Alanis Morrisette on MI Theory

In this recent interview with the LA Times, the singer, songwriter, record producer, and actress, Alanis Morrisette, explained how she uses MI theory with her children.

“My husband and I loosely use Howard Gardner’s Theory of Multiple Intelligences in unschooling our kids. The theory holds that there are different types of intelligences, not just one. You could have musical intelligence, verbal intelligence, naturalistic intelligence ... or intrapersonal intelligence, which is the ability to go within yourself. I was never taught about that in school. I was barely taught that at home.”

Alanis Morrisette has written about her take on the theory of multiple intelligences on her website and in 2017, she invited Howard Gardner to appear on her podcast. You can learn more here.

The LA Times interview is reproduced in full below:

By LIZ PHAIR | JULY 29, 2020

Alanis Morissette wants to change your mind. She’ll do it too. Spend an hour talking to her and you’ll realize that you like yourself more than you did before your interaction. She makes gifts of her observations. She never lets you over-share alone. Your life path might diverge from hers, but you’ll come away from a conversation with her feeling strengthened and understood. She listens; maybe that’s the rare thing.

Her breakthrough album, “Jagged Little Pill,” turns 25 this year. She was only 21 when she rocketed to stardom on that, in 1995. I am struck by how fearlessly she tackled taboo subjects in those early songs, how she remained unwavering in her conviction. She became a spokesmodel for a generation of young women hoping to claim their power when she’d barely advanced beyond her teens. In 2019, those same songs became the backbone of a critically acclaimed Broadway musical, and Alanis reasserted her status as a household name. You can’t think of anything ironic without thinking of Alanis.

We were supposed to tour together this summer, before the emergence of COVID-19. I was slated to open for Alanis and Garbage on their sold-out North American run. I can vividly imagine how epic it would have been: the balmy night air in the amphitheater, cellphone lights swaying in the crowd, Alanis belting out the soulful and stunning songs off her new album, out Friday, “Such Pretty Forks in the Road.” I feel cheated.

“But we’re going to do it next summer,” she reminds me. “There’s a lot of important work going on right now that we need to make space for.” Damn it. She’s younger than me. But so wise beyond her years.

Liz Phair: We were supposed to be touring right now.

Alanis Morissette: I know. I was having a moment of silence for that.

Phair: When was your last gig? I saw on Instagram you’d been in Europe.

Morissette: Yes, we were in Europe doing shows and interviews, and right as we were heading back to California, everyone started going into lockdown. What about you?

Phair: Check this out: I was supposed to be on a cruise ship. I am a lifelong avoider of cruise ships. I’ve always thought that the plague that would end the world would start on a cruise ship. But this was run by my friend, Jonathan Coulton. It’s called the JoCo Cruise, and a bunch of nerds and indie people take over the ship. We ended up flying to Santo Domingo on March 11th and flying right back home on the 12th. I have a picture of me on March 11th with this big-ass cruise ship in the background, like, exactly where not to be. It’s a photo I’ll treasure and be horrified by.

Morissette: The thought of touring with you is very healing for me because you were one of the only people — I’m going to start crying — who just felt really sane to me, even though of course you probably felt insane.

Phair: I did feel insane, Alanis. I still feel insane half the time. At the beginning of the pandemic, I was voracious and I was literally reading medical abstracts about the original SARS. My father was an infectious disease specialist, so I grew up with this kind of crazy ... this is right in the wheelhouse of both my paranoia and my expertise. In my crazy brain, I was like, “I will solve this.”

Morissette: We like our answers, we like our control. But this is a really great time to look at the idea of faith, the idea of trust, the idea of not knowing, and living in that kind of limbo grief, limbo fear.

Phair: But it’s hard to get back to being an artist in all this. That’s the maelstrom that I find difficult to create within. Hyper-vigilance and intimacy with self are ...

Morissette: They’re not bedfellows.

Phair: Right. Not many people can sit with themselves and go inward and investigate. A lot of people avoid it. But the pandemic has certainly forced people to do that.

Morissette: But for introverts and empaths, the internal world is heaven. It’s rich. Oh, my God, it’s so juicy in there. For artists and writers and I think moms too, it’s kind of a normal process to be like, “I need a few hours alone to get inside.” These days, I basically get it at 4 in the morning. When do you get your alone time?

