Existential intelligence during COVID-19 crisis

An undergraduate student from Long Island, New York, recently wrote asking the following question. 

I was hoping you would be able to provide some insight on the “Frame of Mind” of people in quarantine from Coronavirus. Since there has been a dynamic shift in our perception of reality due to fear, do you believe that while people are isolated in quarantine Existential Intelligence is ever more present in children? 

Schools aren't exactly teaching existentialism but the classroom that exists beyond a physical space is now as prominent as ever. Kierkegaard's notion of angst may have relevance here. Children desire structure and routine in school to reduce anxiety in the classroom, now only to be uprooted by the unknown. Children are left to ask, "Why?" 

Howard Gardner responds:

I think that's a very reasonable assumption. A lot depends on two factors:

  1. How the adults (and the media) deal with COVID-19. When children get a clear and unambiguous signal from their parents and other respected adults, they are likely to accept the situation. On the other hand, when they sense that their parents are not on the same page, watch out!

  2. Whether the children listen carefully to the answers to their questions and wrestle with them. I've often quipped that all children that I know like to ask questions—but children differ in whether the asking is the point, or whether they also deal with and follow up on the responses that they receive.

New Superhero Inspired by MI Theory

A new female superhero for a series of graphic science fiction novels has been created with inspiration from MI Theory.

The character, Dr. Cecelia Cobbina, is an African-American woman and physician with Doctors Without Borders who features in Omni: The Doctor Is In, Vol. 1 published by Humanoids. Cobbina is a genius who can cycle through nine types of intelligence like a human computer. The author, Devin Grayson, talked about the creative process behind the new character in an interview with Maurice Boyer of Publishers Weekly:

“Once I had decided I wanted Cecelia to have every kind of identified human intelligence, I had to figure out what they all were. That pretty quickly led me to Gardner's theory of multiple intelligences (from Howard Gardner’s 1983 book Frames of Mind: The Theory of Multiple Intelligences)... One of the first breakdowns I saw was in the form of a colorful chart, which I realized could help inform how we developed the power visually: I associated each intelligence modality with its own color and avatar so that we could literally see Cecelia thinking.”

Read the whole article here.

7 Things You Should Know About Multiple Intelligences

I recently received a link to the below blog post from Thomas Armstrong of the American Institute for Learning and Human Development, you may find it interesting. Click here to go to the website.

Howard Gardner

7 Things You Should Know About Multiple Intelligences

By Thomas Armstrong

I received an email last week from someone who said his school had required him to buy a book that claimed Howard Gardner’s theory of multiple intelligences was a myth.  Naturally, as someone who has written and taught about this theory for the past thirty-four years, I was disturbed by this revelation.  To help set the record straight, I list here seven things you should know about the theory of multiple intelligences before going off the track and dismissing the theory altogether.

  1. There Are Actually 8 1/2 Intelligences.  Gardner originally started out with 7 intelligences when his book Frames of Mind first came out in 1983.  In 1997 he added the ”naturalist” intelligence (because he believed it met the criteria for an intelligence – see point #6 below).  In 1999, in his book Intelligence Reframed, he began to talk about the ”existential” intelligence (the intelligence of concern with ultimate life issues) because it also met most of the criteria for an intelligence, but not quite enough to qualify as a full-fledged intelligence, hence the 1/2 (which he talks about to a certain extent with tongue in cheek).

  2. Multiple Intelligences is Not a Way of Teaching. Some of the criticism of multiple intelligences has arisen as a part of the now deeply entrenched ”evidence-based” movement in education which seems to require that every teaching strategy should be subjected to random controlled trials, where one group receives a specific instructional intervention and is compared with a group that didn’t based on pre- and post-testing.  Out of this, a statistic is derived, most often an ”effect size” (e.g. .4 is seen as borderline for an ”evidence-based” strategy).  Well, you simply can’t DO this with multiple intelligences, which, please note, is a theory, not a single classroom intervention.  But because one can’t derive a single statistic (or set of statistics) from the theory, people assume this means it is a myth.  This is crazy talk.  It’s like saying that the fields of existentialism, humanism, and pragmatism are myths because they can’t be reduced to a set of statistics.  In reality, there’s another ”ism” that is at the root of this problem:  logical positivism, which is a philosophy that holds that what is ”true” can only be expressed through numbers and logic!

