The Scaling of MI Theory

BY SHINRI FURUZAWA

When Howard Gardner first published Frames of Mind: The Theory of Multiple Intelligences in 1983, he could not have predicted the reach and influence this work would have. MI theory has undoubtedly changed the way many people think of human intelligence; and its impact, particularly on the world of education, has been striking. 

 MI theory is based on evidence in support of the following propositions:

• Individuals can have many kinds of intelligences (one could call these talents, abilities, or skills) which may be useful to society.

• A single measure, such as an IQ test or SAT exam, is inadequate for determining an individual’s capabilities and potential.

The main implications for education:

• Any subject can be approached in many ways to access and take advantage of different intelligences (pluralization).

• Teaching can be tailored to a student’s intelligences (individuation).

The impact MI theory has had is different from other education research endeavors from Harvard Project Zero, the research organization at Harvard Graduate School of Education with which Gardner has been associated for almost 6o years. MI theory was not accompanied by educational frameworks and tools as with most Project Zero endeavors. In addition, there are no “Gardner-approved” tests, textbooks, or curricula based on the theory. The closest Gardner has come to developing such tools was the creation of Project Spectrum materials for children aged 3-7.

One measure of success for education research and practice is how specific ideas and approaches are brought to scale. In the article, The Multiple Meanings of Scale: Implications for Researchers and Practitioners, the authors Morel et al. explore a typology of scale: adoption, replication, adaptation, and reinvention. Through these conceptualizations, I propose to explore the scaling of MI theory. 

Adoption

Multiple Intelligences International School, Quezon City, Philippines

Adoption as a concept of scale defined by Morel et al. is when new ideas that may contradict the consensus opinion result in changing assumptions and practices. Even when adoption is superficial, there may be a “network effect” which can be cumulative and lead to wider spread adoption. 

There are thousands of educational institutions worldwide that have been influenced by MI theory. More impressive, there have also been numerous schools around the world founded on its principles. Prominent among them are the Indianapolis Key Learning Community under Pat Bolanos, and New City School in St Louis, Missouri, under Tom Hoerr. Just a few examples of MI schools outside the US include: Multiple Intelligences International School (Quezon City, Philippines), Golden Bells MI School (Delhi, India), Howard Gardner School (Cesar, Colombia), and Multiple Intelligence School (Fiji).

Policymakers around the world have promoted progressive approaches to education based on MI theory to varying degrees in England, Scotland, China, Korea, and Norway. The book, Multiple Intelligences Around the World, edited by Jie-Qi Chen, Seana Moran, and Howard Gardner includes chapters on how MI ideas have been adopted at schools, communities, and countries across the globe. The book coalesced in 2006 after Branton Shearer organized a symposium on global perspectives on MI with the American Educational Research Association. Several of the participants were asked to write about their experiences for the book.

In recent years, due to the leadership of Professor Rex Li, Hong Kong has become a center for MI educational practice and research. Li has published Research MI Magazine since 2021 and founded the Multiple Intelligences School Network. Li has also organized three International MI Education Forums, most recently in 2023, bringing together MI researchers and practitioners from around the world.

Importance of Context

Why has MI theory been adopted in some countries but not others? Gardner has analyzed the conditions required for adoption in terms of the metaphor of “fertile soil.” In some cases, the soil may be “unfertile”—as, for example when institutions are pursuing goals hostile to progressive education (e.g., focusing only on test scores). In other cases, the soil may be initially “resistant” to MI, but come eventually to absorb the ideas. And sometimes the soil may be fertile with interest in progressive ideas, but the system already in place is perceived to be working well.

The education landscape tends to be most fertile when policymakers are actively seeking new pedagogies. This may be due to reasons such as:

• Recognition that the education system has too narrow a focus e.g. on STEM at the expense of arts and humanities, or that it is not catering to certain students e.g. those who are gifted, or exhibit learning differences.

• Desire for more democratic values as a reaction to a repressive political context e.g. as in Argentina or Romania.

Replication

In terms of replication as a concept of scale, an education innovation is considered to have scaled when it is widespread and implemented faithfully with predicted results.

Frames of Mind in Romanian

Gardner’s words and ideas have certainly been replicated around the world, though whether those ideas have been implemented faithfully with expected results would be impossible to measure. Gardner’s books on MI theory have been translated into multiple languages, including: Arabic, Chinese, Czech, French, German, Georgian, Hebrew, Italian, Japanese, Korean, Norwegian, Portuguese, Romanian, Russian, Slovenian, Spanish, Swedish, and Vietnamese. He has been invited to visit many of these countries and is also in regular contact with educators from across the globe. However, Gardner is not and cannot be responsible for the appropriateness or the success of the implementations.

