Are Actors Smart?

Howard Gardner © 2024

You may find that question provocative! If so, please read on.

For decades, I was quite friendly with Carleton Gajdusek. On almost any definition, he was brilliant. In addition to having received the Nobel Prize for Medicine and Physiology in 1976, he spoke numerous languages, was an expert on several cultures in the South Pacific, and was as well-read as any professor in the arts and humanities. In fact, with his approval, I was writing his authorized biography when something happened that caused me to stop…forever.

I’ll get to that definitive disruption near the end of this blog.

Marilyn Monroe

Once, in conversation, Carleton said to me: “Don’t think for a minute that actors are stupid, they are actually very smart. Marilyn Monroe would not have gotten as far as she did, in the way that she did, if she hadn’t been very smart.”

I probably would not have remembered that comment, except that recently I’ve been involved in discussions with psychometricians who have a quite specific definition of what it means to be smart. In a phrase, it means that you do well on an IQ test—or one of its equivalents, like the SAT from the Educational Testing Service. And if you don’t score well, then you can’t be smart, at least according to what psychometricians call “high intelligence.”

As most readers will know, decades ago, I put forth a different view of intelligence—a pluralistic view called “the theory of multiple intelligences.” And once you have embraced that concept, it’s possible to return to my question in a more thoughtful way.

Dr. Thalia Goldstein, PhD

Chatting with my wife Ellen Winner, I was reminded of the quite original research carried out by Dr. Thalia Goldstein, at one time Ellen’s doctoral student. (Thalia is now a professor at George Mason University). For her first empirical study, Thalia conducted substantive interviews with eleven actors who had achieved some success in their profession. As a comparison group, she conducted similar interviews with an equal cohort of eleven well-established lawyers.

Not surprisingly, the lawyers fit the stereotype of intelligence as it is seen and measured by many psychologists. That is, the lawyers presumptively have a high IQ—they would perform well on IQ tests and other academic measures like the SAT or the Bar Exams.

In my terminology, lawyers typically exhibit linguistic and logical-mathematical intelligences. In fact, I sometimes quip that a law professor is the prototype of a high-IQ person, because they are often good with language and can think logically. In contrast, a humanities professor necessarily excels with sensitivity to language; a math professor necessarily is an expert in logical-mathematical thinking—but the respective complementary intelligences are optional, or at least not vital. Indeed, individuals displaying the most extreme examples of linguistic intelligence, or of logical-mathematical intelligence, rarely stand out with respect to the other intelligences.

So, what about actors? According to Thalia Goldstein’s and Ellen Winner’s analysis, what stands out in the case of actors is their personal history. From an early age, future performers observed other people carefully and often sought to imitate them faithfully. These future actors often felt alienated from their family and its surrounds and aspired to lead a different kind of life—often imagining it and trying to enact, readily envisioning alternative (fictional) worlds. Typically, the actors did not like school, where they were expected to follow the norms of the classroom, do the work that was assigned, and not to dream or act out. Put more generally, they sought a different kind of existence and found the stage or the screen a place where—despite typical discouragement from their parents—they could enact different personae, ones unlike their own.

The research confirmed: In all of these respects, the eleven actors differed from the eleven lawyers.

Donning the lens of “MI theory,” what else might one say?

Naturally, if a young person wants eventually to become an actor on the theatrical stage, she or he has to have a good memory for lines—this facility with language is less important in television or movies, where one need not memorize large amounts of text. Still, a person with poor linguistic memory would unlikely be attracted to performance—unless as a mime or as an actor (say, Buster Keaton) at a time when “pictures” were silent. As for logical-mathematical intelligence, that’s fine—but it is an option, rather than a requirement, unless a budding actor should want to be one’s own agent or start one’s own production country or play the stock market successfully.

As for the other intelligences: Depending on what kind of actor a young person aspires to, one would need musical intelligence (to be involved in musicals or the opera), bodily-kinesthetic intelligence with the desired stances, moves, gestures—both of the body as a whole and of particular limbs—and spatial intelligence (if one’s stance vis-à-vis the audience, the other performers, the camera, etc. is critical).

Just as performers need to draw on various intelligences, different performing venues also foreground different configurations of intelligences.

We can look at these configurations in another way: By the age of 10 or 12—and sometimes much earlier—one should be able to predict who is likely to become a performer, and who is likely to become a lawyer. The latter young persons typically like schools, do well in academic matters, and do not have much of a fantasy life—though presumably some of them like to argue!

