Multiple intelligences on steroids

Professor of Cognition and Education Howard Gardner has made a strong case that "general intelligence" is a socially stifling concept, even a dangerous concept. He argues that there is much more to being "intelligent" than mastering the academic content that we have traditionally measured, topics such as reading, writing, and math. I find Gardner's arguments intuitive. After all, many people struggle with traditional subjects, but they are incredibly proficient (geniuses, if you will) at interpersonal skills (think of community organizers) or spatial skills (think of carpenters). Gardner has set forth the criteria for what constitutes an intelligence: "There are at least eight discrete intelligences, and these intelligences constitute the ways in which individuals take in information, retain and manipulate that information, and demonstrate their understandings (and misunderstanding) to themselves and others." To be clear, an "intelligence" is far more than a skillset for Gardner. Here he describes it in even more detail:

Fundamentally, an intelligence refers to a biopsychological potential of our species to process certain kinds of information in certain kinds of way. As such, it clearly involves processes that are carried out by dedicated neural networks. No doubt each of the intelligences has its characteristic neural processes, with most of them quite similar across human beings. Some of the processes might prove to be more customized to an individual. The intelligence itself is not a content, but it is geared to specific contents. That is, the linguistic intelligence is activated when individuals encounter the sounds of language or when they wish to communicate something verbally to another person. However, the linguistic intelligence is not dedicated only to sound. It can be mobilized as well by visual information, when an individual decodes written text; and in deaf individuals, linguistic intelligence is mobilized by signs (including syntactically-arranged sets of signs) that are seen or felt. From an evolutionary point of view, it seems probable that each intelligence evolved to deal with certain kinds of contents in a predictable world. However, once such a capacity has emerged, there is nothing that mandates that it must remain tied to the original inspiring content. As the term has it, the capacity can be exapted for other purposes. . . . I've put forth a candidate set of intelligences that are said to have their own characteristic processes and to be reasonably independent of one another. Over time, the particular intelligences nominated, and their degree of dependence or independence of one another, will be more firmly established.
How does Gardner's multiple intelligence theory compare to traditional methods of defining and measuring intelligence? The traditional approach involves assigning an overall score (e.g., an IQ score) to each person, thus characterizing the degree to which that person is smart. What's wrong with this approach whereby we assign a "general intelligence" (or "g" score) to each person?

MI theory questions not the existence but the province and explanatory power of g. ‘g’ is a statistical outcome and its strength varies to some extent on the assumptions that are built into the factorial model being employed. We do not really understand what is measured by ‘g’—it could be anything from sheer intellect to motivation to skill in following instructions to the ability to shift facilely from one kind of problem to another.

I'm going to make an over-generalization, but it might be one to which you can relate. Imagine your class valedictorian from high school--you know, that student who aced all of those tests, including standardized tests. Now consider . . . Was that person adept socially? Was he or she artistic or an athletic "genius"? Was he or she in tune with nature? He or she was probably not equally capable in each of these areas. Therefore, why assign the label "smart" to the student who excels at math, reading and abstract thinking, and disparage the student who excels at emotional IQ, spatial skills or athleticism, but who only does passably at traditional academic subjects? Gardner comments:

I am uncomfortable with the assumption inherent in g: that an individual who has a high ‘g’ could be equally accomplished in any intellectual area. MI theory is an extended argument against this all-purpose view of intellect.

The theory of the multiple intelligences recognizes many forms of intelligence (Gardner has recognized at least eight so far:
  • Spatial
  • Linguistic
  • Logical-mathematical
  • Kinesthetic
  • Musical
  • Interpersonal
  • Intrapersonal
  • Naturalist
The theory of multiple intelligences then goes on to urge that we evaluate each other by this wider range of competencies, rather than sizing up everyone in the room by how they would do on a standardized IQ test. The theory of the multiple intelligences is a double-edged sword for those who want to be seen as achievers. Yes, those who have traditionally been recognized as "intelligent" will still be at the top of the heap, but only within a particular intelligence or two. But they can't any longer claim their superiority based on their standardized IQ scores, because IQ scores only measure a narrow range of competencies. There's a lot more work to be done for one to be recognized as an all-round "intelligent" person. Many of those who don't excel at traditional IQ tests might also benefit from Multiple Intelligence Theory. No longer should they be labeled as "not intelligent" across the board. Many of them excel at other types of valuable skills, and they they should be recognized for these proficiencies. We never ever ask about IQ scores when we consider the genius of John Lennon, Martin Luther King, Ansel Adams, William Shakespeare, Michael Jordan or Abraham Lincoln. In fact, we would probably hesitate to make any of these people take a standardized IQ test because such a narrow test would probably declare that many of these geniuses were geniuses in the IQ sense, which would, of course, cast judgment on our stifling narrow method of defining and measuring intelligence via IQ tests. The Multiple Intelligence theory is thus liberating in that it allows us to fine-tune what we mean when we label someone as "intelligent." But Gardner was just getting us started. What if you are an organization looking for people to run your organization? You'd likely be seeking certain "competencies." Microsoft, working with Lominger, a leadership development firm, set out to define these competencies, which then led to a fascinating list of "educational competencies," which define the full range of characteristics needed to help a school district achieve its organizational goals and vision. I believe that Microsoft came up with an excellent list of qualities that individuals need in order to help school districts succeed in the 21st century. These qualities, or success factors, are:

