The "Science" of Human Intelligence: A Skeptical View

Howard Gardner © 2024

Popping up on my desktop screen is a 2023 book, The Science of Human Intelligence (Second Edition). Given my decades-long interest in the topic, I decide to look at the book. Fortunately, since the purchase price is over $100, the Harvard Library has a copy and I am able to borrow it.

Having my share of vanity, I look for my name in the index. There is only one entry—pp. 18-19. After a brief paragraph, my ideas are dismissed as having “no objective scientific evidence.” There is no citation of my several books on the topic, including the perennial bestseller Frames of Mind: The Theory of Multiple Intelligences.

Robert J. Sternberg

I say to myself, somewhat defensively, “I am not really a psychologist and don’t present myself that way. How about Robert J. Sternberg, another critic of the standard view of intelligence? He is a “real psychologist”—Bob was president of the American Psychological Association—does he get more air time?” Alas, no more lines in the book, though there is a reference to one short article by Sternberg in the journal Intelligence called “Teaching about the Nature of Intelligence.”

Interestingly, in the same short introductory chapter, more space is devoted to the late Stephen Jay Gould’s book The Mismeasure of Man—indeed, to two editions of the book (1981, 1996). But going beyond sheer dismissal, the authors pick a fight: “Gould had many facts just plain wrong and worse, when confronted with detailed technical reflections of his key points…Gould declined to correct his mistakes or modify his opinions.” Alas, Steve Gould, who was a friend, died in 2022 and so, cannot defend himself.

Well, enough defensiveness. What do I make of this textbook of over 400 pages?

Alfred Binet

One of the great advances in psychology was the creation, well over a century ago by the French psychologist Alfred Binet, of a short test—one that could be given to young French students to indicate how they would likely fare in a school of that era. The IQ test, as it soon came to be called, accomplished this task reasonably well. And as all readers of these words know, the IQ test—and its relatives, like the SAT or the GRE or the Raven’s Progressive Matrices—have been used thereafter to classify individual test-takers in terms of their intellectual strength.

The text that I leafed through is an up-to-date report on what we know about the IQ test in its various forms—different models of intelligence, various approaches to administering and interpreting the tests, major cognitive factors contributing to intelligence, possible brain and genetic bases thereof. And, presumably of most interest to most readers: 1) the kind of life-success that can be predicted and 2) putative differences among populations (e.g. racial, ethnic, socio-economic groups), as reflected by their tested (psychometric) intelligence. So long as you are interested in this topic and these questions, this text will give reasonable up-to-date information on these issues.

So far, so good.

The line is drawn with the word “scientific.” By accident, or by intent, the authors of the text rule out-of-bounds any effort to write about intellect that does not follow their rules of carrying out science, or indeed any form of scholarship, on the topic of intellect.

And here is where I draw my line.

When I began to study human cognition a half-century ago, I had no intention to critique standardized tests—indeed, unlike Bob Sternberg, I did well on them. But I did not think that the only way to study the human mind was by creating short-answer tests and then documenting their correlations to various school and life outcomes. Instead, in what I now term a work of synthesis rather than of science, I drew on various kinds of information and forms of knowledge, ranging from neurology and genetics to anthropology and history, and tried to ascertain the spectrum of cognitive capacities that characterize our species.

Some of these “multiple intelligences” lend themselves to short-answer tests—linguistic, logical-mathematical, and spatial—and so, not surprisingly, those are the ones included in most tests of intelligence. Others, which I felt were equally important for a productive life in our world, are far more difficult to ascertain through paper-and-pencil instruments. These constitute the remaining intelligences—specifically musical, bodily-kinesthetic, interpersonal, intrapersonal, naturalistic, and perhaps 1-2 others.

Borrowing from the Bard, I was not trying to bury standard IQ intelligences, I was trying to praise the remaining ones. And as a bonus, rather than testing in order to classify and rank-order people (and alas, that’s the thrust of the text that I reviewed), I preferred to nurture the range of intelligences. I wanted to document what life opportunities might open up—in schools, where the bulk of my work has been, but also in the wider world—acknowledging that there is more to life than a certain kind of test and a certain kind of educational institution.

Now, of course, with increasingly intelligent large language instruments—notably ChatGPT—when it comes to assessment, placement, and life opportunities, almost all bets are off.

One last point.

If you are interested in what’s known about the factors involved in standard intelligence testing and the variables that correlate with the range of IQs, this text will answer your questions reliably. But if you want to know the sub-text of this text, let me quote for you two passages which receive headline attention therein:

Robert Plomin

Robert Plomin: “The most far-reaching implications for science, and perhaps for society, will come from identifying genes responsible for the heritability of g (general intelligence).”