  3. Multiple Intelligences Can Be Applied in Hundreds of Ways.  Dovetailing off of point #2, there are innumerable ways to apply the theory of multiple intelligences, and some of these specific ways are in fact supported by the existing evidence-based literature.  Robert Marzano, for example, who is one of the evidence-based gurus of education, lists one evidence-based approach for teaching vocabulary to students as:  ”Ask students to construct a picture, pictograph, or symbolic representation of the term.”  This would be regarded as an excellent spatial (or picture smart) application of multiple intelligences.  And there are scores of examples besides this one.  Again, you can’t roll the whole of multiple intelligences into a ball and tell whether or not it’s evidence-based.  You need to unwind the strands and examine them one by one.

  4. There Are Several Ways to Goof Up Using Multiple Intelligences.  As noted in point #3, there are hundreds of ways of legitimately applying the theory of multiple intelligences, but there are also a number of ways it can be misapplied.  One way is by assuming that each student is strongest in only one intelligence, and then labeling that student with that intelligence (e.g. ”our picture smart child”), and then giving them only material that relates to that intelligence. Gardner actually had to do a video broadcast for Australian media many years ago, because they were reporting how each intelligence was matched to a specific racial type! Gardner is clear in stating that every child has all eight and a half of the intelligences, and can develop them to a degree of proficiency within certain limits.

  5. Multiple Intelligences May Increase Test Scores, But If It Doesn’t That Doesn’t Mean It’s a Myth.  This point also relates to the critics’ dismissal of multiple intelligences because of their belief that it doesn’t ”raise test scores.” Well, the jury is out on that, because, again, it depends upon which aspects of multiple intelligences are being applied, and we’re back to ”effect sizes” (e.g. an effect size is the difference between the standard deviations of two groups based upon, guess what? test scores).  The fact that multiple intelligences may actually make students deeper, more engaged, more thoughtful students doesn’t seem to enter the mind of these number-crazed critics.

  6. More People Should Study the Multiple Intelligences Criteria. The word ”evidence” can mean a lot of things – it doesn’t have to just refer to statistics and numbers (what about the ”evidence” given in a jury trial?).  Gardner actually marshals a great deal of evidence in support of the 8 1/2 intelligences, and they can be found described in his first book on the subject:  Frames of Mind, published in 1983 (and revised in 2011).  In one chapter of the book, he explains how multiple intelligences are supported by evidence from brain science, developmental psychology, semiotics, cognitive psychology, cognitive archaeology, animal physiology, and the biographies and autobiographies of exceptional people (including savants and the geniuses of culture).  Put THAT in your Funk and Wagnall’s!  (the reference is to the TV show ”Laugh In” that aired from 1968-1973)

  7. Multiple Intelligences is Best Examined by Studying Life.  Here we come to I think the crux of the matter.  Multiple intelligences is not best assessed, analyzed, or examined through numbers, as seems to be the demand of those who claim this theory is a myth.  Instead, one must look to LIFE for the evidence of this theory’s vitality. You can see evidence for the multiple intelligences virtually everywhere:  in the symbol systems people use (e.g. words, numbers, pictures, musical notes), in the ways cultures value them (e.g. systems of music, mathematics, physical culture, social organizations), in the great thinkers of our time (e.g. Einstein, Picasso, Martin Luther King, Martha Graham), in the ways animals deploy their assets (e.g. birds use of musical intelligences, ants exploit social intelligence, chimpanzees display use of primitive forms of linguistic intelligence), and there is much more that this theory helps to explain.  In fact, there’s such a wealth of material opened up by this theory that could take a person a lifetime to assimilate and digest.