Books on MI theory and its application by other authors, such as Thomas Armstrong, Tom Hoerr, David Lazear, Mindy Kornhaber, and Linda and Bruce Campbell, have led to what Gardner has lightly dubbed an “MI industry.” There are also many books on MI written in other languages, especially Chinese. Hundreds—perhaps thousands—of doctoral theses and scholarly articles have also been written about MI theory.

Adaptation

Another conceptualization of scale is when an innovation is adapted or modified to meet local needs. As noted, Gardner has never prescribed a curriculum or test. He had no wish to micro-manage; rather he hoped to encourage people to implement MI theory in ways that made sense to them. As he explains,

“There is wisdom in not trying to control what people do with one’s ideas.” 

In the absence of an official MI test, many have developed their own measurement instruments, the best known of which is Branton Shearer’s MIDAS test. Some kind of assessment instrument is often sought by educators and policymakers. Gardner is not opposed to such measurements and often mentions them to educators. He advises the use of triangulation to make use of different sources of data e.g. teacher assessment, self-assessment, and parental input.

More generally, Gardner believes performance measures that involve demonstrating an intelligence (rather than written tests) are the most reliable, e.g. observing how individuals handle conflict to assess interpersonal intelligence, or how they learn routes in a new environment to assess spatial intelligence. Self-assessment by itself is not as reliable; people are not necessarily insightful about themselves and may confuse likes and preferences with their actual strengths.

In the absence of an official MI curriculum, many companies and institutions have developed their own. From a simple internet search, examples include Tutor Time, Positive Action, The Complete Daily Curriculum for Early Childhood, and many others. None are endorsed by Gardner—indeed Gardner never endorses any commercial project as a matter of principle.

Of course, many teachers incorporate the two educational principles of MI theory, individuation and pluralization, into daily practice without use of a particular curriculum. Some examples of the ways in which teachers have used MI theory to meet their student needs can be found here, here, and here. 

Reinvention

Reinvention is a concept of scale which denotes an innovation that transforms into other new ideas or innovation. When it comes to MI theory, perhaps the best example of this is Daniel Goleman’s idea of emotional intelligence. His book, Emotional Intelligence: Why It Can Matter More Than IQ, was published in 1995, twelve years after Frames of Mind and is based on some of the same principles and findings as MI theory. A bestseller in multiple countries, Goleman’s book helped popularize the idea that there is more than one intelligence. “Emotional intelligence” can be described loosely as a combination of Gardner’s interpersonal and intrapersonal intelligences with the addition of a value component. Goleman would claim that it’s necessarily good to have emotional intelligence, while Gardner would respond that any intelligence can be used constructively or destructively. Goleman’s later ecological intelligence can be linked to Gardner’s naturalist intelligence. Many people have suggested other intelligences over the years, such as digital intelligence, business intelligence, or humor intelligence. However, Gardner’s intelligences are based on strict criteria for what constitutes an intelligence. As detailed in Frames of Mind, an intelligence must have:

1. identifiable core operation(s);

2. evolutionary history and plausibility;

3. recognizable end-state and distinctive developmental trajectory;

4. existence of savants, prodigies and other individuals distinguished by the presence or absence of specific abilities;

5. potential isolation by brain damage;

6. support from experimental psychological tasks;

7. support from psychometric findings;

8. susceptibility to encoding in a symbol system.

Most suggested new intelligences would not meet these criteria.

Lethal Mutation

One potential issue mentioned by Morel et al. in their conceptualizations of scale is lethal mutation. In this case, an innovation is adopted but misapplied or misunderstood, often in such a way that it runs counter to the ideas behind the initial innovation. As Gardner writes in A Synthesizing Mind,

“Once you launch a meme in the wider world, particularly one that can be easily summarized if not synthesized, you simply cannot control its trajectories.” 

One example of this is dermatoglyphics, the erroneous (indeed ludicrous) idea that an individual’s fingerprints reveal their intelligences. Another example is the education program in Australia that used MI theory to classify ethnic groups according to which intelligences they may or may not have. Gardner appeared on television in Australia to publicly repudiate this idea.

Other misrepresentations of MI theory have recently been described in this blog post by Annie Stachura. Some examples include confusing MI with learning styles, including an intelligence that is not part of Gardner’s theory, thinking that intelligences are linked to stages of development, and thinking that all individuals excel in at least one intelligence.

Conclusion

While scaling can be an indicator of success, it is essential to look beyond expansion metrics. Success in education requires a balance between reaching more learners and ensuring that the quality of educational experiences are maintained or enhanced. In addition to the importance of pluralization and individuation, MI theory acknowledges intelligences that are not conventionally academic, such as interpersonal; this acknowledgement has in turn led to a greater emphasis on developing skills such as collaboration and critical thinking and has provided a strong foundation for inclusive education practices. By recognizing that students have different intelligences, educators are better equipped to support learners with different strengths and weaknesses. This inclusivity helps to ensure that all students have the opportunity to succeed in their own ways and on their own terms. 

