Is there a risk intelligence?

The subject of risk has been much in the news lately in regards to health, vaccinations, and investment. Howard Gardner recently received an inquiry from Chile wondering why during a worldwide pandemic people would disregard health risks, suggesting they lack “risk intelligence.” He wrote:

I have observed many people with very different profiles, even very capable or intelligent (according to the different types) people, who act negligently with respect to the COVID-19 virus and ignore the most basic recommendations to stay safe, even among those who work in healthcare.
When researching about this, in English and Spanish, I found that the term risk intelligence is used in companies or organizations, or about people, but with respect to investments. I have not found anything about it regarding people and the vital risks they may be faced with.
How does the theory of the multiple intelligences approach life-risk management? Considering that it has a literal life or death impact on the subject himself, can we be dealing with a new type of intelligence: The Risk Intelligence?

Howard Gardner responds:

Thanks for your question. Very briefly, risk management involves both intelligence(s) and motivation. An understanding of the risk entails logical-mathematical intelligence. But whether you decide to act on the basis of that computation, is an issue of personality and motivation.

Photo by Macau Photo Agencyon Unsplash

US Presidential Inauguration and Multiple Intelligences

The US presidential inauguration of Joe Biden took place on January 20, 2021. In this excerpt from the latest issue of the ASCD Multiple Intelligences Newsletter, Dr. Thomas Hoerr reflects on that occasion and the multiple intelligences in evidence.

I believe that the inauguration ceremony had such a profound impact because it was a magnificent display of the power of multiple intelligences. In Frames of Mind, Dr. Howard Gardner viewed intelligence pragmatically, defining it as the “the ability to solve a problem or create a product that is valued in a culture.” In these divisive times, what solution to a problem could be more valued in our country and culture than how to honor our country’s traditions, inaugurate a new president and provide hope for the future? Using all of the intelligences to do this exacerbated the richness of the event in a wonderful way. 

The presidential oath is a mere 35 words: "I do solemnly swear that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.” Vowing to fulfill those words was the only requirement for Biden to become president. That could have been done quicky, quietly, and even somewhat privately, but what a missed opportunity that would have been. Instead, beyond those 35 words, the event was designed to heal, teach, and inspire, and that is where the multiple intelligences were so important.

Spatially, the inauguration was a visual feast. From the huge banners to the various military uniforms with their medals and braids, to the outfits on the platform, to the rhythmic marching of honor guards, tradition was visible at every corner. Glimpsing the Bible on which Biden took the oath – a family heirloom since 1893 that he had used for his previous oaths of office – was a treat. Clothing carried messages too: Vice-President Kamala Harris chose purple for the color of her dress to honor Shirley Chisholm, the first Black woman elected to congress (and who ran for president in 1972), and Dr. Jill Biden said that she wore a blue dress to signify indicate trust, confidence, and stability.

A very contrasting but incredibly effective spatial message was seeing the broken pane of glass in the Capital door. Surely enough time had passed since the failed coup to have replaced it, so my sense is that it was left as a very salient reminder of that terrible day. It did just that.

Music played a prominent place in the inauguration ceremony, and it was both soothing and inspiring. I was moved when Lady Gaga sang The National Anthem, wearing a giant golden dove pin to symbolize peace. Jennifer Lopez recited a portion of the Pledge of Allegiance in Spanish and sang This Land Is Your Land. Garth Brooks singing Amazing Grace was powerful and it conjured up memories of another heart-felt time, when President Obama sang it during the eulogy for Reverend Clementa Pinckney at a Charleston church. (In Esquire, Brooks said, “I might be the only Republican at this place. But it's reaching across, loving one another because that's what's going to get us through probably the most divided times that we have. I want the divided times to be behind us.”) The music from the marching bands was enjoyable, and I was especially struck by the notion of “team”; they were a unit, working together for a higher purpose.

The synchronized bodily-kinesthetic movements of the honor guards and soldiers proclaimed order and strength. And how could one not be moved from seeing firefighter Andrea Hall leading the Pledge of Allegiance in words and sign language? Before and after the actual inauguration there were frequent shots of the White House and Capitol from a helicopter, and they were wonderful reminders of the inspiring architecture and the natural beauty that surrounds it. The incredible planning and orchestration of such a flawless event, from who sat where to the sequence and timing of events, depended on the logical-mathematical intelligence.

As in so many other spheres of life, the power personal intelligences was evident. It was great to see so many politicians greeting and obviously caring for one another, including  the same people who are unable to listen to or work with others of the opposing party. Hopefully this new leadership can keep the tone of care and collaboration alive. Biden’s empathy was a significant part of his election and it was obvious in his words. Our country’s need for “unity” or “uniting” was mentioned eleven times, and I found his comment, “Today, on this January day, my whole soul is in this: Bringing America together,” very significant. Biden’s concern for others was palpable.