1. Individual Excellence: Ability to achieve results by working effectively with others in various circumstances.

2. Organizational Skills: Ability to communicate by various means within different organizational settings.

3. Courage: Ability to speak directly, honestly, and with respect in difficult situations.

4. Results: An emphasis on goal-oriented action.

5. Strategic Skills: An array of skills used to accomplish focused, longer-term goals.

6. Operating Skills: An array of skills used for daily management of tasks and relationships.

But there's still more. The above six categories are just the basic categories. Each of them branch out into yet other, more specific skills. They are often displayed graphically on the Educational Competency Wheel. The Microsoft Education Competencies were designed to help educators and administrators develop their professional skills and proficiencies. They were also designed to help school districts and other educational organizations "find the right job candidates fill key jobs." I found the Wheel to be a humbling one as well as a tool that should inspire us to teach others and improve ourselves in the many ways that I had not previously considered. Truly, I don't know any person who excels in most of these areas. Take a tour around this wonderful Wheel, then ask yourself the extent to which we need each other, in that it is a rare human being who excels at all of these qualities. Many of us have come a long way from the traditional method looking to IQ tests to determine who is "smart," and that is a good thing, because the traditional way of evaluating each other blinded us to many of the geniuses among us. For those of us who did well on the IQ tests, it also blinded us to the many areas in which we, ourselves, could use improvement. These new methods of evaluating intelligences and competencies should tell us that we are all special education projects, and that most of us have valuable qualities to offer, even if we struggled at filling in those little circles with our number 2 pencils.

Continue ReadingMultiple intelligences on steroids

The things our biggest and most nebulous villains have in common

Jonathan Haidt's The Happiness Hypothesis is one of my favorite books of all time. It is in the top 10 books I have heavily annotated. Here's a sampling of why (although if you search for "Haidt" in the search field of this website, you will find 20 of other posts regarding Haidt's work). In the following excerpt, Haidt discusses what all of our biggest villains seem to have in common:

When the moral history of the 1990s is written, it might be titled desperately seeking Satan . With peace and harmony ascendant, Americans seemed to be searching for substitute villains. We tried drug dealers (but then the crack epidemic waned) and a child abductors (who are usually one of the parents). The cultural right vilified homosexuals; the left vilified racists and homophobes. As I thought about these various villains, including the older villains of Communism and Satan himself, I realized that most of them share three properties: they are invisible (you can't identify the evil one from appearance alone) their evil spreads by contagion, making it vital to protect impressionable young people from infection (for example from communist ideas, homosexual teachers, were stereotypes on television); and the villains can be defeated only if we all pull together as a team. It became clear to me that people want to believe they are on a mission from God, or that they are fighting for some secular good (animals, fetuses, women's rights), and you can't have much of a mission without good allies and a good enemy.
How devastingly "refreshing" that modern villains are so identifiable and that they are doing such tangible damage. We are now looking at a devastated national economy, two expensive and needless wars, a ruined ecosystem in the Gulf of Mexico, an energy crisis and a helpless political system created by an utterly dysfunctional election system that, for the most part, attracts megalomaniac ignoramuses and repels humble, good-hearted and well-informed people. It remains to be seen whether we will ever be able to let go of our bogeymen and, instead, focus on our real villains. Addendum: See this related post on "The Power of Nightmares."

Continue ReadingThe things our biggest and most nebulous villains have in common

Why Can’t They Just Stop the Leak?

I've been watching the Gulf Oil leak reports with a technical eye. They report that citizens have sent in over 100,000 suggestions on how to stop the leak, and more on how to clean it up. It's so simple: Just plug it. But I'd wager that the bulk of the suggestions are innumerate; they have no comprehension of the scale of the problem. As though the oil leak is like oil dripping from a car. This is a column of oil at least 2 feet wide and thousands of feet long already moving fast and under pressure. Stopping it is like stopping a freight train with the engines running. And doing it in one of the the harshest environments man has ever tried to work in on this planet. Many of the clean up suggestions, even the ones based on home testing, neglect to consider the scale. What might work in a sink is not practical to do to an ocean. BP has already consumed most of the world's available dispersant Corexit™ in an attempt to keep much of the oil suspended in the water. Sawdust? Hay? Hair? There isn't enough on all the heads in America. People, please do basic arithmetic before sending in suggestions. I heard one fairly clever suggestion from a brother-in-law: Freeze it with liquid nitrogen. My instincts first boggled at the immense cost of doing it. But then I considered and replied with a more convincing argument: Consider wrapping a fire hose in dry ice. All you get is a hole in the dry ice because any cooled material is moved down the pipe before it can slow the flow. I looked up some more details when I got home: Nitrogen won't even evaporate at the the pressure down by the wellhead. I think it's great that people are thinking. But it also shows the world how distinct thinking is from reasoning.

