Talk:Theory of multiple intelligences

1 Verbal-linguistic, 2 Logical-mathematical, 3 Visual-spatial, 4 Body-kinesthetic, 5 Auditory-musical, 6 Interpersonal communication, 7 Intrapersonal communication, 8 Naturalist. While I can understand the granularity of the first five categories, it seems to me that this is analogous to handing out "first prize" to everyone in a race. User:bradbeattie

Whether you agree with the theory or not has no bearing on the content of the article, just to make sure. Falcon 20:48, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Outside of elementary school teachers, who have no training in this field, and those people who teach couses in Multiple Intelligences for profit, I sincerely haven't really found anyone in the teaching profession who accepts Howard Gardner's claims as correct. Most people who do research on the subject don't have a problem with some of his practical claims (its never a bad idea to do different things to keep kids interested in learning); however most people who do research on this subject say that the basic theory is flawed at the core, and more importantly, has not been shown in peer-reviewed studies to have any real effect on education. (All of his support seems to be anecdotal so far.) The scientific and professional criticism of his MI theories is actually quite extensive. Since the article was lacking any content at all in these areas, I have added a number of references, and a synopsis of their positions. RK

Peer review & content

Mainly: An entry on a theory like this is meant to present the theory concisely, clearly, coherently and comprehensively. Secondarily: It may present a little discussion or comparison on related or contrary theories, but only to point out main differences. Falcon is right. RK is irrelevant.

There is no place for any peer review, no matter how brilliant or supported by a thousand research. That peer review belongs elsewhere. Otherwise, I can come up with a peer review if I don't agree with your theory, and when will it end?

In like manner, disputes or doubts about the whole or parts of the theory, including how it was derived and how it can or cannot be applied, should not be part of this page, or we will never get past discussion. User:Frank A Hilario 0850, 27 January 2006

Other theories

Whilst Gardner's theory presumably is correctly called the theory of multiple intelligences, he is not the only one to indicate that there might be aspects of intelligence which aren't covered by basic intelligence tests. Such tests are primarily concerned only with reasoning. Charles Handy, in his book The Hungry Spirit, covers several kinds of what he calls intelligence, and his list is not identical to Gardner's. I'd be interested to know whether Handy's ideas were derived from Gardner or arrived at independently. The following list is lifted from http://www.dbu.edu/graduate/newsletter/2001_march.html:

• Factual Intelligence - encyclopedic knowledge
• Analytic Intelligence - reasoning and conceptualizing
• Numerate Intelligence - mathematical skill
• Linguistic Intelligence - verbal and communication skill
• Spatial Intelligence - an ability to see patterns in things
• Athletic Intelligence - physical coordination
• Intuitive Intelligence - aptitude for sensing and seeing what is hidden from most others
• Emotional Intelligence - self-awareness, self-control, persistence, zeal, and self-motivation (based on the book Emotional *Intelligence by Daniel Goleman)
• Practical Intelligence - common sense
• Interpersonal Intelligence - social and leadership skills
• Musical Intelligence - the creation, production or performance of music (as defined by Webster's dictionary)

In another book by Handy, Understanding Organisations, he provides another list which (from memory) includes:

• Mechanical intelligence - that which for example enables some people to disassemble and re-assemble a motorcycle without using a manual. This might be the same as Practical intelligence, though the definition is somewhat different - a mechanically intelligent mechanic doesn't necessarily have great common sense, particularly if he rides his bike too fast!
• Physical intelligence - what Beckham has, enabling him to out wit as well as out-kick other footballers, and some might quip that this is the only form of intelligence that he has. Presumably this is identical to Athletic intelligence above
• Interpersonal intelligence - such as what good salespeople have - might be the same as Emotional intelligence, though again the emphasis is different
• Intrapersonal intelligence - such as what poets have - might be the same as Intuitive intelligence, though yet again I think it's slightly different, since someone who is deeply in tune with their inner self isn't necessarily particularly intuitive when it comes to the external world
• Visual intelligence - such as is possessed by artists, and enables them to see in such a way as to be able to produce art. This is definitely an attribute that can be trained, as anyone who had been to life drawing classes might testify. I think this is quite different from Spatial intelligence, also I think called non-verbal reasoning, because it's not about observing patterns - rather it's about seeing the nature of objects and their juxtaposition, which is subtly different. I'd hazard that a brilliant artist won't necessarily be any good at non-verbal reasoning tests.

