The Trouble with MI "Quizzes"

Recently, an article was posted to Verywell Mind’s website offering visitors a fast-and-free quiz to “discover which type of multiple intelligence describes you the best.” The quiz asks about the quiztaker’s favorite subject in school, hobbies, favorite genres of TV, but also scenario-based questions, such as:

You’re sitting in the dentist’s office waiting for your appointment. How do you choose to pass the time?

Intrigued, I took the test myself, and after ten questions, was told my intelligence-type is verbal-linguistic intelligence. “You’re an expert at using your words, whether you’re writing or speaking,” my result-summary explained. “Verbal-linguistic folks like you tend to have solid memories, like to tell stories, and enjoy a good debate every now and then.”

While we have no doubt that this article and its author are well-intentioned and simply intrigued by the theory’s potential uses, Howard Gardner himself does not endorse MI quizzes or tests as a sound way to assess a person’s intelligence profile. It’s also important to note that if you see one of these assessments online claiming to be an “official” MI test, Gardner has never developed such a test, nor does he endorse any. The closest he’s come in the past is his role in the creation of Project Spectrum materials, which you can learn more about here.

             Branton Shearer

Many people have developed their own measures to test for multiple intelligences. The best-known instrument is the MIDAS. This test, developed by Branton Shearer (who may be reached at sbranton@kent.edu), has been administered to thousands of people all over the world.

Generally, Gardner’s trouble with tests that purport to assess a person’s intelligence is that most assess interest and preference rather than computational capacities, when only the latter indicates the strength of an intelligence. They also suffer from two major deficiencies:

1) They do not get at actual strengths of an intelligence – you would need performance tasks to determine how musically or spatially intelligent a person is.

2) They assume that the person has good intrapersonal intelligence and knows themself well. But many of us think we know ourselves better than we really do.

Many of these tests are not harmful in and of themselves. In fact, they may provide an interesting data point that leads to further investigation into our own strengths and weaknesses. And it’s understandable that many people, especially policymakers, desire an official instrument for measuring multiple intelligences. However, Gardner believes that optimally, intelligences should be assessed by more than one measure. For example, if individuals rate themselves on their intelligences using such a test, but also obtain ratings from those who know them well (family, friends, present and former teachers), the profile of intelligences would then be more reliable.

But the gold standard for assessing intelligences consists of performance measurements, where you must demonstrate your intelligence and not just testify to it. So, for example, one might:

• Assess interpersonal intelligences by observing how a person handles a conflict situation or motivates others to pursue a certain course of action.

• Assess spatial intelligence by seeing how quickly a person masters an unfamiliar geographical terrain.  

As for actual efforts to assess the range of intelligences in terms of performance, we know of only two examples: "Project Spectrum,” as mentioned above; and the “Explorama” at Danfoss Universe, a site at a Danish amusement-and-science park which allows visitors to profile their own intelligences. Howard briefly describes this in Multiple Intelligences: New Horizons. And in the book, Multiple Intelligences Around the World, there is a fuller description of the Explorama written by Charlotte Sahl-Madsen. 

                           Universe Park in Als, Denmark, where Explorama is located at Danfoss Universe

There is a disclaimer at the bottom of VeryWell Mind’s intelligences quiz results-summary, that reads, “Your results are not the end-all be-all…Consider your result as a fun way to think about your strengths and weaknesses, and the kinds of things you’re interested in.” We agree that these tests may give site visitors a good reason to look further into their own inclinations and abilities, but we also believe that the results of any such test should be taken with a grain of salt.  

Addressing Critics of MI Theory

Recently I received a letter from a colleague who was sympathetic to the theory of multiple intelligences, but was being hounded by individuals who believed that intelligence was singular and that it could only assessed by psychometric instruments. Here is what I wrote to the colleague.

***

Many thanks for your letter.  I always like to hear from those who have encountered my ideas and the ideas (including criticisms) of my colleagues. 

But, in candor, I have to say that your letter saddens me.  Over a forty-year period I have sought to make my ideas—their  sources, their claims, their implications, their limitations—clear. You can find the main points in my various books in education, on the MI Oasis website, which has posted dozens of blogs, and in two volumes of my collected papers, The Essential Howard Gardner on Mind and The Essential Howard Gardner on Education.

The critics whom you cite are fighting wars of the last century!  They are not open to new ideas, new ways of thinking, because their minds have already been made up...and appear to be calcified. 

Contrary to their claims: 

There are many kinds of science, many views of science.  Indeed, science changes with every decade—just think of the impact of microscopes, X-rays, cyclotrons, CRISPR, powerful computers, Large Language Machines, etc. And social science, a term I consider to be hyperbolic, is not the same as particle physics. 