 Giving an effective speech depends much on the speaker’s interpersonal intelligence. It enables you to know what the audience wants and what they need, responding to others and leading them. Occasionally a talented speaker can segue an audience from their current want to what they need. Biden did some of that in his efforts to heal, to embrace, and to forge a new path. I was particularly taken when he said, “But the American story depends not on any one of us, not on some of us, but on all of us.”

As the inauguration celebration continued into the evening, I saw former presidents Bill Clinton, G. W. Bush, and Barack Obama standing together in the Memorial Amphitheater at Arlington National Cemetery, talking about their support for President Biden and their hopes for the future. Their intrapersonal and interpersonal intelligences brought them together in that place at that moment, just as they enabled each man to become president.

Finally, the linguistic intelligence was central to this event and this day. Speaker after speaker spoke well and to our hearts. But perhaps the most stunning voice was that of 22-year old poet Amanda Gorman. The youngest inaugural poet in history, her poem pushed visions and thoughts that were painful while she pulled us along to a brighter future. Talking about her poem before the ceremony, she said, “There is space for grief and horror and hope and unity, and I also hope that there is a breath for joy in the poem, because I do think we have a lot to celebrate at this inauguration.” Her words and delivery captured our pain and our hope. She was remarkable.

 But I write this newsletter not only as a citizen, but as an educator. As a citizen, I appreciate our country’s journey and am optimistic about our future. Amanda Gorman captured this wonderfully well in her poem, “ Somehow we've weathered and witnessed / a nation that isn’t broken / but simply unfinished. As an educator, I am reminded of the power of MI. This event was much more vivid and meaningful because the problem – “How do we reflect on our past, honor our elected president, and provide hope for the future?” - was presented through so many different  intelligences. Of course, using MI has that positive impact on students in our classrooms, too. Regardless of who, what, or where we are teaching, our students are far more likely to be engaged and much more likely to learn when MI is a tool that we use in teaching and enable them to use in learning.

Thomas R. Hoerr is emeritus head of school at the New City School in St. Louis, Missouri. He is currently a Scholar In Residence at the University of Missouri-St. Louis, and teaches in the Educational Leadership program, preparing prospective principals.

Photo by Louis Velazquez on Unsplash

The Importance Of Teaching MI Theory in Conjunction with the Good Project: Lessons from Greece

Introduction by Howard Gardner

I’m pleased to be able to post this guest contribution from my colleague, Georgios Flouris. Professor Flouris has been instrumental in bringing “MI” theory to the attention of his educational colleagues in Greece. He has just published a book on the educational implications of multiple intelligences theory.

The posted essay touches on two very important points. First of all, while “MI” theory was developed as a theory of the human mind, with certain educational implications, it has been used in many places—indeed, in too many places—as a quick way to make a profit, even when the claims cannot possibly be substantiated.  

Second, and relatedly, intelligences are not benign in themselves—they can be developed and mobilized for positive or for destructive purposes. Accordingly, “MI” theory should be wedded to a conception of good work.

In some sense, these ideas are new ones, but they can be traced all the way back to ancient Greece, where interest in the mind and in ethics were first written about, by Plato, Artistotle, and their students. And, of course, no one embodies the ethical and reflective life more than Socrates, whose courageous example has inspired human beings over the millennia.

Guest Post by George Flouris

I welcome the earlier blogs about BLACK LIVES MATTER, the GOOD PROJECT and COVID 19 as well as the linking of MI THEORY with the GOOD PROJECT. Congratulations to Howard Gardner and associates for the above blogs and links; there is an urgent need for all of them.

I share Howard Gardner’s frustrations regarding malpractices of MI theory. There have also been some not so good uses of MI theory in Greece. The most common malpractices that I have noticed include the following:

1. Some agencies charge students for testing their intelligences. The tests used to tap students’ profiles numbered 9, 10, or even 11 types of intelligences; no source is indicated for this proliferation of intelligences.

2. Some private organizations test students to match their intelligences with a prospective profession—MI theory is used as a counseling, career guidance, and job orientation tool.

3. Tutoring based on MI theory is claimed to prepare students for entrance to tertiary education.

4. Claims are also made to enhance students’ intelligences in order that they perform better in various school tests, in learning foreign languages, etc.

Note: all these malpractices require payment to private organizations.

There is no doubt that MI theory has the potential to develop all types of intelligences in students; the theory has been a great contribution for people across the whole planet. Gardner’s original work has persuaded people around the world that “we are all intelligent in different ways.” This plurality of intelligences is based on several values, including equality, justice, freedom, rights, democracy, etc., and has brought many positive changes and benefits in the educational systems of different countries.

