Howard Gardner of The Multiple Intelligence Theory

[jegerenhaj]

I think one of the reasons why his Multiple Intelligence Theory is so popular is because people like to hear it. He speak like his thoughts are controversial and revolutionary, but infact it is just pleasing sweettalk that people - especially unintelligent people - like to hear. Funny enough he doesnt like to talk about correlations between IQ and job status, income and so on. Some people are smart, some people are stupid.

[Mitchx42]

Kinda like All Rivers lead to the same ocean

[TwistedMind6969]

Most of us die without truly discovering our real strengths.

[bluesharmonicaplaya]

Is that why we were divided and conquered in school, to be corporate slaves? The state will hunt you down, and cripple you, just for "knowing."

[TilhasTZplease]

thumbs up if you came here from a psychology class link.

[terafrayne111]

Go ahead and stay in your ivory tower. 

[chrismca]

@terafrayne111 Exactly right. Why put in all that work needed to create a theory that actually helps kids, when you could do something half-baked, and take piles of cash from the the schools?

Yup, follow the top two rules for working in schools: #1) Just make people feel good,, #2) Just make it LOOK like you're helping. But, actual results? Bah, who needs actual evidence that you're helping. Wanting results is just being narrow-minded!

[terafrayne111]

@chrismca I never said that.

[chrismca]

@terafrayne111 I wasn't trying to imply that you had. Sorry if it seemed so.

But what do you think of the ethical/scientific status of Gardner's claims?

[chrismca]

Videos like this present a serious ethical problem. It tells teachers to spend their valuable time using a concept (MI) that has never been shown to improve student learning. That MI has no support is widely known, and this information is easily available to any responsible, diligent adult. What's the difference between: a) recommending an unsupported concept to folks with real educational needs and, b) a doctor giving only sugar pills to a patient who could benefit from proven medicine?

[CadensNanna09]

I enjoyed this video. I am studying this in my college course for teaching. It is a real eye opener. Howard Gardner's theory is better understood for me by watching this video. Very useful information for teachers. :)

[texas76541]

I agree with this man 100% as a Psych major. I see what he is talking about. He is right on.

[zezt]

I think first of all is to stop FORCING children to attend school

[superkulmedkniv25]

Mr. Gardner should be everyone's teacher

[mathdestroyer228]

THUMBS UP IF U STUDY THIS IN THE PHILIPPINES!

[Sivlemaniac]

I think he is right that usual iq test are very ignorant. But I think its very hard to meassure the intelligences he beleaves in.

[La2yla4eva]

Awesome i did this test in school and found out i work good with musical and rythmic and thats awesome

[rakton1]

Howard un gran cognitivo de USA!

[888888888888888able]

Howard Gardner is the potential solution to the USA recession, but what politicians are doing instead? Cutting budgeting in schools and colleges. Calling names agaisnt them, doesn't work. We need togetherness and action...

Marlen Arguedas-

*Start with your nearest territory...

[TheBristo25]

howard gardner is so smart

[MckyMseNTarotCrds]

I've long found the democratic concept of "anyone can be anything" that we are raised w/ to be silly and perhaps ultimately dangerous. Why is there so much resistance to the idea that people have different natural tendencies toward proficiency in different areas? We all know it, but aren't supposed to say it. Then why do we have guidance counselors, whose job is basically to figure out where the student "fits" in society, where his or her personal skills would be most effective?

[evox2008]

Watch the tree in the background the wind is blowing crazy, I am worse than one of my students boring

[LeeMIlby]

@evox2008

wouldn't want to be one of your students...

[sgtmcwallace]

this is marvelous

[stefanolilong]

i fell a sleep when i saw this!!!!!!!!!!!

[MrNaughty101]

@stefanolilong This video is not for those with feeble minds

[ss11s]

These ideas are basically the opposite of the Zeitgeist (unfortunately)

[mateo3470]

Multiple intelligence theory is mostly common sense. For some reason bodily-kinesthetic intelligence is not as accepted. The fact that this is distinct from musical ability is reflected in the poor quality of music out there today. But I digress.

A major concern about this topic that is always neglected is that many people are not that strong in any of these intelligences. In our hyperreal society, conditions are made even more extreme for people who are not a member of these categories.

