Why Did Multiple Intelligences Evolve In Humans?

Sunstone said:

Would you say that human intelligences have been molded through an evolutionary process? That is, what process(es) account for the molding you speak of?

Click to expand...

Certainly. But I believe that learning and experience are equally important. If we take the five senses for example, there are neural pathways relating to each sense. This would be due to evolution. However, through practice we can strengthen the efficiency of many of the signals, for example, a batter hitting a ball or rehabing someone with paralysis. And, of course, for whatever reason there are those who are simply better naturally at different tasks. I'm sure this is due to genetics and physiology as well as their upbringing.

Ormiston said:

Certainly. But I believe that learning and experience are equally important. If we take the five senses for example, there are neural pathways relating to each sense. This would be due to evolution. However, through practice we can strengthen the efficiency of many of the signals, for example, a batter hitting a ball or rehabing someone with paralysis. And, of course, for whatever reason there are those who are simply better naturally at different tasks. I'm sure this is due to genetics and physiology as well as their upbringing.

Click to expand...

My hunch is that the various kinds of intelligence have various degrees of innateness. That is, some are probably more innate than others. Some are probably more influenced by learning than others. But all of them are a mix of learning and genetics.

To change the topic somewhat: If only one kind of intelligence was sufficient for humans to survive as a species, why didn't that one kind of intelligence come to be the only kind of intelligence humans have? For instance, why didn't athletic intelligence become the sole human intelligence? Or why didn't logical/mathematical intelligence become the sole human intelligence? It seems obvious that the reason no one kind of intelligence won out over the others is because all the different kinds of human intelligence are advantageous to survival and no one kind of human intelligence is decisively advantageous.

Sunstone said:

My hunch is that the various kinds of intelligence have various degrees of innateness. That is, some are probably more innate than others. Some are probably more influenced by learning than others. But all of them are a mix of learning and genetics.

To change the topic somewhat: If only one kind of intelligence was sufficient for humans to survive as a species, why didn't that one kind of intelligence come to be the only kind of intelligence humans have? For instance, why didn't athletic intelligence become the sole human intelligence? Or why didn't logical/mathematical intelligence become the sole human intelligence? It seems obvious that the reason no one kind of intelligence won out over the others is because all the different kinds of human intelligence are advantageous to survival and no one kind of human intelligence is decisively advantageous.

Click to expand...

Very interesting questions, Sunstone. In my mind, it all relates directly to the systems in the body. How did the eye evolve? Or the ear? Obviously there is an evolutionary process that invents new senses. But even simpler, let's say you have a very basic lifeform with a very basic nervous system. And let's say our lifeform suddenly grows a tail. It follows that the nervous system would also grow with the tail and the lifeform will "learn" how to use it's new tail. How many intelligences does our new lifeform have now? One for it's body and one for it's tail? Or is it all the same?

To change the topic somewhat: If only one kind of intelligence was sufficient for humans to survive as a species, why didn't that one kind of intelligence come to be the only kind of intelligence humans have?

Click to expand...

I don't believe animals of our size and development could survive with only our motor skills, for example. Think of how crucial our instinct to nurture our young is for our existance. Now an amoeba may get along just fine without this instinct, but that's an ameoba, not a human.

So, I think our "intelligences" evolved along with our bodies and that is the key. Now, perhaps though, some new "intelligences" are the result of civilization such as math and reading, etc. Perhaps we have crossed an evolutionary threashold where nature is no longer the rule and our manmade "nature" is controlling how we develop.

It's mind boggling to me to think of there being only one kind of intelligence. It's obvious that in the natural world there are a wide variety of problems to be solved, and equally obvious that no one approach could possibly solve them all.

Victor said:

I would personally find it far more problematic to have more then one. Once you add another, seperation is possible.

Click to expand...

Yet, there appear to be at least 8 different kinds of intelligence. So, what advantages did multiple intelligences have over single intelligence?

Sunstone said:

Yet, there appear to be at least 8 different kinds of intelligence. So, what advantages did multiple intelligences have over single intelligence?

Click to expand...

Multiple intelligences allow for more growth and change. Single intelligence wouldn't, it would stunt human growth. There wouldn't be the flexibility necessary to learn and grow.



I am not good at getting thoughts out of my brain...I will keep thinking on this one....Good questions.