Recognizing Multiple Intelligences: A Q&A with Howard Gardner

(Editor’s note: This article is from a past issue of Brain World magazine. If you enjoy this article, please support us with a print or digital subscription!)

Throughout the 20th century, the American educational system was gripped by what one might call an IQ mania. If you studied in a public school, you probably remember the tests, and possibly your scores (in my school, scores were hidden, but we broke into the teacher’s desk during recess to find them). Before the age of neuroplasticity, mental capabilities were thought to be fixed, and IQ was destiny. The idea of an ultimate, universal ranking of intelligence was appealing to those attempting to create an efficient, organized educational system — but potentially damaging for children who were told, unequivocally, how smart they were (or weren’t). This unitary view of intelligence encouraged a system where standardized, one-size-fits-all tests could be applied to measure the progress of students and schools.

Howard Gardner, a researcher at Harvard University, had a very different view of what amounts to intelligence. His studies of artistically gifted children and people suffering from brain injuries revealed a rich diversity of the ways in which the brain can excel. In his landmark 1983 book, “Frames of Mind: The Theory of Multiple Intelligences,” Gardner proposed seven distinct types of intelligence: musical, kinesthetic (body), logical/mathematical, spatial, linguistic, interpersonal, and intrapersonal. The idea caught fire and became so pervasive that today the proposition that intelligence is not a single, fixed quantity is almost considered common sense. Gardner denies that he wrote the book to discredit the idea of IQ, but he has been openly critical of the hegemony of IQ, as well as standardized testing, and the memorize-and-regurgitate style of education, throughout his career.

After more than 25 years, Gardner has continued to develop his theories, and some private schools have attempted to model their educational methods on his ideas. Yet in American public schools, standardized testing plays a larger role than ever, thanks to legislation like No Child Left Behind. We recently checked in with Gardner to get his perspective.

Brain World: I was interviewing John Medina the other day, and he told me he believes you are widely misunderstood. Is that something you agree with?

Howard Gardner: I don’t think I am widely misunderstood, but I am often interpreted superficially. I’m a psychologist, and multiple intelligence theory was developed as an alternative to a unitary intelligence view, which is pervasive in psychology. I don’t think I’ve made much of a dent in psychology, but I’m extremely well known in education, where my ideas have circulated more broadly.

But many people in education have never read my work directly; they get information secondhand. When they get the idea that intelligence is pluralistic, that’s fine. But when they go on to say that I have a specific education regimen, that’s not legitimate. But I don’t go around saying I’ve been widely misunderstood.

BW: In “Multiple Intelligences: The Theory in Practice,” you talk about developing education in way that is geared to particular intelligences.

HG: I had the notion of individual-centered education: Irrespective of whether you have a curriculum that every student is required to master, we would try to find out how a person learns best.

If you are someone with incredible kinesthetic-bodily intelligence, and placed in a school that only values logical and verbal intelligence, you might have low self-esteem. If you have promise in an area, it’s almost cruel not to have a chance to develop that capacity. And of course, bodily-kinesthetic can be anything from doing surgery to being a football player. But the other thing that I devoted a huge amount of space to in “The Disciplined Mind” is that you can use people’s areas of strength as an entry point into traditional curriculum. There’s no reason why you couldn’t use your bodily intelligence to understand things about physics. It doesn’t have to come from a textbook or lecture.

BW: But in that book, you also argue that’s learning-as-metaphor, and you have to bring the student back to physics or mathematics in order for the student to truly learn it.

HG: That’s a good point. The way I would think about that now is, if you want to understand physics the way a physicist does, yes, you have to ultimately learn their language. On the other hand, if you want to understand how a lever works, you don’t have to know the formula. You have to understand weight and distance and fulcrum, and there are many ways to have that understanding.

BW: In your writing, you specify different areas of the brain that correspond to different intelligences, either very specifically or roughly. If you’re teaching someone physics in a body-metaphorical way, do they use the logic/mathematical networks of the brain, or the kinesthetic networks?

HG: I wouldn’t bother answering that question for pedagogical reasons, because I don’t think it’s necessary that the educators know neuroanatomy, although for research reasons I think it’s quite interesting. But a book that had enormous influence on me is called “Half a Brain is Enough” by Antonio M. Battro, about a child who had a hemispherectomy, and was living with only one brain hemisphere, yet if you looked at his performance it was very difficult to tell about his brain damage. That’s because the brain is very plastic and flexible. So if you look at that kid drawing and wonder if he’s using a particular area — the kid may not even have that hemisphere!

(Editor’s note: This article is from a past issue of Brain World magazine. If you enjoy this article, please support us with a print or digital subscription!)

1 Comment

  1. The reason why these ideas haven’t been widely accepted in the field of psychology is probably because psychology has concentrated on mental illness rather than mental performance – intelligence and positive psychologies are not given enough attention and it is likely that this is due to many psychologists’ aversion to such topics as genius and intelligence.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.