8 Intelligences: Are You a Jack of All Trades or a Master of One? | Best of '16 | Big Think
What this covers
8 Intelligences: Are You a Jack of All Trades or a Master of One? Watch the newest video from Big Think: https://bigth.ink/NewVideo Join Big Think Edge for exclusive videos: https://bigth.ink/Edge
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- What does it mean when someone calls you smart or intelligent? According to developmental psychologist Howard Gardner, it could mean one of eight things. In this video interview, Dr. Gardner addresses his eight classifications for intelligence: writing, mathematics, music, spatial, kinesthetic, interpersonal, and intrapersonal. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- HOWARD GARDNER:
Howard Gardner is a developmental psychologist and the John H. and Elisabeth A. Hobbs Professor of Cognition and Education at the Harvard Graduate School of Education. He holds positions as Adjunct Professor of Psychology at Harvard University and Senior Director of Harvard Project Zero.
Among numerous honors, Gardner received a MacArthur Prize Fellowship in 1981. In 1990, he was the first American to receive the University of Louisville's Grawemeyer Award in Education and in 2000 he received a Fellowship from the John S. Guggenheim Memorial Foundation. In 2005 and again in 2008 he was selected by Foreign Policy and Prospect magazines as one of 100 most influential public intellectuals in the world. He has received honorary degrees from twenty-two colleges and universities, including institutions in Ireland, Italy, Israel, and Chile.
The author of over twenty books translated into twenty-seven languages, and several hundred articles, Gardner is best known in educational circles for his theory of multiple intelligences, a critique of the notion that there exists but a single human intelligence that can be assessed by standard psychometric instruments. During the past twenty five years, he and colleagues at Project Zero have been working on the design of performance-based assessments, education for understanding, and the use of multiple intelligences to achieve more personalized curriculum, instruction, and assessment. In the middle 1990s, Gardner and his colleagues launched The GoodWork Project. "GoodWork" is work that is excellent in quality, personally engaging, and exhibits a sense of responsibility with respect to implications and applications. Researchers have examined how individuals who wish to carry out good work succeed in doing so during a time when conditions are changing very quickly, market forces are very powerful, and our sense of time and space is being radically altered by technologies, such as the web. Gardner and colleagues have also studied curricula. Gardner's books have been translated into twenty-seven languages. Among his books are The Disciplined Mind: Beyond Facts and Standardized Tests, The K-12 Education that Every Child Deserves (Penguin Putnam, 2000) Intelligence Reframed (Basic Books, 2000), Good Work: When Excellence and Ethics Meet (Basic Books, 2001), Changing Minds: The Art and Science of Changing Our Own and Other People's Minds (Harvard Business School Press, 2004), and Making Good: How Young People Cope with Moral Dilemmas at Work (Harvard University Press, 2004; with Wendy Fischman, Becca Solomon, and Deborah Greenspan). These books are available through the Project Zero eBookstore.
Currently Gardner continues to direct the GoodWork project, which is concentrating on issues of ethics with secondary and college students. In addition, he co-directs the GoodPlay and Trust projects; a major current interest is the way in which ethics are being affected by the new digital media.
In 2006 Gardner published Multiple Intelligences: New Horizons, The Development and Education of the Mind, and Howard Gardner Under Fire. In Howard Gardner Under Fire, Gardner's work is examined critically; the book includes a lengthy autobiography and a complete biography. In the spring of 2007, Five Minds for the Future was published by Harvard Business School Press. Responsibility at Work, which Gardner edited, was published in the summer of 2007. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- TRANSCRIPT:
Howard Gardner: Currently I think there are eight intelligences that I’m very confident about and a few more that I’ve been thinking about. I’ll share that with our audience. The first two intelligences are the ones which IQ tests and other kind of standardized tests valorize and as long as we know there are only two out of eight, it’s perfectly fine to look at them. Linguistic intelligence is how well you’re able to use language. It’s a kind of skill that poets have, other kinds of writers; journalists tend to have linguistic intelligence...