[gmccall22]

@mateo3470..Kinesthetic Intelligence should be widely accepted ! A good sense of timing and a clear sense of goal stem from the brain ie Sports playbooks have to be thought out before executed physically . This type of intelligence can be used in other careers also. Takes more brains than brawn to be a great athlete, Larry Bird and Magic Johnson are proof of this

[mateo3470]

@gmccall22

All you have to do is meet people and you will understand a great deal about human diversity. People are skeptical because they lack information.

[gmccall22]

@mateo3470..I Agree 

[LeeMIlby]

@gmccall22

"have to be thought out before executed physically" sounds like the process of making art, to me! Skill needs to be valued in the classroom- all kinds of skill! It gives people confidence and broadens their abilities and perspectives. Wonder why has it become more important to memorize things to pass tests than learn skills that will last a lifetime??? :/

[gmccall22]

@LeeMIlby ..Yes, thought out...Have you ever seen a playbook ie Football? Try looking in one, they're not much different from IQ tests...Reaching a goal is more important...

[LeeMIlby]

@gmccall22

Same with a painting manual and pigments- you know the difference between quinacridone and alyzarin, their chemical makeup and reactions visually, psychologically, and chemically. No difference really, it takes years to master sport and art, and takes technique and cunning as well.

[gmccall22]

@LeeMIlby ..Interesting piece of info..Thanks...I agree with Gardner all the way. The traditional definition of intelligence is too narrow...

[LeeMIlby]

@mateo3470

Everyone is a member of these categories to some extend- we are all human and generally equipped with the same sense and capacities. You can learn to suppress your natural talents if those talents are oppressed. People adapt to their limitations

[outerpol]

I love this guy. I'm a creative person. Learning this information depresses me because I realise how I've wasted the last 17 years of my life in school :/

[919evilkiller919]

@outerpol I wasted 20 with university

[mathdestroyer228]

@outerpol i study in this school in the philippines

[vuotopiuscuro]

another kind of liberation movement ..

adieu iq

[AmyAgainstIgnorance]

This reinforces my belief that standardized testing needs to be done away with.

[PabonAn]

I agree that people learn differently and that we should find ways to accomidate different learning styles, and strengths.

[anchorholdsforever]

WIse Man

[ChuckBart100]

I've been struggling with Gardner's MI ideas for a while but I still have a few questions. MI seems to make sense, but at the same time, it’s been around for 25 years, and while I've found plenty of articles that talk about it (mostly just repeat what Gardner has already written), I can't find a single quality research study that supports it. Do you know of any?

If there isn't any, how can we ethically include in the curriculum? Wouldn’t it be better to use evidence-based curriculum?

[VVitorVasconcelos]

@ChuckBart100 what do you mean by "quality research"? i just got into the theory very recently, but the one thing i know is that scientific knowledge does support the theory's assuptions. I know that Howard Gardner's definition of inteligence is subjective, relative, conventioned, but so are most of the psychological constructs scientifically studied. But, his definition of the construct, acording to which an intelligence has to satisfy certain criteria is supported by neuroscientific studies..

[ChuckBart100]

@VVitorVasconcelos Good question about "quality research" because that's at the very heart of the validity of MI. Scientists form widely diverse fields all agree that good research has such qualities as: blind procedures, uses control groups and alternative methods, is run by folks with no financial interest in the outcome, and its procedures are all made 100% public. These are the very minimal requirements, but they're not in any study on MI. What does that tell any honest person about MI?

[VVitorVasconcelos]

@ChuckBart100 since i just started reading about it very recently i'm not familiar with the methods.. just the outline of the theory... but i'll keep an eye open for those questions ;)

[LeeMIlby]

@ChuckBart100

We have blindly followed the current system for years, when the system was never proven to work with "quality research" to begin with. We have all been mislead.

[VVitorVasconcelos]

@ChuckBart100 that show that specific brain areas are associated with specific aptitudes, which can ben grouped according to the MI theory. The same happens with studies from injuries which impair specific aptitudes. Also the universality of those findings (cross-cultural findings) support it.

[ChuckBart100]

@VVitorVasconcelos Neuroscience and brain area data provide very little support for MI because they do not map onto Gardner's intelligences in a 1-to-1 way. Here's 5 easy examples: Where is the "naturalistic" part of the brain? Where is the musical brain outside the primary auditory cortex? Both personal intelligences would use many different brain regions. An existential brain area? That's beyond ridiculous.

Can you cite an empirical neuroscience reference supporting Garndner's specifics?