The impact of MI theory is so widespread that many people accept its principles without knowing the name Howard Gardner or without having heard of the phrase “multiple intelligences.” And Gardner is happy with that outcome. He once explained the enormous impact of MI theory with typical modesty as, “an idea whose time had come.” 

I would like to thank Howard Gardner, Ellen Winner, and Annie Stachura for their valuable comments and suggestions on an earlier version of this blog post.

References

Chen, J.-Q., Moran, S., & Gardner, H. (2009). Multiple intelligences around the world (1st ed.).

Jossey-Bass.

Gardner, H. (2011). Frames of Mind: The theory of multiple intelligences. Basic Books.

Gardner, H. (2020). A Synthesizing Mind: A memoir from the creator of multiple intelligences

theory. The MIT Press.

Gardner, H., Feldman, D. H., Krechevsky, M., Chen, J.-Q., & Harvard Project Zero. (1998).

 Project Zero Frameworks for Early Childhood Education. Teachers College Press.

Morel, R. P., Coburn, C., Catterson, A. K., & Higgs, J. (2019). The Multiple Meanings of Scale:

Implications for Researchers and Practitioners. Educational Researcher, 48(6), 369–377.

https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X19860531

Banner Photo by Koen Emmers on Unsplash

Could AI Replace Diplomats?

By Shinri Furuzawa

New computer algorithms are developing personal intelligences and are capable of outperforming us at games requiring skills once thought to be specific to humans. For decades, computers have surpassed us at games which are primarily logical, syntactic, or mathematical, such as chess, or Go.

Now, however, a recent article in Science describes the Cicero algorithm which can win against humans at the board game, Diplomacy. Enjoyed by the likes of John F. Kennedy and Henry Kissinger, this is a game which requires intuition, persuasion, and deception. Cicero is able to discuss strategy, forge alliances, and carry out subterfuge and betrayal. It mimics natural human language in text conversations that entail negotiation with other players. The ability to observe and evaluate the trustworthiness of other players while convincing others of one’s own trustworthiness, and dealing with imperfect information, are key skills for actual human diplomats.

All things considered, one wonders how close AI could come to replicating the skills of a real diplomat and whether one day, AI could even replace human diplomats.

What Makes a Good Diplomat?

Former high-level American diplomat Robert Blackwill, suggested fifteen qualities which he thought essential for diplomats. Perhaps a third of these characteristics are inherent, and therefore irrelevant to AI, such as resilience to failure, or honesty. In other areas, such as analytical skills, attention to detail, or knowledge of history, AI already surpasses humans.

AI would, however, struggle in any area involving interactions that occur in person when the personal intelligences are especially vital. Diplomats must accurately collaborate, observe and evaluate others, and understand other people’s motivations while taking into account cultural, political, organizational and other differences. These trained professionals form mental models of their antagonists, and update them even unconsciously.

Diplomats are also skillful in interpreting non-verbal cues such as facial expressions, eye movement, and body posture. For decades, it has been common for diplomats to receive specific instruction on these interpersonal skills. While AI has made advances in interpreting non-verbal cues and information, it’s not quite there.

• Facial and emotional recognition: AI is already being used to recognize faces and monitor people’s facial expressions, for example, in airport security systems. The problem for affect detection algorithms arises, however, with the fact that facial expressions of emotion are not universal; the way in which people communicate their emotions can vary according to culture or the situation. AI also performs better at recognizing Caucasians over people of color, a further problem that may lead to racial profiling.

  If AI can’t yet read us well by looking at our faces, it does better at listening to our voices.

• Voice analysis: AI already has voice recognition and realistic voice generation. It can now also be used to detect patterns and characteristics in the voice that cannot be picked up by the human ear. Algorithms can predict psychiatric illness and other health conditions. By analyzing recordings of Vladimir Putin’s voice in February and March of 2022 during the ongoing war in Ukraine and comparing them to a recording of a talk he gave in September 2020, AI was able to detect stress levels 40% above baseline. While AI can collect such data, it must still be interpreted by humans and cannot—or at least should not—be used to predict human behavior. 

  AI capabilities may still be nascent in some areas, but they will only improve in the future.

Could AI RENDER Human Diplomats OBSOLETE?

Diplomacy may involve skills that we have long considered to be quintessentially human. I talked to Steven Siqueira, a former Canadian diplomat and chief of staff for several UN peace operations, and to Dr. Martin Waehlisch who leads the Innovation Cell in the Policy and Mediation Division of the UN Department of Political and Peacebuilding Affairs. I asked them what a diplomat does that an AI could never do. It seems to me, that it comes down to interpersonal intelligence.

Steven Siqueira - former Canadian diplomat and chief of staff for several UN peace operations

Martin Waehlisch - leads the Innovation Cell in the Policy and Mediation Division of the UN Department of Political and Peacebuilding Affairs

• Developing personal relationships: In Siqueira’s view, “You need personal relationships to get things done.”