Phair: In the middle of the night. It’s like some little spirit comes out of me, and the genie is out of the bottle. When the world is asleep, I have more room. During the beginning of the pandemic, I did this weird thing. I live two blocks from the beach and there was a bioluminescent bloom going on in L.A., and it was spectacular. We weren’t supposed to go down to the water, but I would sneak down with my mask and gloves. During the pandemic, I do my functioning things in the daytime, but my artist self has become a night-timer. There were other night-timers out there in the darkness; I passed a surfer coming up at 3 in the morning, wet from the ocean, who’d just done a session. I have all my big ideas late at night. I have all of my big moments of understanding.

How about you? How are you navigating through the pandemic?

Morissette: I’m so maxed out right now, with three kids [Ed. Ever, 9; Onyx, 4; and Winter, 11 months, with husband Mario Treadway] and a new album, that I’m accepting that overwhelmed feeling. If I resist it, I just create massive suffering for myself.

As a society, though, we’re being crunched into this corner of potential awakening, which I love. We’re being asked what matters the most, what do we value, what do we care about? Because in America, it’s always been like, “I want to look 20 forever, I want to be a millionaire” — or these days billionaire — “I want to be famous.” Now, everyone’s asking, “What’s the new value system? What matters now?”

We have to change everything: Systemic racism, systemic misogyny, systemic fricking everything has got to be dismantled. In business, education, everywhere.

I talk to a lot of people who are freaked out about having to home-school their kids. Parents need to cut themselves some slack. Because no parent is going to re-create what conventional school offers. My oldest son is 9, and we’ve always unschooled him. [Ed. Unschooling is a branch of home-schooling that promotes nonstructured, child-led learning.]

Phair: There is something really troubling about this drive to get our kids back into the classroom. It’s like we’re just training people for the capitalist machine.

Morissette: There are just so many different ways to go about educating kids. God bless Americans, we’re so ethnocentric.

My husband and I loosely use Howard Gardner’s Theory of Multiple Intelligences in unschooling our kids. The theory holds that there are different types of intelligences, not just one. You could have musical intelligence, verbal intelligence, naturalistic intelligence ... or intrapersonal intelligence, which is the ability to go within yourself. I was never taught about that in school. I was barely taught that at home. How does one go within and cultivate a world of interiority? For those of us who are highly sensitive and artistic, we go, “Yeah, yeah. Of course.” But going within comes with a lot of negative messaging: “If I go within, I’m going to be filled with fear and pain.”

Phair: My mental health relies on my ability to go within and write songs. That’s an essential part of how I ground myself. I almost don’t know what I’m feeling until I write the song. I find that the older I get, the more I end up weeping when I’m writing because there’s something unblocking. And I also find — word to the wise — that if I want to say something to someone, rather than writing an email or text that I regret, when I write the song, it just settles everything. Somehow, the universe needed to hear it more than that person did.

Morissette: I used to think that I could write songs and never have to deal with human beings. I’d be like, “I’m really angry at that person, so I’m going to go over here in a room and write about it and then never talk to them. It’s perfect.” But turned out, if that person walked into a room, there’d still be some unrest. People are like, “Oh, it must be so healing to write these songs.” It’s clarifying, it’s empowering, but it doesn’t necessarily heal the relationship itself.

I’m Canadian, so I’m basically passive-aggressive. I’m kind, friendly, and then I snap. I’m just a cranky little bitch. There’s just no way around it. Even with my band mates, I’ll just be like, “Mommy hasn’t had a lot of time alone today, so I’m just going to do my thing and I’ll see you guys at an hour.” And they’re like, “Right on, thank you.”

Phair: I’ve been working on learning how to lose my temper because I hold on to it.

Morissette: Anger gets such a bad rap, and it can be such a beautiful force. I mean, it helps us say no. It helps us be activists. It helps us stand up for ourselves, for others. Anger’s so amazing. It’s just that people equate it with something destructive.

Phair: Do you remember when I opened for you a million years ago? We went out to dinner one night, and you were talking to your label about submitting the follow-up to “Jagged Little Pill.” You’d just achieved the absolute pinnacle of success. And yet the label was saying, “You need to do this, you need to do that.” And I just was sitting across from you thinking, there is no end. There’s no amount of success that gives you artistic autonomy. There’s no amount of success where commerce won’t impinge on the art. If you hadn’t earned the ability to walk into an office, drop the songs on their desk, be like, “You’re welcome” and walk back out, there was no endpoint.

