Introducing MI Theory to Children

There are many ways for educators to introduce the theory of multiple intelligences to children, for example, some teachers have created MI songs or MI art projects. Even young children can easily grasp the concept of “being smart in different ways.”

This is an article aimed at 7-11 year olds from the magazine, Eureka Explorers. It was written by Dr. Valsa Koshy of Brunel Able Children’s Education Center at Brunel University, London. She checked with a group of children to make sure the concept was easily understandable for the targeted age. Eureka Explorers is distributed free to schools in the West London area. The articles and activities included in the magazine are based on their “Triangle of Success Model” with the the three points being:

• Gifts, talents and passions (developing and nurturing abilities and interests)

• Physical and mental well-being (healthy eating, exercise, confidence and resilience)

• Learning and outlook (nurturing a positive attitude to learning and future success)

We hope that educators will be inspired to find interesting and fun ways to engage students with MI theory.

Photo by Ben White on Unsplash

Multiple Intelligences: A New Idea about A Forty-Year-Old Idea

By Howard Gardner © 2023

It’s been forty years since I first introduced the notion of multiple intelligences (MI) in my book Frames of Mind. A lot has been said about this idea, much of it by me, and in many ways, I’ve moved on to other concerns. And yet, I recently noted something about myself—and that in turn, led to an idea about MI which is new to me, and, perhaps, to others as well.

Even those of us who explicitly endorse the idea of multiple intelligences are often overheard claiming that someone is “intelligent,” “smart,”….or, less thoughtfully, as “dumb,” “dull,” or “not too swift.” I plead “Guilty—with extenuating circumstances.” What’s going on here?

One possibility is that this reveals an unconscious default to the idea of a single intelligence (“g” for general intelligence) as manifested by scoring well on a standard psychometric instrument like an IQ or SAT. But I propose another possibility. Rather, without quite realizing it, those of us who use such phrases are actually valorizing the particular intelligence—or set of intelligences—that we believe this person has—or that we ourselves have.

Yo-Yo Ma - World Economic Forum, Davos 2008 (Source: World Economic Forum from Cologny, Switzerland,Wikipedia)

A few examples:

• When we refer to a great cellist (like Yo-Yo Ma) or a great soprano (like Renee Fleming) as “smart,” it’s not that we are referring to how well that person scores on an IQ or SAT test. Instead, we might have in mind how quickly and how well that person picks up a new piece of music; or how well he or she analyzes a classical (or popular) work; or how the performer adjusts to the different conditions in various performance halls or with diverse ensembles.

• When we refer to a great tennis star (like Arthur Ashe), or a great gymnast (like Simone Biles) as “smart,” we are unlikely to be referring to their grades in school. Instead, we might have in mind how quickly and how well that athlete adjusts to new weather conditions, new opponents, new rules of the game, an unexpected compliment, or an unfair criticism.

• When we refer to a U.S. Senate majority leader or a House of Representatives Speaker as “smart,” we are not referring to their class rank in college. Instead, we might be referring to how the person manages to secure the votes needed to get a controversial bill passed or, depending on the circumstances, blocked…or how to position themselves vis-à-vis the media, reporters, cartoonists, or polls.

Even within the academy, this contextual use of the term smart prevails. Historians look for signs of intelligence that are quite different from those noted by economists, linguists, literary critics, biologists, mathematicians, or physicists. Scholars rarely comment in illuminating ways on the capacities of those working in fields remote from their own. We could say that a recognition of multiple forms of intelligence is spread throughout the academy, even among those who purport to believe in a singular intelligence, or IQ.

And so on—you can invent your own examples—whether from the ranks of clinical practitioners or weather forecasters or religious leaders or shop clerks. Nearly all of us are likely to continue using words like “smart” and “dumb,” or “clever” and “dull,” but we need to pick apart the field of reference of these words and make clear what we mean—and that requires the exercise of our personal intelligences!

Stepping back, after decades of pondering these issues, I identify three separate insights:

1. Human beings have a range of intelligences and we may, and sometimes do, change the ones that we valorize and why we valorize them.

2. Any intelligence can be used benevolently or malevolently; considered in themselves, intelligences are value-neutral. As masters of the German language, both the poet Goethe and the propagandist Goebbels had considerable linguistic intelligence, but they used it to very different ends. As human beings, we should be judged not by the intelligences that we happen to display and deploy but rather in which way we—and others—invoke them.

