Talk:Theory of multiple intelligences
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Theory of multiple intelligences article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2Auto-archiving period: 90 days |
Physical intelligence was nominated for deletion. The discussion was closed on 2 May 2020 with a consensus to merge. Its contents were merged into Theory of multiple intelligences. The original page is now a redirect to this page. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected article, please see its history; for its talk page, see here. |
Theory of multiple intelligences received a peer review by Wikipedia editors, which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article. |
This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
A dialectical overtaking (dépassement dialectique) by the C.U.P theory
[edit]the semiologist, mentor, talentprofiler and entrepreneur Yves Richez base his scientific researches on Howard Gardner's theory[1]. He studies « talent », emergence and actualization of potentiales[2].
He discovers 10 Natural Operating Modes (Modes Opératoire Naturel - MoON) during anthropological and semiological studies and trips around the world. Each mode is structured by a couple of antagonistic components [3].
Interpersonal Mo.O.N. : empathic >< interactive
[edit]Kinesthesic Mo.O.N. : gestual >< material
[edit]Spatial Mo.O.N. : emulative >< inferring
[edit]Musical Mo.O.N. : tonal >< rythmic
[edit]Linguistic Mo.O.N. : phonetic >< figurative
[edit]Mathematical Mo.O.N. : abstract >< general
[edit]Scientific Mo.O.N. : correlative >< pragmatic
[edit]Naturalistic Mo.O.N. : classify >< appreciate
[edit]Extra-personal Mo.O.N. : tentacular >< multiple
[edit]Intrapersonal Mo.O.N. : autonomous >< assertive
[edit]Theory, correlations and applications
[edit]- Theory and praxis
His studies show a gap between Chinesese thought and Western thought. In China, notions of Being and notion of intelligence don't exist. Those are greek-Latin inventions. Instead of intelligence, Chinese speaks of « operating modes ». Thus, Yves Richez does not speak of « intelligence » but of « natural operating modes » (Mo.O.N.).
But, we can connect intelligence and operating modes. Indeed, to Henri Wallon : « We can not distinguish intelligence from its operations ». [4]
Yves Richez's theory on the talent corrects errors of Howard Gardner's theory of multiple intelligences. The C.U.P. theory (configuration, utility, potentialisation) surpasses dialectically theory of multiple intelligences.
- Correction of Gardner's theory and correlations with others studies
Yves Richez shows that it is wrong to attach a sense at an « operating mode » : visuo-spatial or verbal-linguistic. Indeed, a blind or a hedgehog are able to move in space despite their blindness. They emulate space.
He observes that individuals who skilfully operate with a mathematical Mo.ON have difficulties to emulate the space. They are difficulties to read a mind map. They prefer to read lists or series. His observations confirms an experiment of René Zazzo. Zazzo discovers a young girl who is unable to read despite an IQ of 120. IQ definie globaly a Mathimatical Mo.O.N.. Origin of this dyslexia is a problem of recognition in space[5]. The emulative component of Mo.O.N. Spatial play a decisive role in learning to read (cf again the pedagogy of Ovide Decroly).
He notes that employees defined by the DSM like autistist (Asperger (?)) spontaneously engage a Naturalistic Mo.ON.. We find also cases of the population of certains primitive societies.
... etc.
- Applications in the society
The C.U.P. theory of Yvez Richez has a few applications in management, in education (which is analogous to education reform : John Dewey, Ovide Decroly, Maria Montessori, Anton Makarenko, Célestin Freinet...) and in complex psychology (in connection with Lev Vygotsky, Henri Wallon, Jean Piaget, Jacqueline Nadel, Michel Cariou, Émile Jalley...).
Yves Rivez applies the results of his studies in his own company (Talent Reveal). Decathlon Academy use his studies to form their mananagers [6]. We can found again this applications in a few municipales services, a few sports clubs and a Montessori school, En Terre D'Enfance[7] who are applying the C.U.P. theory.
He provides his studies to the general public through various media : books, youtube and internet articles.
His book, Détection et développement des talents en entreprise, edited by ISTE editions follows his doctoral thesis in semiology[8]. It is published in English in 2018 : Corporate Talent Detection and Development, Wiley Publishing.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.223.129.253 (talk • contribs) 11:05, May 24, 2018 (UTC)
References
- ^ Eymeric de Saint Germain (2015)[http://enterredenfance.com/de-howard-gardner-yves-richez-une/ De Howard Gardner à Yves Richez: Une évolution des Intelligences Multiples. On the site En Terre d'Enfance.
