The Autism Advantage

Notes by Howard Gardner

I’ve often quipped that the individuals most skeptical about MI theory are mathematicians. They know that there is only one intelligence: logical-mathematical intelligence. But they become instant converts when one of their children has a learning disability, or even a very skewed profile of abilities and disabilities. All of a sudden I hear the phrases, “Oh, of course, we’ve always known about multiple talents” or even, “Ah, now I understand that they mean by multiple intelligences.”

When I was doing the research on MI, well over thirty years ago, the most powerful evidence for the independence of intelligences was the existence of ‘special populations.’ Because I was working with brain-damaged adults, what stood out for me were individuals who had a selective destruction of a capacity (e.g. language, spatial orientation) or, less frequently, a selective sparing of a capacity (e.g. music or personal intelligences). As far as I could determine, there was no way in which the intellectual profiles of such individuals could be accounted for by standard IQ theory.

I did not have personal experience with autistic children (though now I would say that I have known several children and adults who could comfortably be placed on the Asperger/autistic spectrum).  But I was struck by the isolated sparing, in some autistic children, of musical or mechanical abilities; as well as the selective damage to personal and linguistic intelligences in individuals with otherwise impressive spatial, logical, or musical capacities. And so the existence of an autistic population was further evidence in favor of MI theory.

Since that time, of course, there has been a great increase in the number of documented cases of autism/Aspergers syndrome and much documentation of particular configurations and possible causes and cures/ameliorations of this condition.

This article stands out because it designates areas in which we can expect many autistic/Asperger individuals to have an advantage and indicates how these can be utilized at the work place. Such demonstrations are more important than ever before. In the area of education, David Rose’s organization (www.cast.org) has put forth the intriguing and convincing argument that it is not learners who are disabled; it is curricula that are disabled. And CAST tries to repair this balance by presenting educational materials in ways that speak to individuals who have one or another kind of deficit.  I look forward to the time when we will also think of workplaces as being enabled or disabled; and when the workplace is disabled, it would be highly desirable to make it more comfortable for individuals with a variety of intellectual profiles. Not only would this serve the individuals well; it might even increase the efficacy and the comfort level of the workplace. No doubt digital technology can be mobilized to aid in this important undertaking.

To read the article in its entirety click here.

Rise of the Machines

Notes by Howard Gardner

This article describes a new Research Center that will focus on threats to the very existence of mankind, what it terms ‘existential risk.’ Of course, the existence of our species has always been at risk, due to meteors, a new ice age, a meltdown of the oceans, plagues from the natural world (influenza) and plagues from the world of human cultures (wars). What is new is the imminent threats from human inventions like artificial intelligence or biotechnology, that could easily get ‘out of control.’

What caught my eye was the term ‘existential,’ since I speculated some years ago that there might be a 9th form of intelligence, what I call ‘the intelligence of big questions.’ Truth to tell, I had in mind questions about our own lives (what meaning does our life have if I know that I will die?) than questions about the survival of the species, but both can be well described as exercising ‘existential intelligence.’  In the article, philosopher Price says that a constant in human nature has been ‘human intelligence’ and that phenomenon is now going to change in the coming centuries. I am left with the question of whether our current, biologically evolved ‘existential intelligence’ is equal to the task and, if not, how technological or biological innovations will be brought to bear on the future of our species, or of its successors.

To read the article in its entirety click here.

Counting the Muses

Notes by Howard Gardner

In psychology, the study of creativity has been a poor stepchild in comparison with the study of intelligence. There are probably many reasons for this, ranging from historical accident (Binet and his followers were interested in success in a certain kind of Parisian school) to societal demand (many tests were chosen to filter out those who were unlikely to benefit from higher education). Only since 1950 has there been a small band of researchers who have focused primarily on creativity; and most of these individuals have insisted that creativity, roughly the capacity to come up with new questions and with unexpected answers, differs from intelligence, roughly the capacity to answer old questions quickly and accurately.

Among those who study creativity, there is a division among those who are looking to replicate the work in intelligence by developing a battery of creativity tests (J P Guilford, E Paul Torrance) and those, including me, who have preferred to study “Big C” creativity as it is recognized by the society (Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi, Dean Keith Simonton, myself). A few investigators, led by Teresa Amabile, have sought to combine ‘judgment by knowledgeable experts’ with psychometric precision.

In work described here, James Kaufman breaks new ground. His instrument, the Kaufman Domains of Creativity Scale, suggests that there are five broad domains of creativity. And as he indicates (p. 303), these domains have a rough parallel to the multiple intelligences that I’ve delineated. As a bonus, Kaufman also relates his five domains to the so-called Big Five Personality factors. At a time when society is placing increasingly great value on the discovery and nurturing of creative talents, it is good to have available this new instrument and to examine its implications and applications.

To read the study in its entirety click here.

Collective Intelligence

Notes by Howard Gardner

Especially for those of us interested in collaboration (see Good Collaboration at www.thegoodproject.org), the idea of a collective intelligence is intriguing. It is important to know, empirically, at what tasks groups working together perform well, and why they do so. And in an era where connection is easy to initiate and virtually ubiquitous, it’s important to know which forms of collaboration are most effective.

In this article, my colleague Tom Malone takes a popular view that intelligence is singular, of a piece. And indeed, to the extent that he uses standard problem solving puzzles (e.g. cross puzzles or mental arithmetic), he is basically speaking about linguistic and logical-mathematical intelligences, the forms routinely measured on IQ tests.

However, Malone also notes that the groups need members who can understand one another and who do not dominate the conversation. In making these references, he is effectively ‘smuggling in’ interpersonal and intrapersonal intelligences. Moreover, if he were to broaden the set of tasks posed for a group; for example, recognition of artistic styles, or discriminating among kinds of animals, or creating memorable tunes, he might well find that other human intelligences prove to be at a premium.

To read the article in its entirety click here.

The Brain Trainers

Notes by Howard Gardner

We are well advised to be skeptical of claims, particularly on the part of commercial enterprises, that they have accomplished educational miracles. Were this the case, we’d all be geniuses! In fact, genuine educational miracles take place over decades, even centuries; not through some kind of training that unfolds over a matter of weeks.

That said, there’s little question that we can benefit from some kinds of brief training, whether in physical fitness, diet, or some kind of self-control, as in the exercises described here. Of course, we have to keep up the training. And we know that the major purchasers of diet books are those who have failed on numerous previous regimens.

But even if so-called ‘brain training’ proves effective, we need to determine the limits of the training. Even the strongest advocate would not claim, for example, that such training makes you more ethical or more beautiful! As I read this study, I agreed with Douglas Detterman. Probably these trainings help you to do better at certain kinds of tests, maybe even including certain kinds of IQ tests. And if you have never had that kind of training, it is valuable and legitimate to obtain it. Indeed, that is the contribution of the Israeli psychologist, Reuven Feuerstein, whom I much admire. But whether the exercises equip you to be more effective at the workplace, or to make more sense of the world, is doubtful in the extreme.

To read the article in its entirety click here.