Multiple Intelligences and Multiple Successes

Howard Gardner © 2024

My friend Jim claimed that Person A was more successful than Person B. I responded: It depends on what you mean by success, there are various kinds of successes.

Jim: Are they like multiple successes, one for each intelligence?

My response: Let me think about it.

So, here’s what I thought.

My original claim—now more than four decades old—is that it is erroneous to think of only a single intelligence on which you can rank all people. Human beings are better thought of as having several intellectual faculties—I think of them as separate computers or computational systems—and the strength of one computer does not reliably predict the strength of another computer.

Measuring intelligences is not as straightforward as measuring height or weight. Yet, at least in principle, one ought to be able to measure an individual’s musical or interpersonal or spatial intelligence, designating their strength in these and other intelligences. And this measurement can and should be done by disinterested third parties using reliable instruments.

Success seems to me to be a different kind of construct. To be sure, if one likes, one can objectify successes in the same way that one objectifies intelligences: How much money does the person have? How well-known is the person? How admired is the person? Is the person remembered after he/she died and, if so, how?

But unlike intelligence(s), I don’t think success is an independent variable on which one can simply rank order persons.

Put directly, success is a subjective construct. What matters most is what the individual himself or herself values as being important in life.

What counts as success can be at least as varied as intelligence. One may choose to valorize whether one has achieved, what one wants to achieve, what one’s parents wanted, or what one’s parents did not want, whether one is esteemed by others, whether one is liked, or even whether one has the appropriate enemies.

Perhaps most pivotal, what one chooses to count as success may and usually does change over the course of one’s life. As David Brooks has evocatively phrased it: There is resume success and there is eulogy success.

So, I hear Jim’s voice: But can’t we objectivize success, and can’t we subjectivize intelligence?

My answer: Yes, we can if we want to. We can say that success must be measured in terms of recognition by others, for one’s achievement. And intelligence can be considered subjectively—perhaps I think I am smart because I have figured out a way to fool my parents, and I can prove to them that I am successful because I have more money in the bank than they do. Or, more outlandishly, I can say I am intelligent because I can solve the crossword puzzle with either hand.

But in so doing, I believe that I have undermined a crucial distinction between these constructs. At least in principle, the world of scholarship could produce a convincing account of the range of human intellectual capacities; any other claims would be seen as idiosyncratic. 

In contrast, while the world of scholarship can certainly produce various measures of success, these will miss a crucial distinction. In the end, success is chiefly in the eye of the beholder and that vision can and perhaps should change over the course of one’s life.

In a phrase: Intelligences can be independently assessed; success is essentially a subjective construct.

MI Theory—Yesterday, Today, and Tomorrow

By Howard Gardner

1983

As introduced in Frames of Mind, MI theory was initially a social science synthesis, with some brain and genetics information included. It was written for the general reader, not for “educators” or “educationalists”—but those in education were the most interested audience—along with the general educated public. The book was widely reviewed, mostly favorably.

Critics

Psychologists, particularly psychometricians, have never liked the theory—they have a vested interest in IQ testing, and many prefer accounts that claim the high heritability of IQ, and, accordingly, of intelligence. IQ is basically used to rank individuals, not to help them. Scholars from other disciplinary backgrounds and most other individuals who know about the theory don’t embrace such a strong critique.

Entering the Vernacular

Especially after Daniel Goleman wrote about “Emotional Intelligence” in 1995, it’s now common to speak about EQ, and to coin phrases like “financial intelligence,” “athletic smarts,” etc. Even people who still adhere to the aforementioned IQ (or“g”) view, often implicitly draw on more pluralistic views. What literary critics or novelists judge as “intelligent” is not what a lawyer, or a mathematician, or an orchestral conductor would value.

Post 1983

After writing Frames of Mind, I largely moved on to other topics in my research and writing. To be sure, I took note of what was happening with respect to the MI enterprise and I tried to be a constructive force. I supported educators, museum curators, theme park architects, and game inventors who wanted to carry on work in an MI spirit. I was in regular exchanges with Patricia Bolanos, creator of the Indianapolis Key Learning Community, and Tom Hoerr (pictured below), long-time director of the St Louis New City School. And in a several cases, my colleagues and I at Harvard Project Zero collaborated with educators who wanted to refashion education in an MI vein. (See forthcoming The Essential Howard Gardner on Education, Teachers College Press, 2024.)

In 2003, Mindy Kornhaber, Edward Fierros, and Shirley Veenema published their findings emanating from studies of 40 American schools in Multiple Intelligences: Best Ideas from Research and Practice.