Read the full transcript at https://bigthink.com/videos/howard-gardner-on-the-eight-intelligences
Source description (no synthesized summary yet).
Gardner argues that intelligence is not a single measurable trait but comprises eight (or more) distinct intelligences—linguistic, logical-mathematical, musical, spatial, bodily-kinesthetic, interpersonal, intrapersonal, and naturalist—each valued differently across cultures and contexts, and the educational system's focus on only two of these intelligences misses the full range of human cognitive capacity.
- IQ tests valorize only linguistic and logical-mathematical intelligence, creating false equivalence between test performance and overall intelligence
- Other intelligences like musical, spatial, and bodily-kinesthetic are equally important outside school environments and across cultures
- The choice between developing strengths or shoring up weaknesses is a value judgment, not a scientific one, dependent on individual goals
This asset isn't compiled yet
You're seeing its claims, ranked. Compile it to build the argument threads, weight them, and check each claim against your library — the full view.
Pedagogical or teaching intelligence is the ability to teach successfully to other people, and two people can have exactly the same expertise and knowledge in a field but differ significantly in their teaching ability.
“The two other intelligences which I'm interested in, one of them is called the teaching or pedagogical intelligence. The intelligence which allows us to be able to teach successfully to other people. Now you could have two people who have exactly the same expertise and knowledge in the field but one is a very good teacher and the other isn't.”
Standardized tests focus exclusively on linguistic and logical-mathematical intelligence, so high performance on these tests appears to indicate overall intelligence, but once one exits school and enters real-world contexts like Broadway, highways, woods, or farms, other intelligences prove equally important.
“And it's great to have language and logical intelligence because most tests really focus on that. And if you do well in those tests as long as you stay in school you think you're smart. But if you ever walk out into Broadway or the highway or into the woods or into a farm then you then find out that other intelligences are at least this important.”
Musical intelligence has been very important in certain cultures throughout history, illustrating that the relative valuation of different intelligences is culturally contingent rather than universal.
“And at certain cultures over history musical intelligence has been very important.”
The exact number of intelligences—whether eight, ten, or twelve—matters less than breaking the monopoly of single-intelligence frameworks that label people for their entire lives.
“So again where there's eight intelligences or ten or twelve is less important to me than having broken the monopoly of a single intelligence which sort of labels you for all time.”
There are eight intelligences that the speaker is very confident about, plus a few more under consideration, and this framework should break the monopoly of a single intelligence measure that labels people for all time.
“Currently I think there are eight intelligences that I'm very confident about and a few more that I've bene thinking about”
Very young children, as young as three or four years old, already demonstrate teaching or pedagogical intelligence, as evidenced by the fact that they explain things differently depending on whether they are teaching a younger person (with details, pointing, and slow speech) versus an older person (with elliptical, abbreviated explanations).
“Now what got me fascinated was as young as two or three kids already know how to teach. Now what does that mean? You show a child how to do something let's say a three or four year old and then you ask the child to explain it to an older person or to a younger person. And even the three or four year old will explain it very differently to a young person, will go through details, point things and speak slowly. And with an older person it would be much more elliptical and say well you do this and that and then you can figure it out.”
The fundamental question facing individuals in developing their intelligences is whether to play to strength (developing already-strong intelligences further) or bolster weakness (developing underdeveloped intelligences), and this is a value judgment that scientists cannot answer.
“And so the big question is should you play to strength or should you bolster weakness? And that's a value judgment. Scientists cannot give you an answer to that.”
Intrapersonal intelligence is the ability to understand yourself, and in modern developed societies where people lead their own lives, switch careers, and choose their own paths, it has become much more important than it was in prehistory when people simply followed their parents' or grandparents' occupations.
“It's intrapersonal intelligence. It's the understanding yourself. If we go back a way in history and prehistory knowledge of yourself probably wasn't that important because people did what their parents or grandparents did whether they were hunters or fisherman or craftspeople. But nowadays especially in developed society people lead their own lives. We follow our own careers. We often switch careers. We don't necessarily live at home as we get older. And if you don't have a good understanding of yourself you are in big trouble.”