Continue ReadingWhy Can’t They Just Stop the Leak?

Is Science Different?

I read another article about why not to have public debates on socially contended scientific issues. This time, it was about Global Warming: Climate Science on Trial. It brings up an issue that gets little press. There is a qualitative difference between science (as a type of investigation) and other philosophical filters such as law, religion, and so forth. Science was developed because we cannot trust our senses, our feelings, or our memories outside of now-known ranges of perception. That is, too big, too small, too fast, too slow, or too complex.Even within normal ranges, much of what we think we perceive is colored by habit and expectations. The democratic ideal is that everyone is equal. But methods of understanding are not equal. Without the methods of science, we still would be living on a flat, stationary, unchanging world under a moving canopy of the heavens just beyond our reach, where the smallest thing is a mustard seed, and the widest realm is a few weeks walk. Where the universe was created during the era of early Sumerian urbanization, and will end some lesser time in the future. The Bible says so. The best minds in the world agreed, until Galileo and his ilk The problem of public debate is that it takes some training to understand why science is the best filter for making judgments on big issues. It doesn't care about the personalities, preferences, and prejudices of scientists. The method weeds out false answers, however many people believe them or how authoritatively they are stated. If a scientist turns out to be wrong, because he (as a human) has the limitations listed above, those who disagree with his position herald his failure as proof that the method is flawed. Those who agreed with him claim conspiracy among those who proved him wrong. Pick a position; everyone is equal. It is easy to make a convincing argument that persuades the majority who don't actually have the grounding to really understand the issue. It is harder to make people understand that what so obviously feels right is actually wrong, and to understand the proof and its validity. It feels right to say that Man is unique and superior and is the purpose of the universe. But examination by the scientific method that shows that there really are few things that distinguish our kind in any way, and that we are a tiny part of the ecosystem, much less the universe. We have risen (thanks to technology and industrialism) to a level of might wherein we have the ability to make the planet uninhabitable for ourselves. But we don't have the ability to deflect or escape the next extinction event, whether a nearby quasar, nova, asteroid collision, or massive ice age of yet-undetermined cause. The current hot issue is whether we need to act fast to reverse the current unprecedented rise in global temperatures. It is easier to ignore the issue. Much like the proverbial frog in a pot who entered comfortable water, and doesn't notice it slowly warming till he dies of the heat. We're in the pot, and the temperature is rising. But denialists (supported by the fossil fuel trade) use tried and true methods of persuasion to keep the public from acting on it. All the climate scientists agree: It is happening, it is partially (if not entirely) our doing, and we can do something about it. By now, the warming cannot be completely stopped or reversed. But slowing it down may be the difference between the collapse of our civilization, and a unifying cause to move world civilization forward. But most people still don't see that science, as a practice, is actually a distinct and more reliable way of figuring out what is going on. Public debate primarily publicizes the anti-science position. How can this be fixed? I suggest that, in this age of ubiquitous information, that primary and secondary education lean less on packing facts into kids, and spend more time teaching how to deal with information: How we know what we know, how to judge fact from fallacy, information from disinformation, and knowledge from counterknowledge.

Continue ReadingIs Science Different?

Evolution imprisoned in biology classrooms

David Sloan Wilson is an evolutionary biologist who teaches in the Department of Anthropology at Biology Binghamton University. He has long been a champion of multi-level selection theory, and he boldly applied his research and findings to human conduct, boldly going where many biologists hesitate to go, based upon a well-documented history of derision aimed at scientists who dare to study human beings as though they were animals subject to natural selection. This, despite the fact that humans clearly are animals that are subject to the forces of natural selection. Today, I spotted an excellent video of an October 30, 2009 talk that David Sloan Wilson gave following the publication of his book, "Evolution for Everyone." The video lasts almost one hour. I previously posted extensively on his book here. I've posted on other aspects of his work here and here . Wilson opens his clear, insightful, sometimes blunt and oftentimes humorous talk by announcing that higher education has an "evolution problem." The problem is that many in academia resist applying modern scientific biological findings to their own disciplines, even though these biological findings would be highly relevant. Wilson thus refers to the Ivory Tower as the "Ivory Archipelago." Darwin anticipated the broad scope of his theory, but many teachers in the humanities refuse to have anything to do with well-substantiated principles of biology, even modern findings would be highly informative to their fields of study. [More . . . ]

Continue ReadingEvolution imprisoned in biology classrooms