In 2009, Jie-Qi Chen, Seana Moran, and I published a book called Multiple Intelligences Around the World. In this collection, 42 writers, from 15 different countries, on five continents described their efforts—largely educational—to use MI ideas in schools and other settings.

Various individuals created MI tests—Branton Shearer being by far the most ambitious, with his MIDAS battery, used in educational settings in many countries. Branton also sought to find brain evidence in support of MI theory—but his efforts were rarely addressed or critiqued by the neuroscientific community.

Other colleagues took the opportunity to speak and write about MI—prominent among them have been Thomas Armstrong, Jie-Qi Chen, Tom Hoerr, and Mindy Kornhaber.

(Pictured above, left to right: Thomas Armstrong, Jie-Qi Chen, Mindy Kornhaber, Branton Shearer.)

A few scholars devoted considerable efforts to critiquing MI—philosopher, John White, and psychologist, Lynn Waterhouse, being perhaps the most prominent. There is also a 2006 book Howard Gardner Under Fire, edited by Jeffrey Schaler, in which 13 scholars critique the theory and I respond to their critiques.

Fate of MI in different sites/soils

Interestingly, so far as I can ascertain, scholars and educators in Western Europe (e.g. Britain, France, Germany) have had little interest in the theory, or in its educational implications. I think that scholars/educators in those societies believe that they have figured out what intelligence is, how to measure it, and how to craft educational trajectories to serve students with different IQ’s—for example, different pre-vocational tracks.

Also, and importantly, educators and researchers in these Western democratic societies have long been interested in progressive ideas in education—including hands-on learning, active student participation, respect for different talents—and so they had less need to inject MI words and practices into their educational discourse. One prominent example would be the outstanding pre-schools of Reggio Emilia in Italy, which have long recognized “the hundred languages of children.”

In contrast, with the passage of time, MI ideas seem to have found more receptive soil in parts of Asia—China, Korea, Thailand, and India; and also the Middle East—Iran. Progressive ideas make room for learners who do not have standard scholastic intelligence profiles. These societies may also embrace foolish ideas—like inferring intelligence profiles from examination of fingerprints.

At least so far, Japan has been a notable exception. It is the least psychological, most sociological modern society, and attention to individual differences is seen as undesirable. To be sure, there has long been a Japan MI society (link)—and I have treasured relations with several of its members.

MI in 2024

In the past few decades, I have not devoted significant energies to the MI enterprise. I have considered new intelligences; visited institutions that describe themselves as MI, or Howard Gardner-inspired schools; and responded to a steady stream of letters, inquiries, bouquets, and occasional brickbats. And I maintain an active website multipleintelligencesoasis.org to which my colleague Shinri Furuzawa and I regularly direct inquirers and on which we occasionally post blogs.

With his impressive and extensive enterprises: publications, conferences, a leading school for Gifted students in Hong Kong, Rex Li has stimulated me to think about the future of MI—especially after I depart from the scene. (Pictured above: Rex Li, program for the International MI Education Forum - December 2023, Research MI magazine - Volume 2.)

In no way do I compare myself to Sigmund Freud!—but the poet W.  H. Auden, remarked on Freud’s death that he was no longer a person, but “a whole climate of opinion.” That’s my aspiration for MI theory; not that it should be proved scientifically correct, or reduced to (or operationalized  via) a test, or a functional MRI measure, or a set of gene clusters. Rather, I hope that MI ideas and practices—which now properly belong to many individuals, programs and educational entities—should open the world’s eyes to the intriguing and potentially helpful cognitive differences among individuals. I hope MI theory will influence schools, other educational institutions, and online delivery so that these entities are sensitive to these differences and nurture them constructively. This will help ensure that current and future vocations and avocations remain open, available, and welcoming to individuals with distinctive profiles—especially in an increasingly AI-dominated era. Most important, especially now, as we are well into the 21st century, I hope that intelligences will be put to positive ends—with a lot of discussion and debate about what is entailed in good work, good citizenship, the life of intelligences, if you will.

Mary Joy Abaquin, founder of Multiple Intelligences International School, Quezon City, Philippines

Surprisingly, it’s almost 30 years since my colleagues, Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi, William Damon, and I began to work on these issues; initially, as an effort to ascertain whether creativity could be mobilized to human ends; then as a study of what it means to be a good professional and a good citizen (intertwining excellence, engagement and ethics). And now, as we have worked in education, from pre-school through college, with a particular focus on what it means to think of and serve others, not just oneself—and to do so in a positive way. So formulated, I should give a shout out to Mary Joy Abaquin who, a quarter of a century ago, began to recognize individuals in the Philippines who deployed their intelligences for praiseworthy ends.