The same goes for theory—many views of what a theory is. In history alone,  there are scores of theories about  history—the same in musicology or clinical  psychology. Importantly, there are many ways to test ideas and find out which ideas are worthwhile, which are worth pursuing and critiquing, which have educational implications, which do not. 

I cannot take seriously: the notion that intellect—and our research team is now studying animal, plant, and artificial 'intelligences'—can only be ascertained by a short paper and pencil (or computer-administrated) test.

Nor can I take seriously: a test that claims to determine one's intellect, one's potential, one's place in the world. 

Such notions could only be clutched tightly and retained indefinitely by ideologues. I speak, write, and address individuals  who have open minds (which is different from having intelligence, or multiple intelligences!). It is not worth trying to address individuals who have already closed their minds to any view of intelligence other than that developed over a century ago by psychometricians, some of whom were  open to having their minds changed. 

I hope that these brief remarks are of some help to you. If not, I am sorry. 

If you’re interested in my response to MI theory erroneously being labeled a “neuromyth,” see my article “Neuromyths: A Critical Consideration.”

Recognizing Musical Intelligence

A new study published in the International Journal of Music in Early Education provides new evidence for musical intelligence as an independent cognitive strength. The research was led by Tim Brown, a researcher in the University of California San Diego School of Medicine Department of Neurosciences and Director of the Sentia Laboratory for Childhood Systems Neuroscience.

Brown and his team asked four and five-year old children in transitional kindergarten to sing back a musical note played to them, matching the pitch and syllable e.g. “daa” as they heard it. They found that children doing less well in school were able to do this on a similar level compared to higher performing peers. This ability was not linked to the usual socioeconomic predictors of early learning success, such as maternal education, household income, or household language, and is not correlated with reading or math ability.

By demonstrating that musical ability is an independent strength for students, the study reinforces Howard Gardner’s MI theory that intelligence is multi-faceted and that standardized assessments do not fully capture a child's potential. The study implies that integrating arts, especially music, into educational curricula could be particularly beneficial for some children. Recognizing that children who perform poorly in standard academic settings might excel in other areas could help reduce the stigmatization of these students and provide them with more opportunities to succeed.

Read an article about this study here.

Alanis Morissette and Financial Intelligence

Morissette just reissued her Supposed Former Infatuation Junkie album as a 25th anniversary edition

In a recent interview with The New York Times link here, singer and songwriter, Alanis Morissette mentioned Howard Gardner and the theory of multiple intelligences. She suggested that financial intelligence should be part of his theory, saying:

I had the pleasure of interviewing Howard Gardner, who came up with the multiple intelligence theory, for my podcast, and I asked him if I could add some intelligences. I think financial intelligence is an intelligence. It feels like activism to be a female empowered around money and knowledgeable around it, and to be entering into the seat of entrepreneurialism.

Howard Gardner’s response would be that it is easy to think of other possible intelligences – whether financial, cooking, or technological, it’s a parlor game.  The challenge is to show that the existing set of intelligences in MI theory, which have years of research to corroborate them, is incapable of explaining a significant human behavior.  

What Alanis Morrissette might describe as “financial intelligence” is actually a combination of other existing intelligences. For example, having good knowledge her own financial situation and understanding how to invest, budget, etc. would come under logical-mathematical intelligence. If Morrissette is mainly talking about being a successful entrepreneur, then other intelligences might come into play. For example, this might also require intrapersonal intelligence to understand one’s own financial goals, needs, and priorities, or linguistic intelligence when marketing her business and communicating well with others, or understanding the market and various laws.

Gardner’s list of intelligences represents a serious scholarly effort to ascertain and delineate cognitive capacities. Anyone is free to nominate candidate intelligences, from humor intelligence to sexual intelligence, to cooking intelligence, as have been suggested to him in the past. But to be taken seriously, Gardner argues that the nomination needs to fulfill two criteria: 

1. Have a set of criteria for what is, and what is not, an intelligence, as laid out, for example, in Frames of Mind. 

2. Be sure not to confuse DESCRIPTION (how an intelligence works) with PRESCRIPTION (how we would like individuals to act, to use those intelligences). His delineation of intelligences is strictly amoral: any intelligence can be used benevolently or malevolently. How those intelligences are used is very important; he and his team have devoted twenty years to studying Good Workers, Good Persons, and Good Citizens as part of The Good Project. But the use of an intelligence is a different question than the nature and operation of that intelligence. 