Morissette: You said I didn’t have the ability to walk in and drop the music and go, “You’re welcome,” and walk out. The thing is, is I did do that. Their response was, “She’s not very open to feedback.” I used to say, “I’m sorry, is your name on the album cover? It’s my name, my face and it’s my life. So you’re welcome.”

Phair: Did you ever feel pressure, though?

Morissette: A couple of times. I was like, “All right, I’ll re-record ‘Hand in My Pocket’ and see if it’s better,” even though I didn’t want to re-record it and I thought it was finished. Then we’d re-record it, and they’d say, “No, no, no, the original one’s way better.” Sometimes they’re like, “You’re a genius, but change everything about yourself.” Some of that for sure is patriarchy. Some of it is just how the industry is. Record companies are just not compatible with artists. I’m shocked that they even let us be in the same room sometimes.

Back then, it was a very guy-centric time. Labels, musicians: They didn’t know what to do with me. If they couldn’t f— me, they would ignore me. It was like I was an alien. I was going to sleep with them, or I wasn’t going to exist. There were exceptions of course, but that was pretty much how it was. A lot of men in the ‘90s would say to me, “Oh, I love women. Women are amazing.” I’m like, “Oh, no, no. You like to f— women. That’s not the same thing.”

Phair: You and I were both chicks in a male world writing from the point of view of being more than just a girl. I think we both saw ourselves as female but also, more importantly, human. A lot of female artists back then were either masculinized, like they had to hang with the boys and do more coke than them, or they were feminized and fit the hot girl bass-player tokenism. Intuitively, I knew I wanted more room. I wanted more territory for myself. I definitely felt lonely. Now, there are so many young women making music of all sorts, with their visions intact. They wear whatever they want. They make the video the way they want. They play keyboards, drums, whatever. They’re autonomous in a way that I couldn’t have dreamed of back then.

I would have been accepted had I just picked up a bass and played in a male band. I would have been accepted if I’d been a chanteuse who wrote songs and let them be directed by a male producer. But I had the audacity to get onstage and take a spot away from a guy.

Morissette: When “You Oughta Know” was first sent out to radio stations, the response was, “We’re actually playing Sinéad O’Connor, so we’re good.” Or, “We have Tori Amos in our rotation. We can’t add another woman. Sorry.” That changed pretty fricking quickly.

Phair: Thanks in large part to you.

Morissette: I saw that the wave was coming, and I had the surfboard. I’m like, “Let me get up there on the crest.” It was so ready to change.

Phair: The programming at radio stations used to drive me crazy! Thank God I went to Oberlin. It was a very politically progressive college, and it quickly smartened me up about how women are represented in our culture. Like, how many times a woman’s body was used to advertise things: dish soap, tires, real estate, cars. The female body was seen constantly, and their heads would almost be cut off, like they were practically in porn. I wanted to take all those female bodies that I saw and tell their story. That’s why, on “Exile in Guyville,” I took the Rolling Stones’ “Exile on Main Street” and gave the girls in those lyrics their own voice. I wanted to put the story back in the silenced hot bodies. Subjectify the objectification or whatever.

Morissette: What you’re describing, that hyper-sexualizing of women. … There’s a new song on my record called “Sandbox Love,” and it’s really about, what does sex look like post-sexual abuse, post-harassment? How you have sex after abuse is really at the forefront for me right now, because I’ve experienced so much sexual abuse in my past. And so “Sandbox Love” is about that.

Phair: I would argue that all women, because of patriarchy, and all men, because of patriarchy, are going to have to learn how to have sex after abuse, because in some subtle way, we’ve all been given an abusive picture of what sex and love is. Women may need it more, but men need it too because a lot of times they’re just pantomiming what they think they’re supposed to be doing.

When you come down to the best of what sex is, it’s this naked, awkward ... You know that space that you can hold with someone that’s so special?

Morissette: It’s intimate. Yes. I love it.

Phair: It’s intimate, and you don’t have your armor up, and you’re not showing off. The older I get, the more that is my favorite part of life.

Morissette: Everything, even trauma recovery, is all about just coming back into the body.

Phair: I’m so glad to see your face. I love women. Women are the best.

Morissette: We’re going to hit the stage as soon as it’s OK to tour. I can’t wait.

This interview was moderated by Times television

COVID-19 Has Taught Us What Intelligence Really Is

Robert Sternberg’s recent article in Inside Higher Ed argues that COVID-19 has shown more clearly than ever that IQ tests and other tests of their ilk, such as the SAT or ACT, are not valid indicators of the type of intelligence that actually matters. According to Sternberg, intelligence is the ability to adapt to the environment. 