Douglas Detterman: “Intelligence is the most important thing of all to understand, more important that the origins of the universe, more important than climate change, more important than cancer, more than anything else.”

Douglas Detterman

Forty years ago, I wrote about intelligences, but ever since, my colleagues and I have been studying what it means to be a good person and to do “good work” (see thegoodproject.org and the many books, articles, and technical reports listed there).

The world is not going to be saved by smarter people—if it is to be saved, it will be saved by persons who are trying to use their wits for the sake of others.

REFERENCES

Haier, R. J., Colom, R., & Hunt, E. (2023). The Science of Human Intelligence (2nd ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Singapore Education Scholar Founds MI Pre-School

A recent profile in Central News Asia (link here) brought our attention to a remarkable early childhood education scholar, Dr. Khoo Kim Choo, who started the Preschool for Multiple Intelligences (PMI), which is comprised of three centers in Singapore. After a long career spent working in early childhood education, often in leadership positions, Dr. Khoo opened the first branch of PMI at the age of 60. She was inspired by Howard Gardner’s theory of multiple intelligences and felt it could be a strong foundation for quality preschool education.

Dr. Khoo watches as two students explore an activity at a PMI center (Photo from CNA)

In the interview with CNA, Dr. Khoo said, “the starting point should be that every child is intelligent.” She structures these schools around students discovering and developing their different intelligences, and building their confidence along the way. At these PMI centers, children are encouraged to explore their interests, and instructors are trained to motivate them to pursue different specializations – nature, music, drama, etc.

Now 77-years-old, Dr. Khoo stays actively engaged at PMI and offers support to her staff whenever needed. We found her work incredibly impressive and are glad to learn that Gardner’s theory is being used in yet another early childhood education setting. Around the world, there are many schools inspired by MI theory – examples can be found in Colombia, the Philippines, India, as well as the United States. We are encouraged to see the theory applied in a way that promotes student learning and provides the opportunity to explore and strengthen different intelligences from a young age.

MI and Capoeira

How MI theory can enhance the teaching of martial arts

We recently heard from Venceslau Augusto de Oliveira, who is a social worker and teacher of capoeira to at-risk youth in Brazil. Capoeira is a form of Brazilian martial art combined with dance and music. It originated in around the 16th century when West African slaves were brought to Brazil by Portuguese colonialists. Forbidden from practicing martial arts, they were able to continue their cultural practices in the guise of dance. Capoeira thus became a form of dance and self-defense, but also a way of preserving cultural identity.

Drawing upon these traditions, Oliveira sees capoeira as a means of empowerment and transformation. He encourages his students to explore and develop their intelligences using capoeira in the following ways.

Linguistic intelligence: Children practice self-expression using song lyrics and stories, expanding their vocabularies and improving their communication skills.

Spatial intelligence: Capoeira involves learning to be aware of one’s own body space and how physical positions are affected by movement.

Musical intelligence: Children learn instruments and songs, understanding rhythm and developing musical expression. 

Bodily-kinesthetic intelligence: Capoeira teaches complex physical movements involving acrobatics, strength, and balance. 

Intrapersonal Intelligence: Children are encouraged to explore their own emotions and become self-aware which leads to greater self-knowledge and confidence. As they overcome challenges and improve their ability, they come to recognize their own strengths.

Interpersonal Intelligence: As capoeira is a group activity, children must know how to be part of a team, cooperating with others, valuing diversity, and learning mutual respect.

Existential Intelligence: Teaching children about the history and traditions of capoeira stimulates questions about their own identity and culture. Oliveira encourages children to reflect on their values and role in society, asking themselves the big questions of life. 

Naturalist Intelligence: When capoeira is practiced outdoors, children learn to appreciate and be aware of the environment around them. 

Logical-mathematical intelligence: Oliveira argues that children also use logical-mathematical intelligence to analyze movements, calculate distances, and work together to coordinate their actions. However, these skills require more spatial, bodily-kinesthetic, and interpersonal intelligence than logical-mathematical.

Through awareness of MI theory, Oliveira demonstrates how one subject: capoeira, can provide opportunities to develop multiple skills.  

Oliveira teaches in deprived areas, such as Belo Horizonte, where children face the challenges of social inequality and violence in their communities, with limited access to education. He believes that helping children develop their multiple intelligences through capoeira will lead to empowerment. As he says,

“ children can discover their potential, develop social and emotional skills, strengthen their cultural identity and build a better future for themselves and for society as a whole”

We wish Oliveira the best in his endeavors and applaud his efforts to nurture multiple intelligences in his students through the art of capoiera.

Photos provided by Venceslau Augusto de Oliveira

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.