3. Even those of us who continue to use the words “smart,” “intelligent,” or “brilliant” need to stop, reflect, and recognize which of the intelligences we are actually valorizing—and why we do so.

And of course, the advent of ChatGPT and other Large Language Instruments will compel us to continue reflecting on these issues.

Reference

Gardner, H. Frames of mind: The theory of multiple intelligences. New York: Basic Books, 1983.

For comments on this essay, I thank Shinri Furuzawa, Annie Stachura, and Ellen Winner.

Could Musical Intelligence Be Genetic?

By Howard Gardner

Bring up, or even mention, any kind of human talent or intelligence. Before long, the inevitable debating topic arises—is this capacity innate/genetic, or is it one that is due to teaching, education, environment, or some force that is not biological, strictly speaking.

Of course, except among ideologues, the answer is clearly “Both are important.” In the absence of the necessary genetic material, no human capacity can develop, let alone flourish. But just as clearly, in the absence of a supporting, nurturing environment, even those who are greatly “at promise” will never realize their biological potential.

Contemporary research allows us to come up with a finer trained response. Researcher, Nadine Gaab, and colleagues demonstrated that even early in life, well before any kind of formal lessons or instructions, some infants have neural (brain) structures that indicate they are more likely to eventually display musical giftedness (link here). And indeed, when tested in kindergarten, these youngsters display more musical aptitude.

Clearly, this is a point on the genetic side of the scale.

But before we conclude that experiences do not make their contribution: Consider that these brain structures are being studied in infants who have come to term and whose nervous system can now be scanned. We know that long before birth, infants can already hear—and indeed, even newborns orient more toward linguistic sounds that they had heard in utero. It is conceivable (no pun intended) that pre-natal experiences have influenced the development of neural structures. And it’s also possible that if a mother-or indeed, other adults—respond favorably to music, this positive manifold may well affect the development of the infant—including his or her nervous system. One way of testing for this would be for parents and control parents to keep diaries of exposures as in the work of psychology and music researcher, Samuel Mehr.

Moreover, even if certain brain structures favorable to musical development can be discerned early in life, this does not mean that those with less developed structures are condemned to a non-musical life. On the contrary: this knowledge may stimulate the development of new kinds of educational systems and environments that bring these infants up to snuff—or even above. Just as might be the case with infants who are at risk for problems with reading (dyslexia) or social intercourse (autistic spectrum).

Stay tuned!

Thanks to Shinri Furuzawa for her helpful comments on an earlier draft.

Chat GPT: First Musings

Howard Gardner © 2023

How will ChatGPT—and other Large Language Instruments—affect our educational system—and our broader society? How should they?

I’m frequently asked questions like these—and they are much on my mind.

Something akin to ChatGPT—human or super-human levels of performance—has long been portrayed in science fiction: I’m familiar with the American, British, French, and Russian varieties. But few observers expected such excellent performance so fast, so impressively, so threatening (or enabling)—depending on your stance.

As suggested by historian Yuval Harari, we may be approaching the end of the Anthropocene era.

We can anticipate that large language instruments—like Open AI’s ChatGPT and DALL-E—will continually improve.

They will be able to do anything that can be described, captured in some kind of notation. Already they are able to conduct psychotherapy with patients, write credible college application essays, and create works of visual art or pieces of music in the style of well-known human creators as well as in newly invented styles. Soon one of their creations may be considered for the Nobel Prize in physics or literature, the Pulitzer Prize for musical composition or journalism.

Of course, superior AI performance does not—and need not—prevent human beings from engaging in such activities. We humans can still paint, compose music, sculpt, compete in chess, conduct psychotherapy sessions—even if AI systems turn out to outperform us in some or most ways.

Open AI introduced ChatGPT 3 in 2020 and DALL-E in 2021

We can also work in conjunction with AI programs. A painter may ask DALL-E to create something, after which the painter may alter what the program has furnished. A researcher may present ChatGPT with a hypothesis and ask the system to come up with ways to test that hypothesis—after which the researcher can carry out one or more of these approaches herself. Such activities can alternate, going back and forth between the human provision and the computational program.