  He gave the example of when he was tasked with establishing a UN mission in Sudan. Siqueira negotiated with a high number of separate stakeholders, which meant cultivating a myriad of different relationships. AI may be able to form analyses and identify requirements, but actual implementation is a human task. It would be extremely hard for AI to navigate the interface between personalities, and the intricacies behind each stakeholder’s position: their limitations and accountability whether it be to politicians, the military, civil society, or the media, all while working together towards a mutually satisfactory outcome.

Political scientist, Joseph Nye, would agree on the value of human relationships. Nye describes the importance of “soft power” as opposed to traditional “hard power” which relies on military or economic strength. He suggests that agreements and alliances today are fostered more through amicable relations, using tact and warmth, rather than aggressive tactics. According to Nye, even a smile can be a soft power resource. Diplomatic efforts need to be directed at citizens, not just governments, shifting to influence through likeability, attraction, and relationship rather than power—or at least in addition to—force, or coercion. As Waehlisch says, “The future is about soft skills… I was skeptical of emotional intelligence but I’m more and more convinced.”

• Innovative thinking: AI’s ability to think creatively and adapt to circumstances is also questionable. AI cannot respond in innovative ways if it is only drawing from the past. In the Diplomacy game, the chatbot is not creating anything new, it’s regurgitating based on percentages of success rates in past games.

  In the real world, diplomats think on their feet and rely on their training and experience to deal with new situations. This aligns with the last point on Blackwill’s list; diplomats must be quick to recognize opportune moments and know how to exploit fortuitous and unforeseen circumstances when they arise.

• Experience: In diplomacy, experience is crucial. Diplomats are trained through mentoring and vital skills are learned on the job. Blackwill listed learning from experience as an essential skill for diplomats, and as he puts it,“Would you hire a plumber who was academically well-versed in water distribution, but had never installed a pipe?”

What Role Does AI Have to Play in Diplomacy?

AI may fall short in personal intelligences, but it fares significantly better in linguistic and logical-mathematical intelligences. Siqueira and Waehlisch provided some insights into how AI is being used in diplomacy now, and how it could be used in the future.

• Generating text: Blackwill’s list of essential skills includes the ability to write and speak well, or linguistic intelligence. The latest reports on Open AI’s ChatGPT-3 attest to AI’s ability to converse convincingly with a human. It can engage in philosophical discussions, tell (bad) jokes, and debate political issues; it can also write and debug code, write college-level essays, and take tests successfully. Whether the task entails making an after-dinner speech or giving a presentation, AI can be programmed to tailor language, tone, style, format to match an audience. Many of the more mundane report-writing tasks performed by interns today could be carried out by AI. Diplomats will no doubt increasingly rely on AI for research.

• Mediation: AI could be used to support mediation. At the UN, for example, all mediated agreements are in a database. AI could easily draw upon the same language to mitigate similar situations that have occurred in the past. AI could scan and track different clauses—thereby providing valuable insights and perhaps helping to sustain peace efforts.

• Advisory roles: Computers are able to process and instantly retrieve exponentially more information than humans, enabling them to take over traditional advisory roles. Diplomats on the UN Security Council use their smartphones to find information or receive instructions rather than relying on advisors to whisper in their ears. Computer programs and algorithms are superior at assessing data and anticipating outcomes—important skills in negotiation.

• Targeting resources: At the UN, AI capacities in the form of data aggregators are already being used to analyze the press releases and communiques of all foreign ministries, allowing political officers to “mine the sentiment” on a given topic. Knowing which countries are most concerned about an issue enables targeted approaches—for example, by knowing which countries may be open to providing donor resources.

  Geospatial technology has recently made significant advances in providing “eyes in the sky.” These capacities entail data collection and analysis in fragile states which can improve monitoring and allow targeted humanitarian or peacekeeping efforts. It’s important to remember, however, that early warning doesn’t mean early action–political decision-making must still be done by people. Technology can’t fill this gap.

• Increased productivity: AI undoubtedly improves productivity. It offers internal solutions by tackling intrinsic systemic challenges with products aimed at automation and speed. External solutions enable closer human connections which results in inclusivity.

• Access: AI also enables dialogue. Many groups that once could not have been part of the negotiation process due to geographical remoteness, or that were simply not allowed at the table, can now be party to the conversation. Increased opportunities in terms of language and translation capabilities through TV and radio mining enable access to low-resource languages. Such outreach outflanks cultural and language barriers. 

• Training intrapersonal intelligence: New advances in virtual reality (VR) can be used to develop a diplomat’s intrapersonal intelligence. Such technology allows active “body swapping,” so people can “walk each other’s journeys.” Built-in behavioral science experiments may well detect implicit biases and identify cognitive challenges. VR provides a safe space for diplomats to learn about themselves, discover their biases, and better understand their interactions with others. Put differently, it fosters perspective-taking and helps overcome dehumanization. As Waehlisch suggested, “What if Netanyahu went through an Israeli checkpoint as a Palestinian?” In VR, he would see how people looked at him, the weapons pointed at him, and feel the danger, to perhaps reveal a new perspective.