The Alanis Morissette podcast episode in which Howard Gardner appeared, is here.

Multiple Intelligences: Time to Venture Beyond the Human Kingdom

An introductory note:

We recently received a letter from a retired veterinarian who shared her thoughts on the intersection between the theory of multiple intelligences and the animal kingdom. We felt her ideas might be interesting to a wider audience, so we asked that she write a blog on the topic. We thank her for this generous contribution to MI Oasis!

---

© Jane Mussey 2024

Since I was four years old, I’ve expressed opinions about animal behavior and cognition—though I didn’t use words like “cognition” back in 1957. I was told that the animals I loved—dogs, cats and horses—didn’t think or plan; did not form bonds or mourn; and were not considered intelligent in any way. I did not accept that view in 1957. And now in 2024, thanks to the work of many investigators in this field and my own career as a veterinarian, I have a lot of data to support my child’s-eye contentions. 

Everyone reading mainstream media has likely seen reports and videos of experiments on animals’ ability to reason presented with novel situations, usually involving a food reward. (Truth: I’m motivated by food rewards to do actual problem-solving as well.) We’ve seen videos of animals at play, animals rescuing people and other animals from life-threatening situations, animals comforting the dying, protecting the vulnerable, alerting the sick to impending health crises, smelling out drugs, finding living people and dead people, identifying the presence of cancer and other diseases—even lizards becoming our beloved and steadfast companions!

What more do we need to see human beings and other life forms as fellows on a web of intelligences, interconnected by a wide range of overlapping intellectual attributes,  and very little separating us. And if we stretch: A fruit fly can feel regret? A plant can sense danger and communicate it to nearby plants? Wasn’t our part in this so much easier when we were at the top of the intelligence heap, without close contenders, as it allowed us to perceive we have the right to dominate the worlds of plants and animals?

Early in my vet school days, I bought a copy of Howard Gardner’s Frames of Mind: The Theory of Multiple Intelligences. I was ripe for a new, groundbreaking view of human intelligence, having seen fellow students (and myself) shine in some areas and perform badly in others; having read about college football stars becoming world-renowned in widely unconnected areas; seen otherwise undereducated musicians shine in mathematics and non-communicating autistic people reveal a wealth of perception with a simple letter board.

Howard’s book was an explosion, a revolutionary view not only of intellectual differences but of the great worth of those differences. Instead of a human hierarchy of prized talents of the mind, we could finally consider the John Coltranes and Sarah Vaughans geniuses by dint of musical gifts, worthy of high intellectual regard—up there with Stephen Hawking and Katherine Johnson. And the intelligence of the kinesthetic geniuses and interpersonal geniuses could be equally valued with mathematical/logical giants. We could encourage school kids in their areas of strength and brilliance, and refrain from “pushing them up against their deficiencies,” in the words of the great neurologist, Oliver Sacks. 

Sarah Vaughan

Thanks to Howard’s work, we have a framework of human intelligences to hold in high regard, with new evidence and wisdom to support it. But what about other life forms? Perhaps each species needs to be more completely understood by human beings, and equally valued for the intelligences they bring to the world. Perhaps we need to first concentrate on animals that we see as somehow stupid, such as cattle, or chickens or insects. How do we best assess the responses of animals for whom we cannot easily detect emotions and reactions to novel situations? Human beings are generally very adept at identifying emotions and responses to stimuli based on facial expressions, but what about assessing animals that have facial expressions that are too subtle for us to discern? 

Much work has been done on this since my early ventures and adventures in the animal world. Interpreting animal behaviors has become a science with educated and versatile integrity. I don’t know if we’ve gone further afield than fruit flies, but we’re way ahead of the early days when animals were presumed not to feel pain and therefore weren’t worthy of anesthesia. 

Beyond identifying areas of animal cognition, are we able to identify multiple intelligences in animals we rarely interact with? Are we able to identify and value intelligences that are very unlike those of human beings? Thomas Armstrong, long an advocate of “MI theory” has suggested that we try to perceive animal intelligence as we do our own: What multiple intellectual strengths may we identify in other species, and how may we frame them as worthy of awe, respect and reverence even when we may not fully understand their function?

Accepting the multiple intellectual strengths of other life forms may bring our own species into more colorful relief, accepting both our varied awesomeness and our abject limitations. These insights may help us accept ourselves as a splendid and ineffable product of evolution with the ability to push past prior “strengths” that are now, perhaps, maladaptive (clan behavior, paranoia, and warfare) into a “peaceful kingdom” we’ve always sought, but as a group, never attained. 

This piece was lightly edited for publication by the Offices of Howard Gardner.