In other words, the main reason why I have been so enamored of this theory since my discovery of it in 1985 is because it brings to life so many dimensions of the human condition that I am always discovering new things within it.  This compares with the excruciatingly boring statistical analyses used by those who accuse multiple intelligences of being a myth.  Well, the Greek word for myth is ”mythos” which means ”story.” Howard Gardner has told a story about the human mind that to my mind is still unrivaled in the fields of psychology and education.  So, critics, stop already with the devaluations and denigrations, and take a moment or two to turn toward the big picture of existence, and bask in the brilliance of a theory that can illuminate so many aspects of our lives that were previously hidden from view.

Which Intelligence Predicts Coding Ability?

Here’s a quick question for a fan of multiple intelligences theory: Which intelligence predicts how well a person learns to code?

If you’d asked me that question, I would probably have blurted out “logical-mathematical intelligence“ because computing seems a quintessential logical and mathematical task.

But I would’ve been wrong.

Chantel Prat and colleagues, researchers at the University of Washington in Seattle, decided to test out the options. And as reported in this article, the answer was not what one might have expected.

In fact, a better predictor of skill at coding is the linguistic skill of the individual in question. Put differently, individuals who are good at language—precise denotation and mastery of syntax are more likely to succeed at coding than individuals who are good at mathematics.

Of course once one knows the right answer, it’s easier to come up with, or contrive, an explanation.

According to the authors, success at coding depends upon a precise use of language with attention to every word, its meaning and its place in a sentence and a message being essential if you are not to botch the task. And so people who are sensitive to the denotations of words and truly a precise ordering and its implications have a heads up on success in learning to code. Or as my colleague Katie Davis put it, “coding is really like learning a second language.”

Of course, skills in logic and mathematics also help individuals learn to code. It’s just that in this particular race to success, language has the edge. And this study reminds us again that language and mathematics are not the same thing—as every high school teacher could confirm.

Read the full article here.

Writing from the Body: A blend of intelligences

I’m gratified when educators write to me about ingenious courses that they have devised. On occasion, I ask for details and invite the educator to blog about it.

 I’m pleased that Cheryl Pallant, who teaches at the University of Richmond, has written about her innovative course called “Writing from the Body.” As signaled by the title, the course involves reflecting on the state of one’s own body, then putting those reflections into words, and in the process gaining a better understanding of one’s own current life situation.  

 When one attempts to order or array the several human intelligences in some fashion, linguistic, bodily, and personal intelligences may seem distant from one another. But in the hands of a skillful educator, these intelligences can be joined; and the resulting whole can be very helpful to students who, in many cases, are struggling with the stresses of contemporary life.

Writing from the Body: A blend of intelligences

By Cheryl Pallant

      At the start of the semester, students in my Writing From the Body class hand in a “somatic journey” contract where they state what areas they intend to focus on and why. Though I periodically teach the class as a workshop at art centers across the U.S. and abroad, I regularly teach undergraduates through the Theater and Dance Department at University of Richmond in Virginia. Students who choose this class can receive a General Education, Visual and Performance Art credit. The class combines writing and movement, exercises in one leading to and building upon the other. Exercises are used to express through dancing and writing, to further somatic awareness, to bring what may be unconscious into consciousness, and to investigate how meaning is made. A somatic journey asks them to come to know their subjective experience, to learn their multi-sensory body. Over the years the students have majored in everything from dance and English to psychology, biology, finance, gender studies, leadership, and international policy.

     I’ve been teaching this class for decades. Early on, students attended primarily to increase flexibility, strength, coordination, confidence, and creativity. Those objectives continue but I’ve noticed a significant change. More and more, my students report dealing with high levels of stress, depression, and anxiety to the point of missing class, requiring medication, and dropping out for a semester or two. My speculation as to what’s changed points to fiercer competition to get into grad school and land a decent job. Others have proposed a variety of causes ranging  from less autonomy growing up to the pressures imposed by ubiquitous social media.

