Who out of your friends is the smartest? There’s a good chance that you’re already picturing someone you know and who you consider to be conventionally very intelligent. But are they really more intelligent that your other friends in every single way? Or are they just better at maths? Or perhaps they’re just more knowledgeable?
Most of us would probably agree that you can be smart in different ways. Some people are ‘book smart’, while others are ‘people smart’ or good at math. Others might be very creative. We know that IQ scores are an imperfect measure of intelligence, so with that in mind, how can we compare smarts?
One option has been put forward by the psychologist Gardner, who presented his theory of multiple intelligences in his 1993 book Frames of Mind: The Theory of Multiple Intelligences.
This is a concept that has gone on to be very influential in the way that we look at and discuss intelligence. But just what does the theory state? And how accurate is it?
The Nine Types of Intelligence
Gardner argued that rather than there being one single measure for intelligence, there should instead be several – with different types of intelligence scored in different ways. Someone could be intelligent in one regard and less capable in another – or they might be adept in several fields at once. Gardner actually went as far as to present 9 distinct categories of intelligence, which he described as follows:
Naturalistic Intelligence: This type of intelligence is described by Gardner as being a ‘connection with the wild’. This might mean that the person is good with animals, is able to find their way around when lost and that they have survival instinct. We might consider someone like Ray Mears to have good ‘naturalistic intelligence’.
Music Intelligence: Musical intelligence simply refers to the ability to perform and appreciate music. This is someone gifted in performance or who just has a natural ‘affinity’ for music.
Logical-Mathematical Intelligence: As the name suggests, this type of intelligence belongs to those with highly logical minds that are gifted in maths and perhaps other activities such as theoretical physics or math. We might think of Sheldon from Big Band Theory as having good logical-mathematical intelligence.
Existential Intelligence: Existential intelligence is intelligence that is demonstrated through deep thought and reflection. We might consider a philosopher as someone with good existential intelligence for instance.
Interpersonal Intelligence: This is the type of intelligence that we will now often refer to as ‘emotional IQ’. Someone gifted in this capacity might be very charming or persuasive, they might be a good, sympathetic listener, or they might just have a good ‘theory of mind’ allowing them to predict the behaviors of others.
Bodily-Kinaesthetic Intelligence: This is intelligence in a physical sense – the ability to perform well in sports for example, good hand-eye coordination, good reflexes and good control over the body. We might consider someone like David Beckham to have good bodily-kinaesthetic intelligence even though we wouldn’t generally describe him as being a typical example of ‘smarts’. Likewise, you might consider manual labor, DIY or construction to require good bodily-kinaesthetic intelligence.
It is very easy not to think of this as being a form of intelligence because it doesn’t involve abstract thinking. Nevertheless, our ability to utilize our body is very much seated in the brain and is actually closely linked with other forms of intelligence and other brain functions.
Linguistic Intelligence: Someone with good linguistic intelligence will have good verbal fluency and a strong vocabulary. We might think of someone like Shakespeare, or perhaps Eminem, as having good linguistic intelligence.
Spatial Intelligence: This is the ability to understand the space around you, perhaps to see which pieces of furniture will fit in which gaps and to manage a map in your mind’s eye.
Intra-Personal Intelligence: Whereas inter-personal intelligence refers to an understanding of others, intra-personal intelligence refers to an understanding of the self. This is someone who know what they want and who they are and who is perhaps more aware of their own faults and strengths. They might also have better control over impulses.
Gardner’s Theory – The Positives
So, is Gardner’s theory accurate? Does it have any relevance or usefulness?
These are very different questions.
At the time, Gardner’s ideas regarding intelligence were indeed useful and helped us to better understand the differences in the ways people thought. You can imagine how transformative these views might have been for teaching for instance: no longer is a child who can’t spell or perform maths thought of as being ‘stupid’ – instead they are considered to have good bodily-kinaesthetic intelligence or perhaps good interpersonal intelligence. Looking at different types of intelligence can help us to better understanding and focus on the unique strengths of different individuals, rather than comparing everyone by the same standards.
Gardner’s approach also seems to marry well with modular theories of intelligence. These theories look at the brain as being made up of distinct regions (lobes) and focus on the different roles of each. We know that areas like the inferior parietal lobe help with spatial and logical reasoning, whereas areas such as Broca’s area and Wernicke’s area are responsible in part for language. Then there are areas such as the motor cortex which deals with our motor movements.
Damage to one brain area can cause deficit in specific mental capacities and that damage can be incredibly specific: even going so far as to cause someone to lose their ability to name vegetables or identify faces!
So it would seem that there is not just one type of intelligence that can serve as a blanket term to describe all our cognitive capabilities.
Gardner’s Theory – The Negatives
Then again though, we certainly do know intuitively that some people seem to be smarter in multiple areas as compared with others. We all have an idea of what someone who is generally ‘smart’ is like.
And there are theories that better describe the type of intelligence that we perhaps usually think of when we hear the phrase. Concepts of global brain connectivity for instance, suggest that it is actually the connectivity throughout the brain that defines our overall intelligence. That is to say that it’s not only a matter of how well developed each brain area is, but also how well connected all those brain regions are and how well we’re able to use them synergistically. It is generally found to be true that those that score higher in IQ tests have greater overall connectivity.
Another factor to consider is our ability to learn. In other words, it’s not just about how good at math or language you are, but also how quickly you can improve those skills when tested. This is a matter of brain plasticity, which describes the ability of the brain to grow and change shape. The more plastic your brain is, the easier you will find it to learn new skills and abilities.
There are also big problems with the way in which Gardner has presented and laid out his ideas. Most notable is the fact that the specific types of intelligence he outlines are purely arbitrary and not based on any neurological structures or previous theories. In other words, he appears to have chosen types of intelligence pretty much at random and you could very easily argue that key examples have been left out or shouldn’t have been included at all.
For example, you could argue that it’s strange that there is a category for musical intelligence but not one for other types of artistic creation. What about imagination? Painting?
Other categories perhaps should have been left out entirely. Naturalistic intelligence could perhaps be better described as a personality trait (someone is naturally sensitive) married with good crystalized intelligence in that specific area (in other words, they are interested in nature and have learned about it).
Some are also too broad. Surely there are different types of interpersonal intelligence – the person who is very sensitive and understanding is very different from the person who is charismatic and able to deliver a speech in many cases.
And these crucial omissions and strange decisions harm the overall usefulness of the theory.
For instance, where does memory come into all of this? Is this not a ‘type’ of intelligence? Is it needed to support the other types of intelligence? How does one improve any of these categories of intelligence?
Gardner’s theory is useful and certainly interesting then but it is far from perfect. It’s true that we are all different and that there is no one measure for how smart you are that can paint a complete picture. However, you should also take any attempt to ‘categorize’ your intelligence with a big pinch of salt!