Handy also makes the observation that musical and numerate intelligence often go together, i.e. that people who are good at music are often good at maths, and there may be other correlations and negative correlations between the various types of intelligence.

I would also add another type, which may be covered elsewhere, and that is the type posessed by autistic savants, whose abilities in certain respects often confound the experts. I'm thinking of the ability to discern large prime numbers, which was observed by Oliver Sacks, and eidetic memory, which can also lead to astounding achievements. Sacks's studies of brain-damaged people (covered in his article The President's Speech) also indicate that there is a type of intelligence to do with aphasia (or was it agnosia? - I get the two muddled) that is discernible in stroke victims (who have lost the ability to understand the spoken word) and, he claims, dogs!

Since there is evidently much material about on this subject, I'm wondering whether the Theory of multiple intelligences page should be expanded to include others' ideas on this subject, or whether this theory is really Gardner's preserve and hence that there should be a different page to cover others' ideas. Thoughts anyone? Matt Stan 19:30, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Taking a cue from other articles on controversial theories, I think it would be best to keep the theory itself and criticisms on a single page. Perhaps an organization like 1.introduction (balanced) 2.theory (Gardner's position only) 3.criticism & defense 4.significance, such as use and acceptance in practice.

On an unrelated note, I know the primary and seconday schools I attended used Gardner's theory and a few of my teachers actually taught it. When it was taught, it was always presented as uncontroversial fact (much to my annoyance). I would be interested in seeing information on how widespread this phenomenon is. Is it unique to United States public schools? Is it even that common in United States schools? CyborgTosser (Only half the battle) 08:46, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

"Whilst Gardner's theory presumably is correctly called the theory of multiple intelligences, he is not the only one to indicate that there might be aspects of intelligence which aren't covered by basic intelligence tests."

You are missing the point, and seem to have fallen for Gardner's deliberate misrepresentation of critiques made against his pseudo-scientific claims. All legitimate scientists already agree that IQ tests only test some parts of human ability to think. Gardner's "rebuttals" are shameful strawman attacks against criticisms that no actual scientist has made in the last 50 years. Gardner's model, designed to increase his personal cash flow, is that anything a student happens to be interested in is now relabeled as a form of "intelligence". Nothing Gardner has written in the last 10 years has actually addressed the substance of the many, many critiques made against him. His rebuttals are hand-waving redefinitions of words.

Well since an overarching characteristic of Gardner's theory is that it is idea-rich, yet data poor; it seems very necessary to include a section that discusses the arguments against this theory. Furthermore, it doesn't make sense to include other theories/philosophies in this page, since the 'theory of multiple intelligences' specifically relates only to Gardiner's body of work. This page is only meant to reflect Gardiner's point of view, and so it might be better for you to write a page about your other collected 'theorists,' one to represent each of their own unique bodies of work.

As far as the use of Gardiner's theory in your school, this actually surprises and concerns me. Currently, the use of Gardiner's theory in pedagogy is of limited efficacy, at best, and could actually represent a negative effect to students when their teacher's turn from a better supported curriculum to one designed with Gardiner's ideas in mind. As it stands now, any clinical or academic use of Gardiner's theory 'gets by' only based on the perception of its intuitive validity, rather than being well-supported by the body of research on the subject of intelligence.

Ned Herrmann's Four Quadrant Model

Herrmann_Brain_Dominance_Instrument is another related theory which four different types of thinking skill analytical, sequential, interpersonal, imaginative. --Pfafrich 15:56, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

PoV Dispute

What precicely is the PoV dispute over? If there is not dispute, please remove the tag. Falcon 20:48, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Category

This article belongs in Cognitive Psychology, rather than human development.whicky1978 15:26, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)

Other models

There are other models that subscribe to multiple intelligence, besides Garderner's. This article makes it seem that Gardner is the only one.whicky1978 15:26, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)

Indeed, a balanced article should at least also refer to the theories of Thurstone and in particular Guilford. Lambiam 06:21, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Not an article on Gardner's Theories of Multiple Intelligences. That is the title OF HIS THEORY , and that is what this article is written about.