Getting back to Carleton Gajdusek’s admonition. He would not have been correct if he had claimed that actors need to have the same intellectual profile as lawyers. But if—borrowing the language of multiple intelligences—Carleton had spoken about a combination of linguistic intelligence and personal intelligences, with the option of musical or bodily-kinesthetic or spatial intelligence, he would have been on the mar!

Alas, despite Carleton’s lavish cognitive gifts, he unfortunately behaved abhorrently. He adopted many youngsters—almost all boys—from islands in the South seas and raised them in suburban Virginia. He abused some of them, was arrested and convicted of pedophilia, and after several months in an American jail, spent his last years essentially in exile in Norway.

And of course, Marilyn Monroe came to an equally unhappy fate—at the age of 36, she overdosed on barbiturates.

Whatever form of brilliance you may have, it’s no guarantee that you will lead a long or a happy life. And indeed, the fate of so many television and movie performers—more so women than men, I believe—confirms that depressing ending. Even an abundance of intelligences is no guarantor of a well-lived life—what I would term a “life of good work.”

A more general takeaway

As readers of this blog know, many psychologists and psychometricians believe that the IQ test (with its general factor) can predict success across the vocational landscape (see an example of this I recently blogged about, linked here.) To be sure, no one would readily decline the gifts of linguistic and logical-mathematical intelligences. But to simply conclude that actors are smart, or that actors are dull is simplistic. One needs instead to ask what kind of an actor and what configuration of intellectual strengths.

Reference

Goldstein, T. R., & Winner, E. (2009). Living in alternative and inner worlds: Early signs of acting talent. Creativity Research Journal, 21(1), 117–124. 

Multiple Intelligences and Multiple Successes

Howard Gardner © 2024

My friend Jim claimed that Person A was more successful than Person B. I responded: It depends on what you mean by success, there are various kinds of successes.

Jim: Are they like multiple successes, one for each intelligence?

My response: Let me think about it.

So, here’s what I thought.

My original claim—now more than four decades old—is that it is erroneous to think of only a single intelligence on which you can rank all people. Human beings are better thought of as having several intellectual faculties—I think of them as separate computers or computational systems—and the strength of one computer does not reliably predict the strength of another computer.

Measuring intelligences is not as straightforward as measuring height or weight. Yet, at least in principle, one ought to be able to measure an individual’s musical or interpersonal or spatial intelligence, designating their strength in these and other intelligences. And this measurement can and should be done by disinterested third parties using reliable instruments.

Success seems to me to be a different kind of construct. To be sure, if one likes, one can objectify successes in the same way that one objectifies intelligences: How much money does the person have? How well-known is the person? How admired is the person? Is the person remembered after he/she died and, if so, how?

But unlike intelligence(s), I don’t think success is an independent variable on which one can simply rank order persons.

Put directly, success is a subjective construct. What matters most is what the individual himself or herself values as being important in life.

What counts as success can be at least as varied as intelligence. One may choose to valorize whether one has achieved, what one wants to achieve, what one’s parents wanted, or what one’s parents did not want, whether one is esteemed by others, whether one is liked, or even whether one has the appropriate enemies.

Perhaps most pivotal, what one chooses to count as success may and usually does change over the course of one’s life. As David Brooks has evocatively phrased it: There is resume success and there is eulogy success.

So, I hear Jim’s voice: But can’t we objectivize success, and can’t we subjectivize intelligence?

My answer: Yes, we can if we want to. We can say that success must be measured in terms of recognition by others, for one’s achievement. And intelligence can be considered subjectively—perhaps I think I am smart because I have figured out a way to fool my parents, and I can prove to them that I am successful because I have more money in the bank than they do. Or, more outlandishly, I can say I am intelligent because I can solve the crossword puzzle with either hand.

But in so doing, I believe that I have undermined a crucial distinction between these constructs. At least in principle, the world of scholarship could produce a convincing account of the range of human intellectual capacities; any other claims would be seen as idiosyncratic. 

In contrast, while the world of scholarship can certainly produce various measures of success, these will miss a crucial distinction. In the end, success is chiefly in the eye of the beholder and that vision can and perhaps should change over the course of one’s life.

In a phrase: Intelligences can be independently assessed; success is essentially a subjective construct.

Common Misrepresentations of the Theory of Multiple Intelligences (MI)

BY ANNIE STACHURA

Since its conception in the early 1980s, Howard Gardner’s Theory of Multiple Intelligences (MI) has been reviewed and cited in countless ways. Discussions of its uses and applications have evolved over time, taken on new shades and shapes, across the educational landscape. As with any similarly expansive theory, misrepresentations can gain traction and persist, and these misunderstandings can in turn lead to malpractices.

