intelligences — Blog

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.

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.

When I developed the theory of multiple intelligences over forty years ago, I garnered “data” from several disciplines: psychology, neuroscience, genetics, anthropology, and—though it was not emphasized—my own observations and reflections as a presumably educated person in modern society. The assertion that Homo sapiens could be described as a species that has a number of relatively distinct—I dubbed them “semi-autonomous”—capacities caught attention. I would now comment that the theory was accepted too uncritically by many educators, while it was rejected out of hand by too many psychologists (as well as some scholars from neighboring disciplines), who neither bothered to read what I had claimed nor to engage the “data” that I had culled.

The “theory of multiple intelligences” was clearly—if not self-consciously—a work of synthesis. I continue to be fascinated by the human capacity to synthesize large amounts of information and to present the resulting collation or amalgam in a comprehensible format. (See my blog dedicated to the topic).

That said, I did not consider two possibly informative perspectives. On one hand, while I wrote about informal, so-called “bush schools”—prevalent in earlier epochs—I focused primarily on education as it is practiced in modern times. Indeed, most of my successive writings about “MI” have assumed and addressed modern schools located primarily in what’s been termed the “global north.” On the other hand, while certainly aware of biological and cultural evolution, I was writing about human beings in the last few millennia—I did not consider the evolution of Homo sapiens, nor earlier instantiations of the hominin branch.

Though familiar with his significant research on the development of mathematical knowledge and skills in young people, I did not know about a notable interest of psychologist David Geary. In a 2005 book of 450 pages, Geary surveyed The Origin of Mind: Evolution of Brain, Cognition, and General Intelligence. And then, in a shorter Cambridge Elements book (2024), Geary probed The Evolved Mind and Modern Education: Status of Evolutionary Educational Psychology.

In no way can I summarize the argument, findings, and claims of these two estimable writings, which are well worth study for those with the time and the interest. Here, I focus on how Geary’s work—and the hundreds of publications on which he draws—has affected my own thinking about “MI theory.”

If one were to have observed our hominin predecessors say, ten thousand years ago, one would presumably have observed manifestations of all of my stipulated intelligences. These hominins spoke and understood (linguistic); they could estimate numbers and exchange quantities (mathematical); they could indicate when an utterance made sense and when it was nonsensical or contradictory—including, presumably, jokes (logical); they could sing, appreciate music, and play on simple instruments (musical); they could walk, run, dance, climb, and play rough-and-tumble games (bodily-kinesthetic); they could distinguish species from one another (naturalist); they could figure out when other hominins liked them, disliked them, were trying to fool or trap them (interpersonal); and, at least to an extent, they knew what had happened to themselves (as opposed to other conspecifics including their own family members, how they felt about such events, and what they aspired to (intrapersonal).

For me, Geary’s work opens up a new vista: What does it take for members of our species to navigate in our modern schools, with their curricula and their mode of operations—a world where one is expected to read, to write, to carry out arithmetical and geometric computation, to sing from a score or produce a simple notation, to identify the logical flaws in an argument, to recognize, name, and classify a wide variety of plants and animals—as well as vehicles and commercial items—to be aware of the wide variety of human temperaments and motivations, deal with individuals who display unexpected combinations of these traits, and finally, to reflect on one’s own aspirations, defenses, gains and losses in the past, and one’s own future life course—especially apart from religious precepts and dictates which might deny one’s own individuality and/or that of other members of our species.

To pose these questions is to lay out an entirely different perspective on multiple intelligences. Instead of being solely synchronic (What do human intelligences look like in a modern schooled world?), we adopt a lens that is diachronic (How did our species evolve from the set of abilities and expectations of the parched regions of Africa, tens of thousands of years ago, to those needed in the two hundred or so countries today, most of them heavily reliant on formal education—at least for the first decade of life—and increasingly, continuing to a later age and to a higher degree?)

A number of possibilities emerge:

l. The human brain-and-body have been largely unchanged. Over time, groups of humans invented more complex operations, and our ancestors were gradually able to master them;

2. The brain-body has evolved, or selected for, certain traits that enabled the invention and implementation of notational systems and scholarly disciplines—and branches unable to handle them (e.g. Neanderthals) disappeared;

3. Certain exceedingly rare individuals (e.g. Aristotle, Newton) with atypical genes, or combinations of genes—and/or with rare talents and combinations of talents—took the lead in inventing notations and disciplines. Once invented, these new symbols—and systems of symbols—gradually took hold even with less exceptional persons;

4. More formal ways of transmitting knowledge were created either gradually or by the rare genius (e.g. Confucius, Moses, Plato). These, in turn, led to the creation of institutions where those forms of knowing could be efficiently transmitted, mastered to some extent by most students—and built upon by the most able students.

No doubt, the actual story is far more complex than suggested here, or than can even be imagined. By his impressive syntheses, David Geary has opened up a whole world of study and inquiry which will hopefully lead both to new insights and to more effective and species-appropriate educational systems…ones that we will need as the Anthropocene continues to unfold.

For very helpful comments. I thank David Geary and Ellen Winner.

REFERENCES

Black, A., & Tylianakis, J. M. (2024). Teach Indigenous knowledge alongside science. Science (New York, N.Y.), 383(6683), 592–594. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.adi9606

Geary, D. C. (2005). The origin of mind: Evolution of brain, cognition, and general intelligence. American Psychological Association. https://doi.org/10.1037/10871-000

Geary, D. (2024). The evolved mind and modern education: Status of evolutionary educational psychology. Cambridge University Press.

The Trouble with MI "Quizzes"

Multiple Intelligences—A Pre-historical Perspective: Thoughts Inspired by the Writings of David Geary

REFERENCES