Dangers of AI in Diplomacy

There are some things that can never be left to AI.

• Decision making: Delegating decision-making to AI would be a mistake, even though in some ways it could be seen as desirable.

  It is conceivable that AI could be programmed to make more rational, fair, and evidence-based decisions than humans. After all, AI is not vulnerable to human emotions or weaknesses. For centuries, the ideal diplomat was like a robot, coldly efficient, rational, and devoid of emotion, as codified in diplomatic protocols. Indeed, diplomats are routinely rotated every few years to prevent emotional attachments. In contrast, AI has no problem remaining detached and calm in stressful situations. Without emotions or physical sensations, AI could not be threatened or made to feel vulnerable in the same way as a human, for example, as when Vladimir Putin used his dog to intimidate Angela Merkel—famously terrified of dogs. AI would not be motivated by personal gain, or be tempted to abuse its authority and would be untroubled by the personal cost of resisting political pressure and standing by diplomatic policy decisions (in a nation’s interest) even if unpopular. AI would not be susceptible to exhaustion or lapses in judgment. In fact, a survey conducted by the Center for the Governance of Change at IE University in Spain, one in four Europeans indicated that they would prefer policy decisions be made by AI rather than politicians. However, in decision-making complete rationality is not always best.

Take as an example, the “Prisoner’s Dilemma” from game theory. Even though mutual cooperation would yield a greater net reward, the only possible outcome for two purely rational prisoners is betrayal. And of course, in real life, this stance could quickly lead to escalated military action, or nuclear war and mutual destruction. Even if we set parameters beforehand, these may be incomplete or fail. Would AI have the ability to pull back? If an algorithm were tasked with bringing about world peace, an efficient move might be to eradicate all humans from the planet.

Yejin Choi, a computer scientist and 2022 recipient of the MacArthur “Genius grant,” makes the same point from an ethical standpoint. In one interview, she said that in the most fundamental ways, “AI struggles with basic common sense.”

While humans understand many things, such as common exceptions to rules, AI must be specifically taught, or be at risk of choosing extreme or damaging solutions that humans would never consider. Choi argues the challenge will be to account for value pluralism, to teach AI that values can be broad and that diverse viewpoints need to be taken into account. Ethical guidelines are necessary but there is no one moral framework that can be imposed. The implications for diplomacy are dangerous. While AI will continue to improve, Choi doubts that humans will ever create sentient artificial intelligence, or AI with true intrapersonal intelligence.

• Malevolence: There is potential for AI technology to be used maliciously. We need to work on ways to forecast and mitigate such threats. The threat of AI is easy to see in what has been described as today’s “post-truth era.” AI is being used for negative messaging which leads to greater polarization, destabilization of existing frameworks, and the influencing of elections.

• Bias: There is also the problem of bias in AI systems. While often seen as a technical problem, most AI bias stems from human biases and systemic, institutional biases. For machine learning models to work well, a very large and diverse, and robust set of data involving all ages, genders, ethnicities, and other demographic criteria must be used. In the history of Western diplomacy, key decisions have been made by mostly men of a certain profile which could certainly skew the dataset. Regulations and safeguards are of course necessary. Excessive concentration in AI space and in a handful of technology companies must also be avoided through regulation—for example, encouraging competition and not allowing monopolization.

“The Greatest Threat and the Greatest Opportunity”

French Ambassador, David Cvach, said in a 2018 Tedx talk that AI is both the greatest threat and the greatest opportunity for diplomacy. There is truth to this assertion.

Sophia robot

In the field of international relations and diplomacy, AI is touted more often as a threat, for example, in terms of autonomous weapons. Though AI may have (often unintentional) negative consequences, organizations such as AI For Peace have a different stance: on their account, dialogue between academia, industry and civil society can help ensure the benefits of AI while minimizing the risks. Waehlisch has suggested machine learning and natural language processing can be used to promote peace. His chief concern is how to use new technologies to help de-escalate violence and increase international stability.

I would argue that while AI will augment the work of human diplomats making them more efficient and effective, it will never be more than a useful tool in diplomacy. Indeed, it could not and should not replace human diplomats. AI might outperform humans at most analytical tasks, but humans will still surpass AI at more subtle, “feeling tasks.” Even as algorithms come closer to replicating human interpersonal intelligence, direct person-to-person interaction is probably the most important method of increasing or maintaining “soft power” in diplomacy. Chatbots may be able to fool humans at the Diplomacy game online, but robots such as Sophia (appointed in 2017 as the UN Development Program’s first Innovation Champion), could not yet be mistaken for human.