In addition to helping us to think more broadly about human intellectual capacities, MI theory has created a new vision for future schools. Thus, it is of utmost importance to safeguard the theory and keeps it intact—protecting it from candidates who aspire to put it into untested or unethical uses in order to make profit. 

All these reasons lead to the conclusion that MI theory ought to be taught in conjunction with the “Good Project,” as well as Gardner’s work “the five types of mind for the future.” Being intelligent does not give one the right to apply his/her intelligences to engage in unethical or immoral practices. Parents, schools and society need to develop an “ethical” and “respectful mind” in children of all ages. In addition, educators have to explore new ways of cultivating individuals holistically by emphasizing values and character so that individuals may become balanced. In this respect I agree with the Good Project’s “ethics of roles” as well as its views on “dilemma, discussion, debate, decision, and debriefing.”

In parallel to teaching values to students, we ought to revamp the philosophy of “Character education” in order to socialize and educate youth meaningfully and ethically. Other educators have joined Gardner’s efforts to support MI at another level by emphasizing the concept of “intelligent schools” (McGilchrist, B., Myers, K., Reed, J., 2004)[1]. According to these educators, schools will be “intelligent” if teachers enhance their own intellectual profiles. To this end, such scholars propose several types of intelligences for teachers—including “pedagogical intelligence,” “emotional intelligence,” “reflective intelligence,” “spiritual intelligence,” and “ethical intelligence,” etc.

Educators around the world ought to put an emphasis on the subjects of humanities and humanistic values. These types of values are exemplified in the stance Socrates kept while in prison. Even though his disciples could have helped him escape, he freely and deliberately chose to stay. He wanted to support the “truth” and face the judges of ancient Athens—thereby exemplifying his obedience to the Athenian laws. His death taught the world that there are eternal values such as truth, commitment, and obedience to laws. In this manner, Socrates set a memorable example: his physical existence was less important than the truths that he valued and wanted to preserve. As Emerson has stated—and Gardner wholeheartedly agrees—“Character is higher than intellect.” Socrates also demonstrated that character is above intellect, even though he possessed both of these properties.

Kazamias (2020) endorses the above views and supports that education should shift from the model of forming an entrepreneurial, market-driven, profit–driven, homo economicus or homo barbarus, to the formation of a homo humanus with a cultivated mind and soul. To this end, liberal arts education, aesthetic knowledge, ethical dimensions, civic virtues and “Paideia of the soul,” a quintessential attribute of being “wholly human” are needed (Kazamias, 2020)[2]. This type of education and living leads to what Aristotle called “eudemonia” or “euzein”—the “good life.”

 © George Flouris

George Flouris is an Emeritus professor of Curriculum and Instruction at the University of Athens in Greece. He has written extensively on education on topics including curriculum theory and development, instructional design, teaching strategies, teacher education, and conceptions of the self improvement of educational practices, and many others.  His most recent book is entitled: Multiple Intelligences and Education: Theory-research-applications. Athens: Grigoris, (2020).

 [1]McGilchrist, B., Myers, K., Reed, J. (2004). The Intelligent school. London: Sage Publications.

 [2]Kazamias, A. (2020).O Sokrates kai he Anthropistike Paideia stin Neoterikotita: Krise Paideias kai Demokratias (Socrates and Humanistic Education in Late Modernity). Athens: Ion Publishing Company. 

Photo by Matt Artzon Unsplash

Howard Gardner Appears on Economist Radio

Howard Gardner was recently interviewed by Kenneth Cukier on The Economist podcast, Babbage. He answered questions on his latest book, A Synthesizing Mind, the success or failure of MI theory, what MI theory means for education today during the pandemic, whether we will lose our intelligences because of technology/AI, and whether synthesizing could be considered one of the multiple intelligences.

To hear Howard Gardner’s answers to these questions and more, listen to the podcast (click here for link).

Kenneth Cukier unravels the inner workings of the human mind with psychologist, Howard Gardner... If there are multiple intelligences, what happens when they work together?

Babbage is a weekly podcast on technology and science from Economist Radio.

Kenneth Cukier is a Senior Editor at The Economist.

Photo by Josh Riemeron Unsplash

Multiple Intelligences and the Process of Teaching and Learning

Introduction by Howard Gardner

When I first proposed the theory of multiple intelligences nearly forty years ago, I viewed it as a contribution to cognitive psychology—a differentiated view of how the human mind is organized. While the book, Frames of Mind, included some educational thoughts, I was surprised that the book was picked up by educators of many stripes; at the same time, the major claims in the book have been critiqued over the years by psychologists—particularly psychometricians.