Howard Gardner comments:

COVID-19 certainly explodes any test or textbook notion of intelligence. As you may know, I've maintained that IQ-type tests look at the combination of linguistic and logical intelligence, with a dollop of spatial intelligence sometimes tossed in. They are fine predictors of who could be a law professor—and indeed, perhaps, a Talmud scholar. But they have little to do with recognizing and solving many “real-life” problems, opening up few fields of knowledge, doing the right thing, or choosing the better alternative in difficult circumstances. That's left lots of room for scholars like Robert Sternberg and me to busy ourselves with.

Sterberg’s article from Inside Higher Ed is reproduced in full below.

COVID-19 Has Taught Us What Intelligence Really Is

Roberg J. Sternberg | August 31, 2020 

COVID-19 has taught us something important about intelligence. It’s not just that we can get by without IQ-test proxies like the SAT and ACT that go by a number of different names to avoid being called IQ tests. (Research by Douglas K. Detterman, professor of psychology at Case Western Reserve University, and others shows that these tests are essentially disguised tests of general intelligence.) It’s not that such tests administered online at home will almost certainly be invalid. Rather, it’s that the tests never measured what’s important in the first place, and we should have known better. Actually, we did know better.

Ever since psychologists started measuring intelligence, including the academic skills measured by IQ tests and their proxies, they have known that intelligence is not really your ability to solve obscure multiple-choice problems with largely trivial content that will have no impact on your future life whatsoever. Instead, intelligence is the ability to adapt to the environment.

And that’s what Alfred Binet and David Wechsler, the founders of the intelligence test movement, said. Any evolutionary theorist should be able to tell you that: organisms that don’t adapt die. Species that don’t adapt die off. That’s also the consensus of psychologists in scholarly symposia that have sought to understand what intelligence is. Trivial academic problems don’t measure well your ability to adapt to the environment.

Why are these tests such mediocre measures of your ability to adapt to the environment -- of true intelligence? Compare a real problem, like that of dealing with COVID-19, to the characteristics of standardized-test problems. The characteristics of real-world problems are entirely different from the characteristics of problems on standardized tests. Standardized test problems are mostly multiple choice or short answer and have a right or wrong answer. Real problems require extended answers; there is no perfect answer, and sometimes, not even a very good one. Standardized test problems are decontextualized, emotionally bland and have no real-life stakes. Real-world problems are highly contextualized, emotionally arousing and may have high stakes. Standardized test problems are solved quickly and then you are done; real-life ones often take a long time and, after you think you have solved them, often come back.

Most important, real-world problems require you actively to deploy your intelligence -- to decide seriously to use it. Standardized tests measure an inert form of intelligence -- one that may exist in your head somewhere but is rarely actually put into real-world use. Intelligence is not just about an inert ability to take tests; it is about the active deployment of that ability to solve problems of life.

In research in my labs at Yale and Cornell Universities on intelligence as adaptive knowledge and skills, we have consistently found, over a period of many years, that scores on academic types of tests do not show much positive correlation, if any at all, with tests of adaptive skills. For example, some years back, my colleagues and I conducted a study of young people far away in rural Kenya. We discovered that an important life skill in rural Kenya, knowing how to recognize and treat parasitic illnesses with natural herbal medicines, actually was negatively correlated with IQ. The better you did on the practical test, the worse you did on the academic test, and vice versa.

At the time, a journal reviewer thought that the test was too “far out” -- that knowing how to treat illnesses was not what intelligence is about. He was wrong. You know who the really adaptively unintelligent people are today, in the age of COVID-19, not only in Kenya but also right where you live? Not the ones who get low standardized test scores. Rather, they are the ones who refuse to wear masks, who don’t socially distance and who don’t trouble themselves to wash their hands. They are the ones who, from a Darwinian adaptive standpoint, are unintelligent, regardless of their IQ or standardized test scores. They have inert intelligence but do not choose actively to deploy it in the real world. They thereby not only risk their own health and life; they also put other people’s lives at risk when they breathe on them. They might literally be the cause of others’ deaths. The principle behind the tests we used in Kenya applies anywhere: in the end, intelligence is about adaptation to the environment, not solving trivial or even meaningless problems.