Pov Dispute (cont.)

It seems that the argument here is that Gardner's MI theory is unproven or that it receives more attention than it deserves. I personally find value in his theories in terms of explaining to learners the prestige of professions associated with being intellectual versus more blue collar occupations.

Why not mention the additional, associated theories at the bottom of the page? It seems to me that someone just has a bug about Gardner. The MI theory is his, it remains as equally valid as the others that were mentioned; perhaps, they each deserve their own page.

On this debate, Gardner (2004) himself notes, "As one who has thought intensively about multiple intelligences, I am more aware than most of the defiencies in that theory; yet, I am far from declaring that my own theory has been refuted or that I have adopted a new holistic, unitary, or genetically determined view of the human intellect."

Gardner, H. (2004) Changing minds: The art and science of changing our own and other people's minds. Boston: Harvard Business School Press. p. 196.

---

Here is the POV dispute, it comes from the [archive]: "This article seems rather one-sided. It is almost uniformly critical of the theory, and the single contributor who has written most of it seems fond of rhetorical flourishes that have no place in a neutral source. This article needs to be cleaned up by someone more persistent and knowledgeable than myself. ":Seems to me that what it needs is an advocate for the theory. As it stands, the POV is pervasive, but mere copy editing wouldn't do enough to improve it.Dandrake 08:39, Aug 24, 2004 (UTC) ":Also could do with the "To do with..." sentences being turned into full sentences. ··gracefool |☺ 09:21, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)"

Steven McCrary 17:58, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Awareness and Wisdom

I believe sections for social awareness or perhaps, awareness in general as an intelligence as well as wisdom be included in the "types" of intelligence.

those are interpersonal, and intrapersonal, respectively. Prometheuspan 02:39, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

• I deleted the multiple "?" as it was implicit that the statement was in fact a query.*

206.40.119.252 14:51, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

"interest", stereotypes about the disabled, original research

Thx for the article, and i write from a general psych background, not as an expert in this area, nor invested in the theory at hand. But there are problems here, which lead me to suspect the no-no of original research.

• I edited the criticism (in opposing views, paragraph 1) that Gardner equates intelligence with "interest", changing that to "ability", because it's clear that people can have interests in things that they aren't or can't seem to be good at, and ability is probably the part of "interest" that's meant. I haven't read in the area in a long time, so it's possible that Gardner is this sloppy -- but i'm not writing the article, and there's no citation for this. I am familiar with the criticisms mentioned, but they fit the equation of intelligence with ability/talent/etc.
• Then i read down and saw more specifically on "interest", but the problems with the article were getting bad enough that i frankly don't trust it's accuracy. So i still challenge and ask for citation supporting that gardner says that interest itself (apart from its correlation with ability) = intelligence.

As for problems:

• One bullet read "Once someone adopts Gardner's position, the entire idea of studying intelligence is meaningless." This is obviously false, since gardner adopts gardner's position and gardner studies intelligence. And many others, since this view, even if fatally flawed, is admittedly popular. I'll wait for citation re interest before removing that. Hopefully i got the rewrite of the above sentence right.
• I removed the paragraph on the disabled: "The existence of students with any kind of handicap proves that even in Gardner's scheme, many people cannot be equally intelligent. Sternberg and Frensch write "it seems strange to describe someone who is tone deaf or physically uncoordinated as unintelligent." In Gardner's system, people not interested in nature have zero natural intelligence, people who are deaf have zero musical intelligence, etc."

Problems are (and again, cite away if you think i'm wrong):

1] "any kind of handicap" would include folks who play basketball better in a wheelchair than most people who can walk/run/etc. The point here is that being "physically uncoordinated" is not the same thing as being "handicapped". Note that once again the actual criticism cited does make sense: it critiques poor ability (uncoordinated) = unintelligent.

2] "tone deaf" is also a valid criticism because in its narrow sense (inability to distinguish pitches) it is a lack of one kind of musical ability; likewise there is a broader lack of ability in its far more widely used sense, because very few people described as "tone deaf" are actually unable to distinguish pitches; they are typically just very lacking in musical appreciation/etc. But, "[...] people who are deaf have zero musical intelligence [...]" is another completely false stereotype. (Pardon me: it's getting very late and i just want to finish this and i am bugged by it...I'll try to chill.) People who are "deaf" (which commonly and legally incl people who may have some hearing with or without amplification) can in fact be quite musical: even those completely without hearing may be very accomplished at rhythmic music making, and enjoy the vibrations they can feel from their own and others' music, incl pitch differences.