The distinction between competence with language being called an intelligence while competence with music, tones, rhythms, and timbres is often called a mere talent is arbitrary and unjustifiable; if linguistic skill is intelligence, so is musical skill.
“And people say well music is a talent. It's not an intelligence. And I say well why if you're good with words is that an intelligence but if you're good with tones and rhythms and timbres nobody's ever given me a good answer which is why it makes sense to talk about musical intelligence.”
Nature is still important in the commercial world even though people might assume it is no longer relevant, because the human brain is adaptive and repurposes old brain functions for new applications, such as using naturalist intelligence to discriminate between different clothing styles and haircuts.
“Why do I buy this jacket rather than another one? This sweater rather than another one? One hair style rather than another? Those all make just the naturalist intelligence because the brain is very adaptive. And when an old use of a brain center no longer is relevant it gets hijacked for something new.”
Existential intelligence is the intelligence of asking big questions—philosophical questions, artistic questions about meaning and existence like 'What does it mean to love?' and 'Why do we die?'—and it is unique to humans, not found in other animals.
“And existential intelligence is the intelligence of big questions. Philosophical questions, artistic questions. What does it mean to love? Why do we die? What's going to be in the future? My pet bird might have more musical intelligence. The rats who are scurrying around the floor might have more spatial intelligence. But no other animals have existential intelligence.”
If humans lived forever, we could probably develop each intelligence to a very high degree, but because life is short, devoting too much attention to one intelligence leaves insufficient time to develop other intelligences.
“I think if we lived forever we could probably develop each intelligence to a very high degree. But life is very short and if you devote too much attention to one intelligence you're not going to have much time to work on other kinds of intelligences.”
Any intelligence, including interpersonal intelligence, can be used in a pernicious way, as exemplified by a salesman who uses interpersonal intelligence to sell people things they don't want at prices they don't want to pay.
“But any intelligence can be used in a pernicious way so the salesman that sells you something you don't want for a price you don't want to pay, he or she has got interpersonal intelligence. It's just not being used in a way that we might prefer.”
Part of the human condition is the engagement with existential questions, and every five-year-old demonstrates existential intelligence through constant questioning about why things are as they are.
“Part of the human condition is to think about questions of existence. And I like to say every five year old has existential intelligence because five year old are always asking why this, why that.”
If someone wants to be a well-rounded jack of all trades, they should develop the intelligences they are weakest at; if they are determined to reach the top of some particular field, they should focus on their strongest intelligences.
“If, for example, you want to be a jack of all trades and be very well rounded then probably you're going to want to nurture the intelligences which aren't that strong. If on the other hand you're dead set on really coming to the top of some particular heap then you're probably going to find the intelligences that you're strongest at and really push those.”
The strength-vs-weakness decision is fundamentally a question of values, not science, and while science can identify and measure intelligences, it cannot prescribe what people should do with that knowledge.
“I think it's a question of values, not of science.”
The difference between a five-year-old with existential intelligence and a philosopher with existential intelligence is that philosophers are seriously engaged in addressing fundamental questions and exploring answers, whereas five-year-olds ask questions without paying much attention to the answers.
“But the difference between a five year old and a philosopher is the five year old doesn't pay too much attention to the answer whereas philosophers and other people who develop existential intelligence are really very interested in how we attack questions like that.”
Parents asking whether they should supplement their child's weaknesses or accentuate strengths should be told that the answer depends on what the child wants to do with their life, and the child themselves should be the one to decide rather than science dictating an approach.
“And, you know, if a parent came to me and said well should we supplement or should we accentuate I would say well tell me what you would like your child to do. Or better let the child tell you what he or she wants to do rather than say well science says you should do one or the other.”
Humor intelligence does not exist as a distinct intelligence; rather, humor is the operation of logical intelligence applied to domains like human nature, physical nature, or the workplace, where an initial expectation is set up and then flipped.
