Monday, December 06, 2010
I found this article after class last week which i thought was interesting even though its sorta dated (sooooo 2004). However, it kind of was on topic with our class discussion and presentations in regards to multiple intelligences and how the debate lives on. This article pretty much talks about the two different sides of the argument - seperated by those who agree with Howard Gardner (the Gardnerites) and those who don't. Its pretty much the traditionalist intelligence view against Gardner and his new theory and what it has done or hasn't done for schooling systems. The argument continues, with the Garner side saying that the theory wasn't developed to enhance educational intervention, but to explore the mind. To be honest, I don't really know what all the fuss is about - he developed this theory and if people want to agree with it then fine but if they don't then remain with the traditional definition of intelligence, who cares? Use the theory in situations where it applies and if you think it limits you in some way, don't use it. I don't understand what the point of arguing about it is - seeing that the theory exists and once it exists it's not going anywhere - it hasn't for over 21 years now. I don't think a 21-year long argument can still be called a "debate." I think that's called a grudge.
Wednesday, December 01, 2010
Pinker would be pleased to hear that there's now even more evidence to argue language is a developed human trait. We have the genes that give us the capacity to create a means of communication. Scientists have decided to experiment by giving one of those genes, FOXP2, to a group of mice. There are many genes that aid language, yet it seems like one is already enough to change the sounds mice use to interact with one another. Svante Paabo, the man who runs these labs said at the completion of the experiment "We will talk to mice". Creepy. With the development of vocal cords and the correct genes, do you think it'll be possible to have talking animals in the near future?