4] "In Gardner's system, people not interested in nature have zero natural intelligence [...]". I ask for a citation. I bet this is not true; it's just too stark and silly. "Zero" again. Zero?

Oh, and please site "This article, by Steven A. Stahl".

So once again, i suspect original research = winging it. This article deserves more. Thx for the good parts, hope this helps, "alyosha" (talk) 08:57, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Expert tag?

Something i forgot last night: before i found more problems (and got triggered about the disability stereotypes) and wrote the post above, i had changed Relationship to Education paragraph 2: "This line of argument has infuriated those in the Gifted and Talented community because" as a false/POV generalization. Now i'd like to add (related more to original research) that this paragraph does not mention the significant support for gardner in the gifted advocacy community becuase the theory highlights how there are more ways to be gifted (vs the more narrow "intelligent") than just IQ/g/etc.

Perhaps an expert tag would be appropriate for this article, since it seems to be an issue of knowledge of the area, and not just POV (which seems to have been worked on somewhat). Sorry i'm not that expert, but hope this helps, "alyosha" (talk) 18:22, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

I would really like this source: intrapersonal = not really an intelligence

so i read this : "Others question whether Intrapersonal intelligence can really be considered an intelligence, and claim that it instead should be considered more a personality trait, and a set of desires."

I think it is a great statment. I would really appreciate if the user or any user having these same feelings would be willing to hook me up with a refrence or two. I would appreciate it. I am interresteding who specifically, their famous, or well known scientific names, question whether II can be really called an intelligence.

thanks! I really need some authoritative names! Just for me, i dont much care about the article heh lol. serious. jVirus File:Confederate Battle Flag.svg 09:19, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Prometheuspan 00:49, 21 March 2006 (UTC) Intrapersonal is definitely a form of intelligence, uniquely seperated from other types of mental functioning, and specifically related to accessing altered states of consciousness, handling emotions, knowing the difference between the self as is and the self as related to, and other such things. People with high levels of intrapersonal intelligence are the common cure fro groupthink. Prometheuspan 00:49, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

If you want a general, layperson level review of multiple intelligences and the place of intrapersonal intelligence, Gleitman (1999) should tell you everything you need. --Davril2020 23:26, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Multiple Intelligences vs. Learning Styles

What I find particularly of note in this MI entry is the fact that the article quote by Stahl is about learning styles and not multiple intelligences - a completely different theory altogether - making for a confusing line of logic. user KS 11:17, 27 February 2006

Ah, well, you see, a person with a high score in a specific types of intelligence would have a learning style skewed to that type of intelligence. Prometheuspan 02:45, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

This distinction has always confused me. I'd love to see this destinction expanded in the article. --Salix alba (talk) 11:17, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Gardner explained it this way in his FAQ (which anyone editing this article should probably read first): "Speak of styles, speak of intelligences, but don't conflate the two if you can help it." --68.251.254.90 04:07, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Prometheuspan, that is not the definition of a "learning style": for reference, see, Dunn and Dunn's model of 'learning styles'. Learning styles are based more on the environment in which the individual is learning and their interaction with it . . . is it too warm? Do they need to move around while they are intaking information? Do they work better with peers than alone? THAT is a learning STYLE - completely different than a Multiple Intelligence. user KS (MEd in Educational Psychology, PhD candidate in same) 6:14, 5 May, 2006