In our current research at Cornell, we are measuring people’s adaptive intelligence both at a micro level and at a macro level. A micro-level problem might concern an interpersonal issue, such as how one deals with two friends who are fighting and both expect you to take their side. A macro-level problem might deal with two nations who are having a dispute over shared water resources, where one nation is accused of taking more than its fair share of water. Solutions are free response and are scored for the extent to which they seek a common good -- balancing the interests of the various parties over the long as well as the short term -- through the use of positive ethical values (such as acting toward others as you wish them to act toward you).

Is adaptive intelligence really important? Well, you be the judge. Which skill is more important for the great majority of students in college once they have graduated: the ability to solve artificial verbal and math problems or, alternatively, to address and try to solve problems of global climate change, air and water pollution, global pandemics, bacterial resistance to antibiotics, gun violence against schoolchildren (other than the usual pathetic “our thoughts and prayers are with them”), and the return of would-be autocrats to declining democracies?

Are you going to buy in to the notion that what matters is standardized test scores? They measure a small part of intelligence, but only a very small part. IQs increased 30 points around the world in the 20th century (the so-called Flynn effect), and given the current problems in the world, that increase does not appear to have bought us much.

In my in-press book, Adaptive Intelligence, I argue that all us, including colleges and universities, ought to focus not on producing test takers who are content to see the world go to hell in a handbasket so long as they get their degrees and make their money. Look around us. It’s not working! Instead, we need to develop and assess students’ adaptive skills in and willingness to make the world a better place. If not now, when?

Robert J. Sternberg is professor of human development at Cornell University and honorary professor of psychology at the University of Heidelberg, Germany. His upcoming book, Adaptive Intelligence: Surviving and Thriving in Times of Uncertainty, will be published in February 2021 by Cambridge University Press.

Tiny Pieces for the Jigsaw Puzzle that is Multiple Intelligences

As most readers know, I have not worked actively on “MI theory” for many years.  And yet, it is very often on my mind and I try to monitor scientific findings that are relevant to the theory.

I am a regular reader of Science, the premier scientific journal in the United States. In a recent issue (7/31/20), there were actually three articles that are relevant to the theory.

  1. “Inside the Paleolithic Mind”   
    A tool made 1.75 million years ago represented a technological breakthrough. The author infers that the maker, homo erectus, devised a distinctive flaking technique that allowed him (or her) to butcher animal carcasses with precision.
    MI Implication: Spatial and bodily intelligence (emerging a million years before human language)

  2. “Autobiographical Subnetworks”  
    There are nine subnetworks within the default-mode network that deal with autobiographical memory and other types of internally oriented cognition.
    MI Implication: Intrapersonal intelligence, clearly a distinct area of cognition

  3. “This Man Can Read Letters But Numbers Are A Blank”  
    A patient with brain damage was able to read regular prose but could not read numbers, though he was still able to do mental arithmetic and perform other mathematical operations.

    This case brought me back to my earlier work in neurology and neuropsychology, where we observed the dissociation between reading numbers and words. (See The Shattered Mind: The Person after Brain Damage).
    MI Implication: Linguistic intelligence is dissociated from logical-mathematical intelligence

In my 2020 memoir, A Synthesizing Mind, I describe the development of MI theory, while conceding that it is certainly not the final word in the study of intellect. But neither, I emphasize, can those who posit a single kind of intelligence explain these dissociations—psychological, neurological, and chronological.

 

Howard Gardner on Maria Montessori

The Maria Montessori Italian Association and University of Macerata recently invited Howard Gardner to speak at the Montessori 150 year Anniversary Conference, commemorating 150 years since the birth of Maria Montessori. Gardner’s talk was shown by video to a wide audience of Italian educators; he also made a live, virtual appearance for a Q&A session.

In his talk, Gardner spoke about the context of great Italian thinkers on education: Maria Montessori and also Loris Malaguzzi, why he respects the Montessori approach, and the reason Montessori education has endured. He also touched on how he used Montessori ideas and materials in his own research. 

A video of the talk and following Q&A (in English) is available here.

Gardner Interview on MI Theory During COVID-19

Howard Gardner was recently interviewed by educationpostonline.com. He gave his opinion on questions such as the future of education post COVID-19, the benefits of online education, and learning at home. To learn more, see here.