Since I myself had not proposed specific educational implications and applications of the theory, it was left to educators “in the trenches” to ferret out their own implications and applications. And so they did. Educators recommended schools devoted to MI, students categorized according to their strong intelligences, teachers teaching to the various intelligences, curricula organized by intelligences, and so on. I was content—indeed pleased—by these various and varying recommendations. Often I tried to lend a helping hand (see Chapter 8-9 of my recently-published memoir, A Synthesizing Mind). Only when I felt that the theory was being severely misinterpreted or misapplied did I speak out.

I’ve been conservative in adding further intelligences, though I have speculated that there may well be a “pedagogical intelligence”—the human capacity (one not shared with other species) to adjust a “lesson” in terms of the knowledge base and goals of the learner(s).

In the accompanying blog, long-time teacher, Barrie Bennett, puts forth his own thoughts about how teachers should make use of key ideas from “MI theory.”  As he sees it, the skilled teacher makes use of a variety of organizational frameworks and schemas, and “MI theory” constitutes a valuable addition to that toolkit. One advantage of a tool is that it can be used in various ways, depending on the content and the context. That perspective is quite congruent with my own perspective—and indeed with that of my fellow researcher, Mindy Kornhaber—see, for example, her co-authord book (click here for link).

Guest post by Barrie Bennett

I want to position Howard Gardner’s work on Multiple Intelligences (MI) as one key piece of science in the art of teaching and learning.

MI is not a strategy, it is a belief system related to how we think, how we solve problems and create products of worth. A teacher does not go into a classroom and “do ‘logical mathematical’” or “spatial.”  The purpose of MI, from my experience, is to increase teacher conceptual flexibility to continue to realize the need to extend their instructional repertoire. 

As part of my positioning of MI, I also argue that “teaching effectively” should be considered as an additional intelligence…an intelligence that equally respects all intelligences. I will position this “chat” into the multiple ways of being intelligent according to Gardner’s work into the delightfully complex process of teaching and learning. 

To start, I provide an argument for teaching being an additional intelligence. First, I’ll switch the idea of intelligence into the idea of “teaching expertise;” expert teachers understand the interactive/integrative nature of instructional methods and how to select those methods from an extensive repertoire of methods that most effectively meet the existing demands of the classroom (a diverse group of students with diverse ways of approaching learning). More effective teachers also develop an ever-increasing number of “lenses” that guide their thinking related to what methods to select and how to integrate them to maximize student learning. Multiple Intelligences is one of those many lenses that guide teacher thinking and action. 

In education, the skills might be framing questions, using wait time, responding to an incorrect response, suspending judgment, discussing the object and purpose of the lesson. Tactics might be Think Pair Share, Venn diagrams, Place Mat, Examining Both Sides of an Argument (EBS), Ranking Ladder, and Time Lines. Strategies might be Group Investigation, Mind Maps, Concept Maps, and Academic Controversy. Strategies are more complex, have steps or phases, and are usually developed from theories of learning. For example, Concept Attainment is based on information processing theory and Jigsaw on social theory and Mind Mapping on memory work from brain research.

So where do Multiple Intelligences fit? I classify instruction into three categories: skills, tactics, and strategies…all are concepts we can enact. Two more categories “sandwich” those three categories. The first is “instructional concepts.” Those are concepts we cannot actually directly “do” or “enact.” Examples are “safety,” “success,” “interest,” “accountability,” “and meaningful,” etc. You would not say, “Oh, look how that teacher safeties.” 

The other side of the “sandwich” are the “instructional organizers.” This category refers to those bodies of research or inquiry that provide the wisdom to make the wisest decisions about what skills, tactics, and strategies to select to maximize learning. Research on autism, the human brain, language acquisition, dyslexia, students at risk, gifted students, taxonomies of thinking, and Multiple Intelligences are all examples. 

In summary, the key piece to remember from my experience is that teachers do not “directly do” Multiple Intelligences any more than they would “directly do” brain research. Organizers are not strategies, they are guides to wisdom for action. Collectively, for me, the interface or interconnections between instructional concepts, skills, tactics, strategies, and organizers is key to teaching as an intelligence. Of course, developing that expertise in those areas requires high-quality, sustained, professional, learning opportunities over time and not one-day workshops or one-week workshops with no follow-up support (think professional learning communities/peer coaching).

Researchers looking to determine an effect size or impact of organizers such as MI on student learning are unwittingly naïve. One would not research the effect of hammers on cutting wood; hammers are not designed to cut wood. Why research the effect or impact of something when it was not designed to do what you incorrectly thought it was intended to do? If you understand research, that naivety represents a problem with validity. Validity refers to determining the extent to which something measures what it was intended to measure. If you want to measure something, measure what your students are learning—not the organizing concept of MI theory.

Barrie Bennett is in his 48th year of teaching and focuses on continuing to explore the delightful complexity of teaching and learning for students of all ages. He is a K-12 teacher and professor emeritus of the Ontario Institute for Studies in Education at the University of Toronto.

Photo by Element5 Digitalon Unsplash