What roles might be assumed by Rex Li’s current enterprises? I see MI as a broad tent—one that welcomes individuals with that pluralistic perspective and set of concepts and tools—principally educators, but also parents, employers, and those individuals charged with designing and implementing the societies of the future. I hope that members under that tent can take into account  the skills and aspirations of all individuals, and encourage them to use those profiles and those potentials for positive, defensible, and articulable ends.

To ponder

Which kinds of publications, meetings, and groups will form?

How will they evolve?

What lessons will be learned and how will they be shared?

The tent should be broad—but not so broad that it encompasses everything including the proverbial “kitchen sink.” And it matters in which soil the enterprise operates—an issue to which Rex and his colleagues are keenly sensitive. If I get some credit, fine; but it’s much more important that MI ideas and practice, as limned here, be taken seriously than that they be credited to me.

Autism Community Inspired by MI Theory

In a recent article (link here), we learned how educators in the autism field were inspired by ideas from the theory of multipe intelligences. The author of the article, Mike Briggs, is President of Little Friends, an organization with a mission to empower people with autism and other developmental differences to thrive. While attending a recent conference on how best to support learners with autism, Briggs was struck by this quote attributed to Howard Gardner,

It is not how smart you are that matters. What really counts is how you’re smart.

Briggs understood that the goal for those working in autism education should be to recognize the strengths, or intelligences, of each person and to give them the tools to succeed in life. The presenter who quoted Gardner was from League School for Autism in Massachussets, a school founded in the 1960s to explore the most innovative educational approaches for children with autism.

We are very pleased to hear that the autism education community finds inspiration in Gardner’s work. MI theory has educational applications, not just for children with autism, but all learners through individuation and pluralization. Education should be personalized as far as possible so that individuals can learn to the best of their ability using their own unique balance of intelligences; and students should be taught using different methods to take advantage of different intelligences.

Photo by Peter Burdon on Unsplash

Schools in India Celebrate MI Festival

A recent article in APN News (link here), featured a group of schools in India that has embraced Gardner’s MI theory. Lexicon Schools recently organized “MI Fests” celebrating multiple intelligences. At these festivals, students gave presentations on projects using different intelligences. Students were encouraged to identify their strengths and passions and use their artistic and creative talents. Each school chose a different theme for their festival, though all emphasized the interplay between arts and sciences.

Lexicon School MI Fest celebration: Photo from APN News

At the Lexicon International School, Kalyaninagar, students used dramatization, word games, music and rap to showcase their learning on the theme of “herbal life” which included ayurveda and yurvedic herbs, diet and nutrition, acupressure, and yoga.

Students at the Lexicon School, Hadapsar, chose the theme, space and technology. Their MI Fest began with dance performances that showed off their kinesthetic and visual-spatial intelligences. Students hosted booths highlighting different intelligences.

The Lexicon International School, Wagholi, will host their MI Fest on the theme of sustainability in December, 2023.

It is very encouraging to see how schools around the world are not only recognizing and encouraging children’s multple intelligences, but celebrating them in these ways.


[Main photo from lexiconedu.in]

Is Linguistic Intelligence The Most Important of all Intelligences?

Forbes magazine recently published an article (link here) which purports that linguistic intelligence is the most important of all the intelligences. The author argues that linguistic intelligence and linguistic influence, or “LQ and I,” both shape and externalize our inner emotions and beliefs. The theory is that through understanding the emotions elicited by certain words and replacing them with others, we can influence our behavior and, presumably, the behavior of others.

“When we elevate our LQ and I, we become self-aware of them. We can then decide to anchor or challenge beliefs and behavioral patterns and lead ourselves toward different, more empowering emotions, beliefs and behaviors.”

Though the author claims that this goes beyond MI theory, the description of “LQ and I” is in line with Howard Gardner’s description of linguistic intelligence and only goes beyond it in the sense that it also touches on the personal intelligences (understanding oneself and others). However, Gardner has explained that in MI theory, no single intelligence is more important than the others, for more details see his blog post “Are All Intelligences Equal?” (link here). In fact, the valorization of different intelligences depends on the culture and time period, as Gardner has said,

“Like beauty, intelligences are in the eye of the beholder.”

The byline mentions that the author of the Forbes article is a “Business Strategist & Mindset Coach.” It makes sense that a person in such a profession, who must offer convincing advice verbally and through written reports, would most valorize linguistic intelligence.