Myth: The theory of the 7 intelligences
Myth: The theory of the 7 intelligences
The theory of Multiple Intelligences (MI) was originally proposed by American psychologist Howard Gardner.
Originally there were 7 intelligences, but two more have since been added:
- Musical/creative intelligence
- Linguistic/verbal intelligence
- Bodily/kinesthetic intelligence
- Logical/mathematical intelligence
- Visual/spatial intelligence / spatial intelligence
- Interpersonal intelligence/social intelligence
- Intrapersonal intelligence / personal intelligence
- The naturalistic intelligence / naturalistic intelligence
- Existential intelligence / life-wise intelligence
I will refrain from going into detail here about what the different intelligences are all about.
As with the theory of learning styles , the theory of a creative right and a logical left brain , and the idea that we only use 10 percent of our brain , I have previously eaten the theory of Multiple Intelligences raw and passed it on as the purest truth.
I'm a big fan of the idea of looking at people's abilities more broadly than just what can be revealed in an intelligence test. I'm also skeptical of the idea of an intelligence that can be measured and cannot be changed. But that doesn't change the fact that there are some problems with the MI theory.
Crash course in (natural) science
It is also debatable whether it can be called a theory at all.
In science, a theory is an “explanation of why things are the way they are.” Good theories are supported by evidence and make predictions that can be tested and falsified. Good theories also have a plausible explanation for how the theory might be correct.
The theory of gravity is a theory that explains why things fall to the ground if we throw them into the air. It also explains the moon's orbit around the earth and much more. The theory of gravity is supported by a large number of measurements and observations. It can predict that if we throw something into the air, it will fall back down. The theory can be falsified if we can do an experiment where things do not fall to the ground even if they are thrown into the air. The theory of gravity fits, in round numbers, with other theories and observations, and physicists can come up with plausible explanations for how gravity works.
In everyday speech, one often hears the word 'theory' used to mean that something is "just one theory (out of many)" and that it is not certain that this is the case. In natural science, in such a case, one would use the word 'hypothesis' and not the word 'theory'.
For example, I may have an idea about who took the last cake from the cake tin, but that would not be a theory, but a hypothesis.
If I look at two identical graphs, one showing the birth rate in Burkina Faso and the other showing the number of foreigners in the Premier League, we could develop a fanciful hypothesis. But we would quickly end up saying that there was probably correlation between the two graphs, but not causality, since we cannot come up with a plausible explanation for why the two data sets should have anything to do with each other.
For many years, psychology and learning theories have been primarily a humanistic research concern. One could devise theories about how we learn and how the brain worked. These were typically based on observations of others and introspection (i.e. self-observation), but before the development of brain scanners and the emergence of cognitive neuroscience, it was mostly guesswork, as for good reasons one could not verify how things actually worked in the brain. Now that one actually has the opportunity to verify or falsify psychology and learning theories, shouldn't one try to do so?
Shouldn't one seek to find an underlying neuroscientific explanation for a learning theory?
I think so. At least one could start by demanding that theories not be in direct conflict with what is scientifically observable.
Criticism of the theory of the 7 intelligences
One of the major problems with MI is that Gardner's definition of intelligence rejects the existence of the concept of intelligence as it is traditionally used, and instead uses the word intelligence in a way that others would use the word ability or talent. That is, we have a problem from the very beginning, in that we do not have a clear definition of what we are talking about.
Gardner defined an intelligence as a “bio-psychological potential to process information that can be activated in a culture to solve problems or create products that have value in at least one culture,” but added the caveat that he did not have a fixed definition and that his classification was more of an “aesthetic assessment” than a scientific assessment.
Gardner has also been criticized for not having developed a test for Multiple Intelligences.
He says: " Ultimately, it would certainly be desirable to have an algorithm for the selection of an intelligence, such that any trained researcher could determine whether a candidate's intelligence met the appropriate criteria. At present, however, it must be admitted that the selection (or rejection) of a candidate's intelligence is reminiscent more of an artistic judgment than of a scientific assessment ." [1]
So Gardner himself says that the individual intelligences are a matter of assessment. But if it is a matter of assessment and you cannot make a clear definition of them, you cannot back up the theory with objective empirical evidence.
There are also no empirical studies that validate the existence of the MI theory [2] .
Gardner and Connell admitted in 2000 that there was " little hard evidence for MI theory " [3] and in 2004 Gardner expressed that he would be "delighted were such evidence to accrue " and admitted that "MI theory does not have many enthusiasts among psychometricians and others with a traditional psychological background because it requires psychometric or experimental data that would allow one to prove the existence of multiple intelligences".
One might be able to live with the lack of empirical data if Gardner, based on cognitive neuroscience, had come up with a plausible explanation of how the MI theory could be true.
He did not. On the other hand, developmental psychologist and researcher Lynn Waterhouse says that “it is unlikely that the human brain operates via Gardner’s multiple intelligences” [4] .
I also find it unlikely that the brain would have evolved to have a musical intelligence that is separate from, for example, logical or physical intelligence. It simply doesn't make biological sense and doesn't fit with what we know about how the brain works.
Now, of course, it is perfectly OK to postulate that something is in a given way. But if you
- cannot support the theory with empirical evidence, or
- cannot propose a method by which one can falsify or confirm the theory, and
- cannot come up with a reasonable explanation as to why the theory is true
then you are on thin ice scientifically.
Using Gardner's 7 intelligences in education
Despite the thin scientific ice, the theory of multiple intelligences has become very popular in education, where it is often confused with the theory of learning styles, and hundreds of books have been written about the application of Gardner's theory in schools. [5] Gardner himself rejects the existence of learning styles and agrees that the idea of learning styles is incoherent and lacks empirical evidence. He summarizes his approach with three recommendations for educators:
- individualize teaching so that the most effective method is used for each individual student,
- ensure that teaching is done in multiple ways when it comes to “important topics or material”, and
- avoid using the word learning style as it is confusing [6]
Not bad advice, but probably easier said than done, and one can probably, with some reasonableness, demand that the man demand the same from his own theory as he demands from others.
I am sure that Howard Gardner came up with his theories and wrote his books because he believed them to be true. He has also made good money and gained great reputation from publishing his books and talking about them. As I mentioned earlier, I also find the idea to be sympathetic. But none of these things make the theory true.
[1] Gardner, Howard (1983), Frames of Mind: The Theory of Multiple Intelligences
[2] 1994 Sternberg, 2000 Allix, 2004 Sternberg and Grigerenko, and Waterhouse, Lynn (Fall 2006a). "Multiple Intelligences, the Mozart Effect, and Emotional Intelligence: A critical review"
[3] Gardner and Connell (2000, p. 292)
[4] Lynn Waterhouse Fall 2006a
[5] Davis et al. 2011, p. 486
[6] "Howard Gardner: 'Multiple intelligences' are not 'learning styles'". The Washington Post. Retrieved 10 October 2014.
Do you want to? learn more?
Maybe you could be interested in our Course in (digital) didactics - Learn to design good learning.
In this course you will learn how to develop learning that captures your recipients' attention and works with their motivation to learn. The course is also for those of you who teach in a classroom or online and need a professional boost.
Do you want to? learn more on your own?
If you are interested in science and learning and brain myths, these articles will probably interest you.
- The brain is not divided into a creative right half and logical left half
- Myth: We only use 10% of our brains
- The theory of learning styles
If you are interested in reading about motivation and learning, these articles may interest you.