Do Highly Intelligent People Prefer Instrumental Music?

This story caught me eye (click here for link) — the claim that individuals with high intelligence (presumably measured by an IQ test) prefer instrumental music over vocal music.  And as someone who plays the piano daily and listens to classical music regularly, I initially had a positive feeling about this claim—based on published research.

But some thought has caused me to be very skeptical about the claim. First of all, it makes a big difference whether one is listening to music as background (as I typically do), as opposed to attending a concert where one’s attention is focused on the performance.  If a well regarded vocalist were singing Schubert songs, they would command my full attention; so too, for the Mahler symphonies or song cycles for soloists or orchestras.

Second, this correlational finding doubtless reflects significant social-economic-cultural factors. Those raised in Western intellectual circles in the last century or so will have a bias toward the great symphonists and concerto composers from Europe (Mozart, Beethoven, Brahms etc).  But what do we know about those individuals raised in other cultures (India, China, West Africa, Latin America) at different times and in different cultural milieus?  I’d be astonished if we would find the same preferences—less surprised if we found totally different tastes depending on culture and era.

Finally, as the individual who proposed different kinds of intelligences, I’d make a distinction between computational powers (and intelligence) and personal preferences. Example:  There are all kinds of reasons why physicians and scientists might be partial to instrumental music; but that says nothing about their computational powers with music.  Indeed, in one study, Ellen Winner and her colleagues found that humanists are as much involved with music as are mathematicians and scientists—but this finding is less known because it does not fit into cultural stereotypes.

So long live intelligence, however defined, and musical preferences, however measured, but please don’t confound the two.

By Howard Gardner

Howard Gardner to Retire from Teaching

Howard Gardner retires from teaching at the end of this academic year. He will continue his research as the Hobbs Research Professor of Cognition and Education at Harvard University. To read a tribute marking this occasion by two close colleagues from Harvard Project Zero, click here.

Howard Gardner Interviewed by the National Art Education Association

Howard Gardner was the keynote speaker at the 2019 NAEA National Convention in Boston. He was interviewed by NAEA’s Janice Hughes, read the article here.

MI Misconceptions: An Article from Pakistan

I recently saw this article from a Pakistani newspaper, click here for link. It begins with the observation that individuals are often clueless about their career paths even after completing their masters degree. I can’t just judge whether that statement is correct—either about young people in Pakistan or in the United States.

However, from that possibly relevant observation, there is a huge leap to the next statement and to the headline that “Parents should know their kids’ future careers from class three.”  And there is no warrant whatsoever for the additional assertion “from grade three a parent can distinguish… that a child has one intelligence at the top in which they excel, one intelligence at the lowest, and six intelligences in the average zone.”

Quite the opposite: we differ from one another in our profiles of intelligence, and there is no simple formula for strengths and weaknesses. And in any case, intelligences develop—or fail to develop—because of an individuals experiences, motivations, and opportunities. Rather than trying to anticipate or dictate a career, parents should encourage their children to try out various pursuits and to be prepared to pursue a variety of careers—for who can anticipate what the occupational landscape will be a generation from now?

Howard Gardner

Article on Intelligence Ignores MI Theory

While MI Theory is well known in educational circles, and has become part of the common culture in some places, it has never had much of a home in standard psychology circles.  This point is illustrated beautifully in this article published in a major journal of psychology (Current Directions in Psychological Science), click here for link.  Entitled “Life beyond ‘general intelligence,’” researchers Kovacs and Conway contend that “IQ should be interpreted as an index of specific cognitive abilities rather than the reflection of an underlying general cognitive ability.”  Terming their approach “POT” (Process Overlap Theory) the authors propose that intelligence is determined by multiple components, both domain-general and domain-specific.”  Moreover, they add that they do not equate “g” or general intelligence with some kind of central executive function.  Rather, executive functioning appears to be a “cluster of largely autonomous control processes—an executive committee,” so to speak.

You might well conclude that I am pleased with this article and its conclusions.  And yet, what strikes me more is that neither my work nor that of other critics of a single-intelligence position is cited — not Robert Sternberg, not Steven Ceci, not David Olson, just to mention three scholars known to me.  Apparently, standard intelligence theory and standard proponents of “g” are the only individuals who merit citation in such an article.  You may think that I am annoyed, or even angry,  and yet I am simply bemused.

Howard Gardner