In an effort to encourage representations and uses of MI that are grounded in a reasonable understanding of the theory, Gardner has outlined both “good practices” and “malpractices.” This concern about accuracy is increasingly crucial in our times, where it is all too easy to find and spread misinformation — sometimes inadvertently, sometimes deliberately. Especially on the internet, reiterations are not always fact-checked. The answers we’re looking for may sometimes be at our literal fingertips and at other times, buried somewhere, difficult to distinguish or verify.

Methods to understanding accurate/inaccurate representations of mi

I wanted to unpack some of the misunderstandings and misrepresentations that commonly appear in MI-related discourse. I was interested not only in how the theory was being reiterated and used, but the frequency with which these misinterpretations have come up in recent years. Accordingly, I collected a sample of 241 papers and articles published online between the years 2018 and 2023 — all of which mentioned Howard’s research.

First, a tiny refresher. The Theory of Multiple Intelligences suggests (based on evidence from disparate sources) that human beings have not one, but a number of relatively discrete intellectual capacities. Gardner’s theory is a critique of the standard psychological view of intellect: the idea that there is a single intelligence that can be adequately measured by IQ or other short answer tests. There are no direct educational implications of the theory, but some recommendations make sense, while others are misleading, or even false.

I found that of the sample of articles collected that mentioned Gardner’s research, 72% (or 173 articles) mentioned MI. I divided those that mentioned MI into three categories:

Category 1: Mentions MI, but does not define it

Category 2: Mentions MI, and accurately defines/uses it

Category 3: Mentions MI, and inaccurately defines/uses it

FINDINGS

After sorting through these papers, I made the initial categorical breakdown out of the total (173).

While I was curious to understand the proportion of these papers that provided or did not provide a definition, I thought it might be advantageous to know how the numbers change when only taking into consideration the papers that both mention and define MI. If one solely looks at Categories 2 and 3, here is what the percentages look like:

Adjusting the data this way, it becomes more obvious that while a majority of the discourse around multiple intelligences defines and uses the theory in a reasonably accurate way, inaccuracies and misrepresentations still make up a sizable portion of the conversation.

I wanted to understand more about these misrepresentations and to determine from which fundamental misunderstandings about multiple intelligences they arise. Accordingly, I focused on the papers from Category 3 (“Mentions MI, and inaccurately defines/uses it”) and worked to create descriptive buckets, to categorize these misconceptions and determine how often they appear in the discourse. Below, I’ve outlined these descriptive buckets from most frequently presented misconception to least, and provided some examples from the data.

Error #1: Equating multiple intelligences with “learning styles” (38%)

MI theory is often confused with and/or conflated with learning styles. The term “learning styles” refers to a handful of theories that aim to account for differences in individuals’ learning. Readers may have encountered before the idea of one student being a visual learner while another learns best by listening. While both learning styles and MI theory have possible educational implications, the implications are not the same; a “style” describes an approach that can putatively be used for a range of activities, but intelligence refers to the computational power of a mental system. For example, if someone has strong linguistic intelligence, that person can readily compute information that involves language or convert other material into linguistic form. Gardner himself is skeptical about the utility — and even the validity — of the concept of learning styles. As an example, people with weakness in reading are often called visual learners, and yet reading itself is a visual endeavor!

The data showed us that this was by far the most common misconception about MI theory. Most often, these papers seemed to use the terms interchangeably, such as one article that included the statement, “Howard Gardner highlighted the different learning styles of students with his theory of Multiple Intelligences back in the 1980s” or another that said, “According to psychology and Research Professor of Cognition and Education at Harvard University, Howard Gardner, there are seven identifiable learning styles.”

Error #2: Linking intelligence directly to career success or domain selection (25%)

While it’s fair to say that possessing strength in certain intelligences may mean you are well-suited for certain kinds of work, claims that an individual’s MI profile determines how successful they will be professionally or which jobs they can have are extrapolations or oversimplifications, and are not supported by MI theory.

This error often appeared in well-intentioned articles about choosing a career path, a matter that can be overwhelming and stressful. The problematic nature of these claims is in their reductive implications. For example, one article described, “Potential career choices for people with linguistic intelligence include lawyer, author, journalist, speaker, and politician.” Not only does this make it seem as though intelligence refers to a mutually exclusive type, rather than a component of the mind that has a certain amount of strength; it also both unfairly limits the number of career options a person has and exaggerates the predictive nature of MI on career success. Moreover, it is possible to succeed in some of these careers without strong linguistic intelligence, and strength in an intelligence by no means narrows or dictates one’s career options.

