Multiple Intelligences
Dr. Howard Gardner and I have a lively debate about multiple intelligences.
Today I have a very special interview to share with you with Dr. Howard Gardner. Dr. Gardner is a developmental psychologist and a professor of cognition and education at Harvard’s Graduate School of Education. He was a founding member of Harvard Project Zero in 1967 and has written hundreds of research articles and over thirty books, including his most recent books “The Essential Howard Gardner on Mind” and “The Essential Howard Gardner on Education.” His most well known book, however, is his 1983 book Frames of Mind: The Theory of Multiple Intelligences. This book was revolutionary at the time because it challenged the notion that intelligence is singular, and that intelligence can best be measured by IQ tests.
On a personal note, when I was an undergraduate I remember coming across this book and deciding then and there that I wanted to spend the rest of my life studying this topic. I credit Howard Gardner as being one of the most important influences on my decision to go into the field of psychology. I was actually accepted to be his graduate student, to be co-advised by him and Kurt Fischer, but ultimately decided to study with Robert Sternberg who also has done groundbreaking work on human intelligence.
This is a very lively discussion with a person who I deeply respect. My own thinking on intelligence has evolved quite a bit since I was an undergrad, and it was an honor to have a bit of a debate with Dr. Gardner on what I see as some of the limitations of his theory. I consider it a privilege to be able to have this conversation and to share it with you all today.
Listen to the full episode here.
I think what makes human intelligence so confusing is that we have two distinct mental faculties, intuition and... reason, for the lack of better word (the Greek word was logos, but we've long forgotten its original meaning). The two combine in different proportions, and the development of both is highly influenced by the individual's experience.
The net result is what looks like multiple kinds of intelligence -- even though under the hood, again, it's just System 1 and System 2.
Isn't it the case that his hypothesis has been shown to not really hold up?
Atleast everything I have read and heard from intelligence researchers (the public ones) seems to suggest so.