     Hal was a biology major on the baseball team who wanted to increase his strength and coordination. A diligent student, he fulfilled every assignment and participated in class discussion. During movement instruction, I continually ask students to observe their breath, because this pivotal autonomic physiological process impacting the sympathetic and parasympathetic nervous system is often ignored. The quality of our breath is vital for extended physical exertions common to athletes and dancers. It’s also pivotal for feeling ease and can help or hinder concentration and focus. Regularly, I ask students to check the duration of their breath, whether the inhale matches the length of exhale, and if the breaths are smooth or jagged.

     One of Hal’s written assignments revealed the gravity of his newfound breath awareness. As a high school freshman, he developed pectus excavatum, a collapsing of the chest wall. A fellow classmate made fun of him in the locker room and as a result, he vowed to not remove his shirt in front of anyone again. If pectus excavatum is left untreated, the chest wall can squeeze the lungs and heart with fatal consequences. Over the next several years, Hal’s breast bone turned more inward, pressing against his organs, yet he kept his condition a secret from his parents, doctor, and baseball coach. My class got him to recognize the shallowness of his breath and confront his shame. He accepted, too, the potentially fatal repercussions of continuing to ignore his body. He subsequently spoke to his parents and doctors and arranged for surgery; later, he wrote that this class may have saved his life.

Turning his attention to his body didn’t require extraordinary skill. It required that Hal attune somatically to the specific conditions of his body and acknowledge its truths. It required that he be present to the sensations, actions, and emotions of his body, to notice and face his shame, and use that information to determine a course of action, in this case to get medical help.

Maggie was a 4.0 double major in finance and accounting who wanted to explore her creative side. She reported difficulty with stress, anxiety, and panic attacks which led to missing classes the previous semester. She was puzzled though welcoming of her unfamiliar calm at the end of each class session. She danced with great enthusiasm while her writing depicted her struggle to assign words to movements for which there was no readily available language, a process that helped her hone her senses. The exercises led her to identify her stress and anxiety triggers and to modify her behavior. By the semester’s end, she wrote that the somatic lessons saved her college career.

     Maggie’s initial lack of understanding is commonplace in that many of us haven’t been trained to read the body’s numerous signals, let alone find the words to describe what is taking place. Somatic literacy increases by turning attention to the overt and subtle phenomenon of the body and using language metaphorically and literally. Articulation through writing increases awareness of the body; similarly articulation through movement helps us loosen the muscles of expression and embody our chosen words. The strength and ability of one discipline creates inroads to the understanding of the other. Essentially, language, bodily, and intrapersonal intelligences interact and increase. The increases enable active engagement with the circumstances of life with greater awareness of causes, results, and choice.

     Whereas much of education focuses on objective knowing—memorizing facts and processes through the sciences for instance—a class such as this, teaches subjective knowing and embodiment. It familiarizes us with our individual inner world and how it connects with the outer world. The byproducts are many, among them showing our actions as part of a larger system; revealing the value of honesty—in that harbored lies harm ourselves; demonstrating how physical, emotional, mental, and spiritual awareness work together; and catalyzing that opening to the flow of creativity applicable to many disciplines, especially potent for writer’s block.

     A recent report from the Anxiety and Depression Association of America states that as many as 40 million adults suffer from anxiety disorders—women are twice as likely to suffer as men, numbers are thought only to be going up. To improve health and well-being and before resorting to medication, I would first prescribe several doses of dancing and journaling. Other than an occasional sore muscle, the only other side effects I’ve witnessed are a more positive outlook and an enhanced ability to foster connections.

Cheryl Pallant is a poet, dancer, professor at the University of Richmond in Virginia, and author of Writing and the Body in Motion.