We fear what could go wrong—and rightly so. AI systems like ChatGPT have not undergone a million-plus years of evolutionary history (including near extinction or sudden vaults in skill); such recently devised systems do not inhabit our planet in the same way that the hominid species has. They are not necessarily—and certainly not existentially—afraid of cataclysmic climate change, or nuclear war, or viruses that prove fatal to homo sapiens. Indeed, such systems could spread misinformation rapidly and thereby contribute to destructive climate change and the probability of nuclear war (recall “The Doomsday Machine” featured in the dystopic movie Dr. Strangelove). These destructive outcomes are certainly possible, although (admittedly) such calamities might happen even had there been no digital revolution.

And what about the effects of Large Language Instruments on our schools, our broader educational system?

Many fear that systems like ChatGPT will make it unnecessary for students to learn anything, since ChatGPT can tell them everything they might want or need to know—almost instantaneously and almost always accurately (or at least as accurately as an 20th century encyclopedia or today’s “edition” of Wikipedia!). I think that AI will have a huge impact on education, but not in that way.

Now that machines are rivalling or even surpassing us in so many ways, I have an ambitious and perhaps radical recommendation. What education of members of our species should do—increasingly and thoughtfully—is to focus on the human condition: what it means to be human, what our strengths and frailties are, what we have accomplished (for good or evil) over many centuries of biological and cultural evolution, what opportunities are afforded by our stature and our status, what we should avoid, what we should pursue, in what ways, and with what indices of success...or of concern.

But to forestall an immediate and appropriate reservation: I don’t intend to be homo sapiens centric. Rather, I want us to focus on our species as part of the wider world, indeed the wider universe. That universe includes the biological and geological worlds that are known to us.

Bruner in the Chanticleer 1936, Duke University (Source: Wikipedia)

Psychologist-turned-educator (and my teacher) Jerome Bruner inspired me. His curriculum for middle school children, developed nearly sixty years ago, centered on three questions:

• What makes human beings human?

• How did they get to be that way?

• How can they be made more so?

To approach these framing topics intelligently, we need disciplinary knowledge, rigor, and tools. We may not need to completely scuttle earlier curricular frameworks (e.g., those posed in the United States in the 1890s by the “Committee of Ten” or the more recent “Common Core”); but we need to rethink how they can be taught, modelled, and activated to address such over-arching questions.

We need to understand our human nature—biologically, psychologically, culturally, historically, and pre-historically. That’s the way to preserve the planet, all of us on it. It’s also the optimal way to launch joint human-computational ventures—ranging from robots that construct or re-construct environments to programs dedicated (as examples) to economic planning, political positioning, military strategies and decisions.

To emphasize: this approach is not intended to glorify; homo sapiens has done much that is regrettable, and lamentable. Rather, it is to explain and to understand —so that, as a species, we can do better as we move forward in a human-computer era.

---

Against this background, how have I re-considered or re-conceptualized the three issues that, as a scholar, I’ve long pondered?

1. Synthesizing is the most straightforward. Anything that can be laid out and formulated—by humans or machines—will be synthesized well by ChatGPT and its ilk. It’s hard to imagine that a human being—or even a large team of well-educated human beings—will do better synthesis than ChatGPT4, 5, or n.

   We could imagine a “Howard Gardner ChatGPT”—one that synthesizes the way that I do, only better—it would be like an ever-improving chess program in that way. Whether ChatGPT-HG is a dream or a nightmare I leave to your (human) judgment.

2. Good work and good citizenship pose different challenges. Our aspirational conceptions of work and of membership in a community have emerged in the course of human history over the last several thousand years—within and across hundreds of cultures. Looking ahead, these aspirations indicate what we are likely to have to do if we want to survive as a planet and as a species.

   All cultures have views, conceptions, of these “goods,” but of course—and understandably, these views are not the same. What is good—and what is bad, or evil, or neutral—in 2023 is not the same as in 1723. What is valued today in China is not necessarily what is admired in Scandinavia or Brazil. And there are different versions of “the good” in the US—just think of the deep south compared to the East and West coasts.

   ChatGPT could synthesize different senses of “good,” in the realms of both “work” and “citizenship.” But there’s little reason to think that human beings will necessarily abide by such syntheses—the League of Nations, the United Nations, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the Geneva convention were certainly created with good will by human beings—but they have been honored as much in the breach as in the observance.

A Personal Perspective

We won’t survive as a planet unless we institute and subscribe to some kind of world belief system. It needs the prevalence of Christianity in the Occident a millennium ago, or of Confucianism or Buddhism over the centuries in Asia, and it should incorporate tactics like “peaceful disobedience” in the spirit of Mahatma Gandhi, Martin Luther King, or Nelson Mandela. This form of faith needs to be constructed so as to enable the survival and thriving of the planet, and the entities on it, including plants, non-human animals, and the range of chemical elements and compounds.