Unsupported basis

This theory is not supported by professional psychologists specializing in the field of intelligence. Specifically it is seen as pop-psychology. At best it is viewed as a marginally developed theory of learning styles, as KS stated, at worst it is seen as unscientific, politically motivated egalitarianism primarily for the purposes of justifying affirmative action, mainstreaming of mentally retarded individuals, or both. previous edits made on 11:24, April 11, 2006 by user:72.161.141.188. please sign posts, thanks, SteveMc 14:32, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Your opinion and its biases have been duly noted. The last time i was playing the game, I recall types of intelligence being well covered in no less than 5 or 6 textbooks. An interesting thing about Psychology, it is allmost all of it "Theoretical". The classical objections to the Theories do not generally consist of any of the things you mentioned. Prometheuspan 02:44, 14 April 2006 (UTC) please place signature at the end of posts, thanks SteveMc 14:32, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. It also seems as if the initial poster was working to further a specific personal agenda (ironically, a bias). His notions of egalitarianism and "pop-psychology" are not cited and are thus circumstantial personal leanings, it seems. Whether he agrees with the direction and internal "motivation" of the theory is unimportant; Gardner's ideology is widely accepted and practiced by many educators. Moreover, all of science is premised on observable theories which are all inherently biased (see, among others, Cophenhagen Convention Effect).

Just an addendum; well noted SteveMc Thanks, Aaron 12.8.2006 206.40.119.252 14:55, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

NPOV

It doesn't matter whether the *content* article is accepted as truth or completely valid, only that the theory be presented from a neutral point of view. Wikipedia is not a peer review system; it is an encyclopedia. It's not the job of people (who are not masters of the field) to attempt to refute a theory that are not completely familiar with. Rather, take out the massive negative bias, and make a note at the top saying "this is a theory, this is only a theory, it is not literal truth, do not take it as such" or something. Just a note that this is not being presented as 'fact' but as a report on the theory 'x'. I don't believe creationism is real, but I don't demand that the wikipedia article on creationism be pulled!

Remember, folks, Wikipedia is not a web forum for debate, it's an encyclopedia. Please treat it as such.

previous edits made on 02:31, April 24, 2006 by user:64.105.36.31. please sign your posts, thanks, SteveMc 14:37, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

If one would separate a theory from its scientific basis and evidence, or lack thereof, then one runs the risk of any uninformed person to embrace that theory without understanding the ramifications. Gardiner should be commented upon for his lack of scientific support and many detractors, because to leave this information out could cause improper decisions to be made. For example, a teacher may base his or her entire lesson plan around a theory they read in wikipedia without realizing how limited the evidence of efficacy for this theory really is! previous edits made on May 5, 2006 by user:71.64.200.214. please sign your posts, thanks, SteveMc 14:37, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

If a teacher really "base[d] his or her entire lesson plan around a theory they read in wikipedia", or any other encyclopedia, this teacher can't be helped. I also don't hold teachers in high esteem, but i at least believe they have more than one source for their eductational program, and, even more important, that they are not confined to an ENCYCLOPEDIA. An encyclopedia, in most if not all cases, is used by a layman in the particular field, as a professional is bound to have some more specialised publication at hand. I agree that the criticism should remain in the article, but your exemplification is entirely the product of your imagination.----83.189.52.78 15:35, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Original content?

Although I have not read widely in Gardner, neither have I ever seen him refer to "Thought", "Sensate", and "Communicational" groupings. Is this from his work or a bit of original content? --65.146.234.98 03:14, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

I suspect you are right, as i also have never heard these words in Gardners writings. As i also have not read all his works, especially the newer ones, this remains a suspicion.----83.189.52.78 15:37, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Logical/mathematical in reading or writing

I was just classified in school as logical mathematical( I got six out of ten tied with verbal linguistal, but there was only 1 person in mathematical so they sent me there) ANyway it is in reading class and the suggested types of studying in my group is doing word problems,calculating things etc. I was just wondering what that would help with reading?( I just realized that it also said logical so maybe would sit around and try to find plotholes.) Logical/mathematical, UNITE!

To whom it may concern

The part where people think that he was wrong to his categories them as "intelligences" is wrong. I strongly feel that it was right of him to eliminate the general 2 category view: Smart, not so smart. Although I think that it was a little exaggeration to say everyone is smart at something, he has got the right idea. There is more to being smart than getting good grades i mean hey, can you sove complex anagrams in 10 seconds flat? If you can than good for you! But does that mean you get good grades in history or social studies or social science or what ever your school calls it? NO! Because although when you hear the word genius the first names that come to mind are probably einstein, edison, or steven hawking, you are forgetting picasso, and mozart,and beethoven. Look the point is that although I think that being good at sports meaning you're smart is a stretch, his system helps people find their best way to study everywhere.