed and improved or are we stuck with what we have?
The good news is that yes, one can become more socially and emotionally competent. That said, most corporate training focuses on cognitive learning methods, which encourage you to take new information and fit it into your existing framework or world view EQ requires emotional learning, which may mean using the new information to actually change the way you perceive the world. But think positive, because that change of world view may just break you out a static pattern and bring you the career you always wanted.
Recent Comments