Error #3: Misunderstanding what it means to have strength in a certain intelligence (20%)

These types of misrepresentations seemed based on incomplete or false understandings of MI theory, which then led to fragmentary or deficient descriptions. For example, one paper included the statement, “Illustrious American psychologist Howard Gardner proposes that a child is blessed with at least eight skills and he keeps divulging and making use of it in different phases of his life,” while another said that MI theory describes, “a model composed of eight requirements of cleverness.” In both of these examples, the writers’ understanding of MI may initially seem close to the mark, but the implications are misleading. Children do not all have strength across the intellectual landscape, nor are intellectual strengths or weaknesses linked to life stages.

Error #4: Misattribution; mentions a type of intelligence that does not exist in the theory (8%)

These errors likely arise when there is confusion between MI theory and another theory. For example, one article stated, “…people have learned the habit, not just the skill of what Harvard professor Dr. Howard Gardner called ‘listening intelligence,’ one of the multiple intelligences he focuses on.” In fact, this is not one of the eight intelligences the theory proposes. Another article claimed that MI theory contains twelve different types of intelligence, which is inaccurate.

Error #5: Claims that there is an MI-assessment associated with the theory (5%)

Gardner has not developed an MI test, and does not place a great deal of weight on self-assessment (because there is no reason to assume that people understand their own minds accurately). To be sure, some scholars have developed their own way of measuring multiple intelligences (the best-known instrument is the MIDAS test, developed by Branton Shearer), but  there is no official assessment associated with the theory. In one article, the author recommends readers “use Howard Gardner’s ‘Multiple Intelligence Assessment’ to help each individual be successful academically.” Not only does Gardner neither have nor endorse any test: it’s a far stretch to claim that any brief instrument can predict success or failure in academic work.

Other errors (5%)

A few articles did not fall into the above categories but were still in error. One claimed that Gardner has denounced the legitimacy of multiple intelligences, which he most emphatically has not! Several described how fingerprints can be used to determine information about a person’s intelligences -- a claim not supported by any legitimate research (you can find more information about this particular misconception under “Malpractices.”) This misconception — or other claims that MI is tied to any identifiable physical trait — is particularly dangerous, as it creates the opportunity for individual bad actors or companies to exploit those who may not know better, persuading them to spend money on fingerprint analysis or other bogus testing.

In conclusion…

My research led me to a clearer understanding of common misconceptions in journalism (or elsewhere on the internet) around Gardner’s Theory of Multiple Intelligences. It’s not possible to say with certainty why these misunderstandings and misrepresentations come up. However, it seems likely that accuracy issues often arise not from malicious intent, but rather from rush jobs. When proper research is not done, even theories that would otherwise be fairly easy to present, like MI, can be misconstrued as inaccurate assumptions are made.

While the data collected is about one specific theory, the insights also speak to a troublesome wider issue: misinformation, and the ease with which it can be found and spread on the internet. Especially in this age of rapid technological development, AI instruments like ChatGPT may use and replicate misinformation, making our ability to achieve accurate understandings even more difficult.  

It’s worth noting that our findings by no means detract from how encouraging it is to see sustained discourse about the theory online. Scholarly and scientific research should be widely available and accessible; it is to the great advantage of all that the conversations around MI and other theories continue to expand and change, to find new venues and voices with time. However, it is key that, in moving discussions like this forward, we are scrupulous in calling attention to unwarranted claims and seeking to clear and correct the landscape of misinformation.

I would like to thank Shinri Furuzawa and Howard Gardner for their very thoughtful comments and suggestions on earlier drafts of this piece.

Howard Gardner on the Work Healthy Podcast

Howard Gardner was recently interviewed on Work Healthy, a podcast hosted by John Ryan that aims to provide “access to the world of healthy workplaces, digging deep to uncover the practices and approaches used by organizations worldwide in their attempts to rewrite the rules of the workplace as we know it.”

In this episode titled “Rethinking Intelligence,” Gardner discusses his theory of multiple intelligences, the value of unlearning and relearning, and what it means to foster a synthesizing mind.

“Synthesizing takes time,” he says. “And if I can make any educational contribution going forward, I would like teachers—and that doesn’t just mean teachers at school, I mean teachers at home, your parents, your family, teachers in the workplace, your managers, your boss, your colleagues—to try to help people develop better capacities for synthesis.”

Gardner also reflects on criticism of past work and addresses social media’s impact on the younger generation, ethical decisions and implications in education, AI and machine-learning, and influential voices in the past millennium.

Click here to listen to this episode.

Photo by Gertrūda Valasevičiūtė on Unsplash