On the positive side, the opportunities of AI lie in creating a more level playing field, as long as technology is not limited to wealthy countries. The ability of diverse stakeholders to use algorithms could provide more holistic and comprehensive solutions to today’s challenges, such as forced migration or unanticipated pandemics. Perhaps AI can be a means for engaging and uniting people around the world on issues of mutual interest for a more peaceful and sustainable future. We should use all our multiple intelligences, and the possibilities of artificial intelligence, to achieve this end.

In our next blog post, Howard Gardner will discuss the implications of AI in understanding human personal intelligences.

I would like to thank Howard Gardner for his valuable input into this post. I am also grateful to Steven Siqueira and Martin Waehlisch for very kindly agreeing to interviews and sharing their thoughts.

Temple Grandin and the Theory of Multiple Intelligences

By Shinri Furuzawa

Temple Grandin wears many hats—she is a leading animal scientist in the humane livestock-handling industry, an academic at Colorado State University, and autism-rights activist. She is also a New York Times bestselling author

In her latest work, Visual Thinking: The Hidden Gifts of People Who Think in Pictures, Patterns, and Abstractions, she references Howard Gardner and his theory of multiple intelligences. Grandin has also spoken of Gardner’s ideas at her recent book events and in this interview with The Washington Post (link here).

How does Grandin explain “visual thinking”?

Grandin describes two types of thinkers—those who are “verbal” and those who are “visual.”

• Verbal thinkers: think linearly, tend to do well in school as information is taught sequentially, are often well organized, sociable, and good talkers. They gravitate towards careers as educators, administrators, lawyers, writers, politicians, etc.

• Visual thinkers: see images in their minds and make rapid associations among them, have an excellent sense of direction, are good problem solvers, and easily understand how things work or fit together. On the other hand, they are often late talkers who struggle with traditional educational settings and teaching methods, and they may also be socially awkward.

Visual thinkers can be further divided into two types, object and spatial.

Object-visual thinkers: see the world in pictures, and gravitate towards careers as designers, artists, architects, mechanical engineers, etc.

Spatial-visual thinkers: see the world in patterns and abstractions, and gravitate towards careers as statisticians, electrical engineers, physicists, etc.

What’s the evidence?

Grandin cites several studies to support her claims. Examples from recent brain research include a 2015 study by Kazuo Nishimura and colleagues in which magnetoencephalography was used to measure brain activity associated with “verbal” and “visual.” They demonstrated that when study participants were asked to recall a temple, signs of the zodiac, or a past conversation, “visual thinkers” created images while “verbal thinkers” used language. She also mentions Nobel laureate Roger Sperry and his notion of left-brain vs right-brain thinking to distinguish “verbal vs. visual” thinking.

Grandin cites most heavily the work of Maria Kozhevnikov of the Visual-Spatial Cognition Lab at Massachusetts General Hospital. In one 2002 study, Kozhevnikov tested high visualizers on spatial reasoning and other visual tests. She found that artists and designers tested as object visualizers while scientists tested as spatial visualizers. And while high-spatial visualizers interpreted graphs as abstract representations of spatial relations, low-spatial visualizers saw graphs as pictures. Verbalizers showed no preference for visual or spatial imagery.

What about Grandin herself?

Grandin categorizes herself as an "object-visual thinker.” She sees the world in photorealistic pictures, or film clips. To process any information or solve a specific problem, she must “do the equivalent of a Google search” in her mind to access images. A scan of Grandin’s brain using Diffusion Tensor Imaging showed her visual circuits to be significantly larger than those in the control group. She describes these circuits as a “huge internet trunk line from my rear visual cortex to my frontal cortex.”

Throughout the book, Grandin supports her ideas with anecdotes from her own life. For example, in critiquing the US education system, she claims that the system in effect screens out “object-visual thinkers.” She points out the irony that though she now teaches veterinarians and has proven mechanical engineering skills, she herself could not have qualified for veterinary school or engineering programs due to her lack of ability in algebra.

Am I convinced?

One problem with Grandin’s book is her overreliance on anecdotal and autobiographical examples as evidence. Even the scientific data she gives are not always robust. For example, the 2002 Kozhevnikov study mentioned above had a sample size of only 17, and Sperry’s left brain/right brain hemisphericity premise is now seen as of historic rather than of scientific interest.

Some of Grandin’s claims are farfetched. In her chapter “Visualizing Risk to Prevent Disasters,” she suggests that many disasters, such as Fukushima, could have been prevented. How? In her argument, in the case of that nuclear disaster, a “visual thinker” would have “envisioned the water coming over the top of the seawall.” She also suggests that “most geniuses” are “visual thinkers” including Edison, Einstein, and Picasso—relying on controversial posthumous (not clinical) diagnoses of their neurodivergence. Different groups in the neurodivergent community often claim past luminaries have their particular learning difference. This may be an effort to enhance the prestige and status of their own marginalized group and motivate others in their community. In fact, Einstein is claimed as an (unwitting) “ancestor” by many groups!