Personally, I do not have reservations about terming this a “world religion”—so long as it does not posit a specific view of an Almighty Figure—and require allegiance to that entity. But a better analogy might be a “world language”—one that could be like Esperanto or a string of bits 00010101111….

And if such a school of thought is akin to a religion, it can’t be one that favors one culture over others—it needs to be catholic, rather than Catholic, judicious rather than Jewish. Such a belief-and-action system needs to center on the recognition and the resolution of challenges—in the spirit of controlling climate change, or conquering illness, or combatting a comet directed at earth from outer space, or a variety of ChatGPT that threatens to “do us in” from within….Of the philosophical or epistemological choices known to me, I resonate most to humanism—as described well by Sarah Bakewell in her recent book Humanly Possible.

Multiple Intelligences (MI)

And, finally, I turn to MI. Without question, any work by any intelligence, or combination of intelligences, that can be specified with clarity will soon be mastered by Large Language Instruments—indeed, such performances by now constitute a trivial achievement with respect to linguistic, logical, musical, spatial intelligences—at least as we know them, via their human instantiations.

How—or even whether —such computational instruments can display bodily intelligences or the personal intelligences is a different matter. The answer depends on how broad a formulation one is willing to accept.

To be specific:

Taylor Swift at 2019 American Music Awards (Source: Wikipedia)

• Does a robotic version of ChatGPT need to be able to perform ballet à la Rudolf Nureyev and Margot Fonteyn? And must it also show how these performers might dance in 2023 rather than in 1963?

• Does it need to inspire people, the way Joan of Arc or Martin Luther King did?

• Should it be able to conduct successful psychotherapy in the manner of Erik Erikson or Carl Rogers ?

• Or are non-human attempts to instantiate these intelligences seen as category errors— the way that we would likely dismiss a chimpanzee that purported to create poetry on a keyboard?

The answers, in turn, are determined by what we mean by a human intelligence—is it certain behavioral outputs alone (the proverbial monkey that types out Shakespeare, or the songbird that can emulate Maria Callas or Luciano Pavarotti, Mick Jagger or Taylor Swift)? Or is it what a human or group of humans can express through that intelligence to other human beings—the meanings that can be created. conveyed, comprehended among members of the species.

I’m reminded of Thomas Nagel’s question: “What is it like to be a bat?” ChatGPT can certainly simulate human beings. But perhaps only human beings can realize—feel, experience, dream—what it’s like to be a human being. And perhaps only human beings can and will care—existentially—about that question. And this is what I believe education in our post-ChatGPT world should focus on.

---

For comments on earlier versions of this far-ranging blog, I am grateful to Shinri Furuzawa, Jay Gardner, Annie Stachura, and Ellen Winner.

References:

Bakewell, S. (2024). Humanly possible: Seven hundred years of humanist freethinking, inquiry, and hope. Vintage Canada.

Nagel, T. (1974). what is it like to be a bat? The Philosophical Review. https://doi.org/10.4159/harvard.9780674594623.c15

Wikimedia Foundation. (2023, August 21). Man: A course of study. Wikipedia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Man:_A_Course_of_Study

A Museum Inspired by Multiple Intelligences Theory

The Connecticut Children’s Museum located in New Haven, Connecticut, USA is an interactive museum aimed at children ages 3-9. All exhibits are inspired by the theory of multiple intelligences and include an observation bee hive, a post office, and a “Great Green Room” from the popular children’s book Goodnight Moon by Margaret Wise Brown.

Musical Intelligence Room

The eight permanent exhibits are themed around each different intelligence: Musical, Bodily-Kinesthetic, Intrapersonal, Interpersonal, Logical-Mathematical, Linguistic, Spatial, and Naturalist. The museum also provides books in each room for visitors to look at which enrich each exhibit in a variety of textures and languages.

The museum building also houses the Creating Kids Child Care Center and the Early Childhood Resource Center. Creating Kids offers a program with a project-based curriculum inspired by MI theory. The children spend their day with a small group in a stimulating environment designed for learning and celebrating different intelligences. More information on the museum can be found at their website.

We would like to thank Annick Winokur for bringing this museum to our attention.