The Intelligences Proposed by Multiple Intelligences Theory
-
Linguistic Intelligence is the ability to use language as an effective tool. Poets exemplify Linguistic Intelligence through their extreme sensitivity to the meaning, sound, sequencing, and functions of language. The ability to use language is nearly universal in humans, and the inability to use language is one of the most crushing deficits. In most people, skill in language means the ability to use it as a tool to convince, explain, and remember. Gardner offers fascinating examples of the different ways language is used across cultures. Some of the clearest evidence for language as a separate intelligence comes from our knowledge of very specific brain centers whose loss cripples or destroys our ability to use language.
-
Logical-Mathematical Intelligence is the intelligence of the mathematician, the scientist, and the logician. Talent here often shows itself very early in life and also seems to peak quite early, while other intelligences go on developing. Its separate existence is again demonstrated by evidence from brain research, and especially by savants who have been able to perform astonishing feats of calculation, even though they may be very limited in other areas.
-
Musical Intelligence leads us to think first of the great talents and the stories of youthful prodigies — the Mozarts and the Bachs — but the raw abilities are nearly universal: hearing melody, rhythm, and tone. Again, there is neurological evidence that these abilities have their own “homes” in our brains — one or more locations central to the ability. Musical expression varies wonderfully around the world and even within a culture: We may make music with hands, tools, or voices; listen to it for pleasure, understanding, or emotional release; enjoy it “naturally” or spend years understanding its notation and theory. Gardner speculates that from the evolutionary perspective, Musical and Linguistic Intelligences may share common deep roots.
-
Spatial Intelligence is exemplified, for Gardner, by visual artists, chess players, and the extraordinary Puluwat navigators of the South Pacific. Some argue that Spatial Intelligence is a route to thought and discovery which is more fundamental than language. Although there has been a long debate about the exact components of this intelligence, it’s clear that many of them have localized sites in our brains.
-
Bodily-Kinesthetic Intelligence is the skill of athletes, dancers, actors, and users of complex tools — of people who solve problems or create products through the skilled use of their bodies. We know there are several highly specialized brain centers involved in control of movement, which is evidence for the separate existence of this intelligence.
- Interpersonal Intelligence and
-
Intrapersonal Intelligence are closely connected. Intrapersonal Intelligence is self-understanding; Interpersonal Intelligence is understanding of others and of relationships between people. Multiple Intelligences Theory sometimes groups the two as “personal intelligences.” These abilities dramatically widen the scope of what we can call an intelligence. Yet who can doubt, watching a skilled politician work an audience, that this is an important ability? Gardner hesitated some before including these two — the evidence for them is a bit slipperier than with other candidates. But their central importance in human relationships led him to include them. These may also be emergent skills, ones that reflect a new and higher level of cognitive organization, with a relatively short evolutionary history. There are fascinating differences across cultures in the balance between these two intelligences — between the orientation to self and to others.
- Naturalist Intelligence is a relative newcomer to Gardner’s list, and thus a proof of his point that the list is still in flux. It is the ability that allows people to notice, classify, organize, and use the environment around them.
Flex Your Mind-Muscles!
Do the abilities in the table above sound like intelligences to you? Many of them sound like — well, they sound like abilities. Think about this for a second: A good football player shows Bodily-Kinesthetic Intelligence. Are you willing to say he’s intelligent because he plays football well? I am. I haven’t always been, but I’ve become convinced that’s a sensible thing to say. I hope, as we journey along together, to convince you. But for some people, it’s a pretty shocking idea at first.
When Gardner uses a loaded word like “intelligence,” he challenges us to look hard at some basic beliefs. When he gives so many basic abilities the prestige label of “intelligences,” he’s really making a political statement, because it affects what we decide to teach children in school and how we decide to evaluate their progress. Disgusting though the idea is, what we decide to include in our definition of intelligence will also inevitably become part of how some people and institutions judge different children’s relative worth. Whatever you may think of the whole idea, “smart” is better than “dumb” in our culture, so what gets included or excluded when we define intelligence has big consequences.
For that reason, if you are making public policy, or if you’re a theorist of intelligence, it’s vitally important to have a clear definition of what an intelligence actually is. But you and I can look at that question another way. If your child has abilities that lead to success in the world, it doesn’t matter what we call them — they still lead to success, right? For you and me, the important question is “What combination of abilities can help our children be successful?”
From this practical point of view, it may not matter much whether we call these doodads “skills,” “intelligence” (or “intelligences”), “abilities,” “aptitudes,” or “Geschnorrplutzens.” Our goal is to recognize the kinds of brain content that allow different people to be effective in the world. If a person has these abilities — abilities that lead to success — what does it matter what we call them? We want our kids to have them — that’s what matters.
Links
Many of the intelligences seem to have natural links among themselves. (For example, many people who work well with numbers and logic are also musically capable.) These interconnections, Gardner hypothesizes, probably tie together all the intelligences to some degree, in ways we don’t yet understand. This is good, because all real-world tasks, jobs, and hobbies seem to require linked and coordinated intelligences.
If you think about it, there are two ways intelligences can be linked:
-
One kind of intelligence links to many different real-world fields. For example, Spatial Intelligence plays a role in fields as diverse as engineering, art, and navigation. Putting it a bit differently, being strong in one particular intelligence doesn’t lead directly to a particular adult occupation.
-
Success in a real-life field requires more than one intelligence. For example, the successful musician requires a blend of Bodily-Kinesthetic (moving fingers on strings, shaping lips to produce a particular sound), Musical, and Interpersonal Intelligence (choosing a manager, marketing, relating to an audience).