To be fair, Visual Thinking is not aimed at a scientific audience. For the lay reader perhaps it is enough to appreciate, as Grandin argues convincingly, that people who think differently deserve to be recognized, and should be recognized, for the betterment of their own self-image and for their possible contributions to society. Teams can be stronger when they include diverse thinkers. She promotes an approach to neurodiversity not as a disability but as an asset. Grandin herself is an inspirational figure; many enjoy and benefit from reading about her ideas and about her life.

how does “Visual thinking” fit into the theory of multiple intelligences?

In terms of MI theory, Grandin’s “verbal thinking” reflects Gardner’s linguistic intelligence, while her “visual thinking” reflects spatial intelligence.

I would infer that Temple Grandin displays impressive capacities with the following intelligences:

• Naturalist intelligence (she has expert knowledge of animal behavior, in particular, cattle)

• Spatial intelligence (she is able to visualize maps and design complex plans by seeing them in her mind)

• Bodily-kinesthetic intelligence (she is very good with her hands)

• Logical-mathematical intelligence (she is knowledgeable in mechanical engineering)

On the other hand, as is commonly the case in people with autism, Grandin admits that understanding others can be a challenge, so interpersonal intelligence would not be a strength.

Howard Gardner does not agree with the concept of “visual thinking.” He is quoted on the jacket of Visual Thinking as saying that he believes Temple Grandin has written a “fine book” that clearly defines how “a self-described ‘visual thinker’ apprehends, understands, and explains the world.” Much of what Grandin describes is what Gardner would call spatial intelligence. He also asserts that visual is different from spatial and the two should not be confounded. Gardner says, “Reading is visual, and appreciating art and sculpture is visual, but they are not particularly spatial—blind people are capable of developing a strong spatial sense.” People who read at a young age can be spatially challenged, while people who have difficulty reading can have excellent spatial intelligence. Moreover, it is important not to tie an intelligence to a single sensory system like sight or audition. Grandin would counter this argument by saying that “visual thinking” is not about simply seeing, but rather it is how the brain perceives what is being seen.

Is there common ground?

In her book, Grandin concedes her differences with Gardner but finds they have similar views on education. She writes, “Though Gardner doesn’t recognize visual thinkers (let alone the different kinds of visual thinkers) as a separate category of intelligence, we are in agreement that our education system fails to recognize different types of intelligence.” Grandin believes there is a crisis in American education that is leading to a dangerous loss of technical skills and ingenuity. She attributes this situation partly to prejudices against community colleges and vocational schools, but also the fact that hands-on subjects like art and shop class are being phased out of schools. She also laments the barriers presented by biased testing systems that screen out otherwise capable and talented learners.

In several respects, Gardner concurs with Grandin’s broader aims. He has long criticized standardized tests, such as the SAT commonly used for US college admission, that unfairly tap primarily linguistic and logical-mathematical intelligences. His MI theory is a sustained critique of the widespread assumption that intelligence can be adequately measured by IQ tests and their ilk. He has argued for recognizing and nurturing “all of the varied intelligences and combinations of intelligence.”

Ultimate goals

By advocating for the neurodiverse members of our society, Temple Grandin hopes her greatest legacy will be that she helped neurodiverse children find careers that contribute to society. She told The Washington Post,

“I want to help the kids that are neurodiverse, they have different kinds of minds—autistic, dyslexic, ADHD, or whatever—to get into satisfying jobs where they can make a positive difference. That's the thing I feel I need to be doing now, as somebody who has had a long career and is now in their 70s.”

Howard Gardner has a similar hope: to encourage people to use their multiple intelligences to do “good work,” that is, work which is excellent, engaging, and ethical. Gardner has said it is the most important thing he can do.

References

Gardner, H. E. (2011). Frames of mind: The theory of multiple intelligences. Basic books.

Grandin, T., & Lerner, B. (2022).  Visual thinking: The hidden gifts of people who think in pictures, patterns, and abstractions. Riverhead Books.

For their comments on an earlier version of this blog post, I thank Tom Hoerr, and my colleague, Howard Gardner.

How MI Theory Inspired a Hit Game

By Shinri Furuzawa

I was saddened to learn that due to complications of Covid (link here) Richard Tait, co-inventor of the board game Cranium, died recently at the age of 58.

Tait created Cranium with his business partner, Whit Alexander, a friend and former colleague at Microsoft. Cranium and its sister games were hugely popular in the 1990s and 2000s, selling over 44 million copies in 22 countries before the company was sold to Hasbro in 2008 for $77.5 million. 