“Some people think there's such a thing as humor intelligence. But, in fact, I don't. I think humor intelligence is simply the operation of a logical intelligence in some realm like human nature or physical nature or the workplace. And what happens is in humor there's a certain expectation and you flip that expectation so it's logic but it's logic that's played out in different kinds of ways.”
We all use naturalist intelligence in modern contexts even if we never walk out into the woods or the savannah, because the brain is adaptive and repurposes cognitive functions for new applications.
“So we're all using our naturalist intelligence even if we never walk out into the woods or into the savannah of East Asia.”
Interpersonal intelligence is the ability to understand other people, motivate them, lead them, work with them, and cooperate with them, and is necessary for anyone working with other people in any workplace or leadership role.
“Interpersonal intelligence is how you understand other people, how you motivate them, how you lead them, how you work with them, how you cooperate with them. Anybody at any workplace with other people needs interpersonal intelligence. Leaders hopefully have a lot of interpersonal intelligence.”
Linguistic intelligence is the ability to use language well, exemplified by poets, writers, journalists, and orators who have strong command of words and expression.
“Linguistic intelligence is how well you're able to use language. It's a kind of skill that poets have, other kinds of writers, journalists tend to have linguistic intelligence, orators.”
Musical intelligence is the capacity to appreciate different kinds of music, to produce music by voice or instrument, or to conduct music, and it should be classified as an intelligence rather than a mere talent.
“So the third intelligence is musical intelligence and that's the capacity to appreciate different kinds of musics, to produce the music by voice or by an instrument or to conduct music.”
Bodily-kinesthetic intelligence comes in two varieties: the ability to use the whole body to solve problems or make things (exemplified by athletes and dancers), and the ability to use hands or other body parts to solve problems or make things (exemplified by craftspeople).
“Similarly with the fifth intelligence bodily kinesthetic intelligence it comes in two flavors. One flavor is the ability to use your whole body to solve problems or to make things. And athletes and dancers would have that kind of bodily kinesthetic intelligence. But another variety is being able to use your hands or other parts of your body to solve problems or make things. A craft person would have bodily kinesthetic intelligence even if they weren't particularly a good athlete or dancer.”
Logical-mathematical intelligence is the ability to perform mathematical proofs, scientific reasoning, and experimentation, as exemplified by logicians, mathematicians, and scientists.
“The second intelligence is logical mathematical intelligence. As the name implies logicians, mathematicians, scientists have that kind of intelligence. They're able to do mathematical proofs. They're able to do scientific reasoning and experimentation.”
Naturalist intelligence is the capacity to make important and relevant discriminations in the world of nature between different plants and different animals, exemplified by naturalists like Charles Darwin.
“The eighth intelligence which I added some years ago is the naturalist intelligence. And that's the capacity to make important relevant discriminations in the world of nature between one plant and another, between one animal and another. It's the intelligence of the naturalist, the intelligence of Charles Darwin.”
Spatial intelligence is the ability to handle and work in space that is close by, as exemplified by chess players and surgeons, and also encompasses a broader variety used for navigation across large territories by airplane pilots and sea captains.
“The fourth intelligence is spatial intelligence. That's the intelligence which allows us to handle and work in space that's close by. A chess player would have spatial intelligence. A surgeon would have spatial intelligence. But there's another variety of spatial intelligence which we use for a much broader navigation. That's what an airplane pilot or a sea captain would have.”
The speaker initially missed naturalist intelligence in his original formulation but added it later as an act of atonement or correction.
“I missed it the first go around when I wrote about it but I tried to atone by adding it to my list.”
Cooking intelligence and sexual intelligence do not exist as distinct intelligences, as evidenced by the speaker's self-deprecating observation that he does not have either one.
“People had mentioned there's such a thing as a cooking intelligence, a humor intelligence and a sexual intelligence. And I quipped well that can't be intelligences because I don't have any of them.”