- ^ Richez, Y. (2006). Emergence et actualisation des potentiels humains. Mémoire de recherche, Université de Tours.
- ^ Richez, Y. (2017). Détection et développement des talents en entreprise. ISTE éditions
- ^ According to formulation of Émile Jalley for Henri Wallon in Principes de psychologie appliquée (In Œuvre 1, édition L'Harmattan, 2015) : « On ne saurait distinguer l'intelligence de ses opérations »
- ^ Zazzo, R (1983). À propos de ces enfants que vous dites exceptionnels. René Zazzo in Ou en est la psychologie de l'enfant, 1983, édition Denoël/Gauthier
- ^ Decathlon Academy - Yves Richez, chasseur de talents
- ^ En Terre d'Enfance, Les Talents
- ^ Richez, Y (2015). Stratégie d’actualisation des potentiels, Qui-opère-selon-stratégie. Thèse doctorale, Université Paris Diderot.
« too much weight on one author in addition to being written in a language other than English »
[edit]J'espère que c'est une blague, ElKevbo ? Les anglophones ne sont pas plus con que les autres. Ils peuvent se débrouiller dans d'autres langues que la leur. Certes, j'écris mal, même dans ma langue. Darwin avait aussi un mauvais anglais bien qu'elle fut sa langue de naissance. Par ailleurs, je ne suis pas choqué lorsque l'on m'apporte autre chose qui sort du cadre de ma nation, de ma pensée et de mon piédestal quand bien même mal écrit. La théorie C.U.P. d'Yves Richez, parfaitement bien écrit, dépasse de manière dialectique la théorie d'Howard Gardner. Elle se concilie parfaitement à d'autres études. Il serait dommageable de ne pas en profiter puisque qu'elle est déjà disponible : Détection et développement des talents en entreprise. Une version anglaise de son livre va bientôt sortir. J'anticipe les choses d'autant plus que ça va faire du bruit. L'anglais ne prime pas sur d'autres langues. Certes les éditeurs des USA cherchent à contrôler les revues scientifiques et philosophiques. Mais, la pensée américaine représente seulement 8% de la pensée globale dans les universités dans le monde contre 68% de la pensée française selon Émile Jalley. Cordialement. S.L.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.223.129.253 (talk • contribs) 11:38, May 24, 2018 (UTC)
Evidence rather than criteria
[edit]When, at an early stage in the article, it says "According to the theory, an intelligence "modality" must fulfil eight criteria" and then lists them, would it not be better to say that these are the eight pieces of evidence Gardner cites for the theory? Yes, I have read Frames of Mind! YTKJ (talk) 18:47, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
Opening paragraph
[edit]The opening paragraph is brief and to the point. I think it is well written, except that it ends with "being referred to as a neuromyth." There is a reference to Lynn Waterhouse. Have other psychologists used this term for this theory? Usually "neuromyth" is reserved for thoroughly debunked theories, such as learning styles, "classical music increases babies' intelligence," or "we only use 10% of our brain." Gardner's theory is controversial, for sure, but reception has been mixed, as the article states. I'm not aware of the theory being placed in the same category as "neuromyths." If this is a one-time insult by Waterhouse, then it probably belongs in the criticism section, not the opening paragraph. If it is commonly accepted as a "neuromyth" by psychologists, then there should be a reference to this fact. The opening paragraph should summarize the article and represent a reasonable consensus of the theory's reception. seberle (talk) 02:53, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
- I agree - the opening paragraph seems somewhat biased and would lead a reader to think the whole thing should be dismissed (which is not consistent with the rest of the entry). 23.240.148.47 (talk) 17:55, 20 September 2024 (UTC)
- Ok. I am modifying anything in the opening paragraph that is biased, not referenced, or which does not accurately reflect the controversy described in the remainder of the article. Let's keep discussion going here if there's any disagreement so we can keep the article NPOV. seberle (talk) 15:55, 5 October 2024 (UTC)
Please keep in mind audience, purpose, and Wikipedia requirements for sources
[edit]@BrantonShearer: Thanks so much for your recent contributions to this article. I'm sorry that I reverted some of them recently but you added a ton of detail to the article that doesn't quite seem appropriate for an encyclopedia article intended for a general audience, especially if we're to keep this article to a reasonable length and scope. It may be appropriate to create a new article, however, if length is the primary concern - that's a common approach in Wikipedia when one section in an article becomes too long. ElKevbo (talk) 14:13, 21 July 2024 (UTC)