The interview is also reproduced below:

INTERVIEW: EVERY INTELLIGENCE IS VALUE-NEUTRAL, SAYS HOWARD GARDNER

“Every intelligence is value-neutral. It can be used constructively or negatively,” says renowned developmental psychologist Howard Gardner

By Dipin Damodharan | July 19, 2020 

Howard Gardner needs little introduction. One of the most admirable intellectual cult heroes of our times, this renowned American developmental psychologist happened to be the correction of a faulty tilt in the very concept of human intelligence. We were not at all bothered about judging our children as smart and dumb, given their varying dimensions of general intelligence.

As far as intelligence and teaching are concerned, Gardner provided ample signs that there was something terribly wrong with the so-called conventional method, and it was only going to crash sometime, slowly but surely. Because, we–from the teachers and parents to policy makers and administrators–only thought of maintaining ourselves with our grim take on everything related to intelligence. 

The so-called bright child with conventional intelligence belongs to one line. And others belong to the other line. That is the reason why some students find themselves in limbo despite doing many things right in their schooling.

Gardner has shattered the myth of intelligence being a singular concept and proved that there are multiple intelligences within a human being. He describes human beings as the ones having several relatively independent information processing capacities (Read more about Gardner’s theory of Multiple Intelligences here) . Branded as the founding father of the universally acclaimed Multiple Intelligences (MI) theory, Howard Gardner is the Hobbs Research Professor of Cognition and Education at Harvard Graduate School of Education. 

In an exclusive interview with the Education Post Online Chief Editor and Co-founder Dipin Damodharan, Gardner says that he has moved on to study the way that intelligences are used–positively and negatively– in the real world. Excerpts…

How do you look at the future of education in the backdrop of Covid-19 pandemic?

Of course I hope that we return to regular in-person classes, especially for young students. We will have learned a lot about what topics, approaches, and ages work well online, which can be boosted, and which have to be done in person. Whether and how we apply those learning is an open question. I’d bet more on some countries and regions (northern Europe) than on others (The United States, Brazil).

What do you think of the relevance of the theory of Multiple Intelligences in the new scenario?

MI (Multiple Intelligences) is a theory about how the mind is organized and how it operates. That is not affected by COVID in itself. But to the extent that more education takes place at home, with parents and students working side by side, the more crucial it will be to know about the mind of each student, how it works, what helps it work well, what is frustrating or counterproductive. This requires intrapersonal intelligence (what works for me and how) and interpersonal intelligence (how can I help my child, my sibling, my friends, etc).

As the educational institutions are still closed, how educators can teach students about survival skills using MI theory?

MI theory is very relevant since it features the personal intelligences. We need to learn more about how each of us learns, what works, etc and to make use of that knowledge– that’s intrapersonal intelligence.  And to the extent that we are working with others– peers, parents, children– we need to understand how the other person learns, what works etc.

Of course, the other intelligences are relevant as well– including what I call ‘pedagogical intelligence”– how do we teach someone else?  – and ‘existential intelligence’– what are the big issues in life, and how can we think well about them and make progress in understanding them?

And depending on the topic, we also make use of other intelligences– spatial intelligence in learning geometry or geography, musical intelligence in the arts, and so on.

In countries like India, online education is gaining momentum. What should be the educators keep in mind to not repeat the ‘one size fits all’ mistake of the past?

Online education has become more important in the COVID era. Also, there is every reason to think it will improve, if we study carefully what works and why, and if we also reflect on what doesn’t work, and why not.

I have always felt that online education provides an invaluable opportunity for personalized learning. In a class of 30 or 50 students, it’s very difficult to personalize. But there is no reason in the world why a good online educational system cannot individualize to a great extent. An AI system should be able to custom fit each learner. “One size fits all’ could and should end up in the grave yard— that’s always been an aspiration of MI theory and practice!

Could you tell us how MI theory will evolve further, from a futuristic perspective?

With all due respect, I am no longer working actively on MI. Through the Good Project (thegoodproject.org) I have moved on to study the way that intelligences are used–positively and negatively– in the real world. That’s because, in and of itself, every intelligence is value-neutral– it can be used constructively (the way that South African leader, Nelson Mandela, used his interpersonal intelligence to bring a warring country together) or negatively (the way that Serbian leader, Slobodan Milosevic, used his interpersonal intelligence to promote hatred and ‘ethnic cleansing.’)

While I am not working actively on MI, I do monitor the findings about the brain and also about artificial intelligence. I no longer think that I have identified correctly all of the intelligences and how they work, but I feel strongly that an appreciation of the multi-faceted nature of the mind will be with us from now on. 

I write about this in my forthcoming memoir A SYNTHESIZING MIND, to be published in September 2020, by the MIT Press.