The original spark behind the game is part of Cranium legend. As told by Whit Alexander, Tait was on a vacation with his wife and friends when someone suggested playing a board game. Tait found that while he and his wife were “extraordinarily good” at Pictionary, the other couple “destroyed them” at Scrabble. Tait wondered why there wasn’t a game where everyone could be good at some part of the game. He wanted to develop a new game that gave everyone a chance to shine. This concept would be the key to Cranium’s success.

MI Theory as “the great inspiration”

Alexander told MI Oasis that Howard Gardner’s theory of multiple intelligences was “core” in the initial development of Cranium and that, “The original game depended on the comprehensive articulation of [MI theory].” Tait began with 4 activities: Hangman, Trivial Pursuit, Charades and Pictionary. He wanted something for what he understood as left-brained people and right-brained people—hence the brain logo and the name Cranium. Alexander, however, knew the challenge was to find a more robust framework to deliver on the promise that “everyone shines.” In researching intelligence with the conviction that people can be good at different things, MI theory “immediately popped up… and that was like an ‘aha’ moment.” Alexander and Tait came to understand it was not about left brain or right brain, it was about multiple intelligences.

Applying MI Theory to the game 

According to Alexander, the development of Cranium was an exercise in marrying multiple intelligences with a systematic subject framework and an inventory of games that had been successful over the decades. Cranium was designed to include activities which relied on as many different intelligences as possible. Players might be required to hum a song, impersonate a celebrity, draw something while blindfolded, make a clay representation of a concept, or spell a word backwards, among other challenges. (In contrast, most games at the time challenged just one or two intelligences, such as linguistic and spatial intelligences required for Scrabble).

The intelligences were embodied across four Cranium characters: Word Worm, Data Head, Star Performer, and Creative Cat. Michael Adams, a lead game maker for a design shop that was contracted to invent additional games for Cranium, explained that MI theory was filtered into these four characters which could be described as “an artistic type, a player with words, a scientist, and an actor.” Adams said, “Every time I invented something… I had to be sure that the four characters were included and, by inference, their ability and/or intelligence.”

Bringing to bear their experience working with Encarta encyclopedia at Microsoft, Tait and Alexander also considered how best to appeal to different intelligences in Cranium’s different subject categories. Alexander described their method, “We went intelligence by intelligence and looked at Encarta subject categories”—for example, predicting that someone with naturalist intelligence might be interested in geology. Considering the game was targeted at “yupsters,” geology questions might be unexpected, “Yet,” as Alexander said, “there they were, and that’s why.” 

Alexander also gave the example of musical intelligence, “We knew it wasn’t enough to ask questions about music, we needed activities that were intrinsically musical and that led directly to the ‘humdinger’ activity where you had to hum or whistle a song.”  

A Smash Hit

Cranium was a runaway success. After the original Cranium, using the same principles, the company went on to win “Game Of The Year” with four different games in five consecutive years. Alexander described one moment on the Oprah Winfrey Show when instead of plugging the game she was meant to promote, Julia Roberts, said “Yeah, yeah that’s great, but there’s this new game— Cranium, I love it, we can’t stop playing!” Their phones did not stop ringing after that, as Alexander added “Thank you, Julia Roberts!”

When asked if he was astonished at the success of the game, Alexander responded, “You have to be humble, and many things could have gone wrong and did go wrong, but we had to truthfully say we weren’t totally surprised, because we did very explicitly architect, design and passionately develop the game to deliver on this experience [where everyone shines] so we were pretty optimistic that people were going to like this game.” 

Everyone Shines

Alexander noted that after the news of Tait’s death, former Cranium employees re-connected and reminisced about what it meant to be part of the Cranium brand, “Everyone, almost to a person, said there was no daylight between Cranium brand values and the corporate culture. The single word that that best embodied it was shine.” He described the company as “a super engaged, super fun workplace… it felt like the game, people loved coming to work.” One of the company’s fun quirks was that people chose their own titles, Alexander being “Chief Noodler.” Catherine Carr led the content team for many years at Cranium as “Keeper of the Flame.” She said that beyond MI theory’s influence on game activities and content, “The underlying theory has had a tremendous impact on my professional and personal life since those days. So many companies are talking about how to be more inclusive these days, and I would observe that understanding multiple intelligences is a particularly powerful mechanism for encouraging diversity and inclusion!”

In my view, any game that encouraged people to value each player for being intelligent in their own way and to respect one another’s differences as strengths was a welcome addition to the toy and game industry. Whether in a game, work, or educational setting, a team is more likely to be successful when each person is allowed to shine and their individual intelligences and intellectual profile are respected. Howard Gardner has said that, “When our individual intelligences are yoked to positive ends, we can all pursue good work and good citizenship.” Perhaps a cooperative board game like Cranium which teaches us to celebrate “shining moments” for every player over a final result of winners and losers helps us move towards this worthy goal.

Thanks to Whit Alexander, Catherine Carr, and Michael Adams for their much appreciated reflections on MI theory and Cranium.

Photo by Andrey Metelev on Unsplash