[VVitorVasconcelos]

@ChuckBart100 they don't have to map in a 1 to 1 way, they just have to operationalized, and the empirically verified, and they can be based in more than one area... the brain works in an interconnected way, and every psychological function is based in information exchange between different regions of the brain. If you were to use that argument, you couldn't even accept Spearman's construct of 'g factor'... where is the general intelligence located in the brain? And yet, it is widely accepted!

[ChuckBart100]

@VVitor:

1) If brain areas don't have to map onto Gardner's intelligences, what do you mean by "specific brain areas are associated with specific aptitudes, which can ben grouped according to the MI theory"?

2) What exactly do you mean "and then empirically verified"? There is no empirical verification that intelligence has the specific domains Gardner claims.

3) I'm not sure what you mean about brain area research not supporting "g" factor. Spearnan, Jensen, etc, make no such claim.

[VVitorVasconcelos]

@ChuckBart100 1) they don't have to map in a 1 to 1 way, but a specific intelligence may map onto several áreas, that constitute an integrated neural basis for that intelligence

2) for example, if Howard Gargner defines the musical intelligence as being associated with a specific set of aptitudes, and to a specific brain area (or set of areas), and then research finds that when a person's brain has a lesion in that area she loses the aptitudes associated to that intelligence...

[ChuckBart100]

@VVitorVasconcelos Gard claims to use this as a criteria for naming his intelligences, but a close look at his work shows that, in truth, he does not. Here's three facts: 1) There are networks corresponding to defined behavioral domains that Gard doesn't name as "intelligences." 2) again, there are no networks for naturalistic, existential, or either personal intelligence 3) most important, how does an associated neural network, qualify a set of behaviors as an intelligence?

Read Gard closely.

[VVitorVasconcelos]

@ChuckBart100 Remember that the neural basis criteria is only one among several other. To be qualified as an intelligence, an aptitude has to satisfy several criteria, and not all of then. And of course there are behavioral domains that he doesn't consider as intelligences! Otherwise he would have an endless list of intelligences and that wouldnt be very helpful. Thats one of the reasons the criteria where defined.

[VVitorVasconcelos]

@ChuckBart100 that constitutes empirical evidence! i know that happens from what i've read about the MI theory... but i don't know of specific studies. But if you want i can try to find out :)

[VVitorVasconcelos]

@ChuckBart100 There is no truth about intelligence, just different ways of looking at it. Spearman, for example, looked at it through the factor analysis method and found one general intelligence aptitude (the g factor), others like Thurstone found several aptitudes and said that those were the dimensions of intelligence, opposing Spearman. Gardner proposes a model in which the human aptitudes are divided according to those specific criteria... but it's just another way of looking at it!

[ChuckBart100]

@VVitor: Think of what science tells us about good theories: They make specific, testable predictions. What such predictions have been empirically supported re MI? And, to the extent that some aspects of MI aren't validly testable, that's not just a difference in Gardner's theory, that's a shortcoming. That's not good science. Other theories have had predictions empirically verified.

So wouldn't evidence-based curriculum be better?

[VVitorVasconcelos]

@ChuckBart100 the good thing about his theory is that in focuses on human diversity. It doesn't throw the entire species into a single sac, forcing everybody into fitting a single pattern (the logical-mathematical intelligence, based in standartized tests, extremely academic), it assumes that the human richness lies in the difference, that there are several ways of being intelligent and adapted, and that we should treasure all of them! :)

[LeeMIlby]

@ChuckBart100

The current curriculum has been proven to fail in countless ways. Is it better to stick to a regiment that we know for certain fails than to try something that might actually work?

[chrismca]

@LeeMIlby I think you're 100% right in that there is much to improve in our current system. But, the question is: Do we replace the status quo with things shown to work (e.g., class sizes of 15, better trained teachers, - see the research), or with pseudo-science like MI?

See Michael Shermer's book "Why People Believe Weird Things" It has a list of qualities of pseudoscience. Make a list of how many of these qualities MI has. I honestly think you'll be surprised.

Cheers

[LeeMIlby]

@chrismca

It would be better logically to go with a system proven to be a little better than the last. But also logically, i think that it only makes common sense that people are all individuals who understand things in different ways than other people, and it is true that most people forget everything they "learned" in school a couple of years after they graduate (see are you smarter than a 5th grader). Not only is technique a problem, but so is content.

[chrismca]

@LeeMIlby OK, you've mentioned three things: #1 "It would be better logically to go with a system proven to be a little better than the last" Of course you're right, but notice that evidence that MI is better than the current system is exactly what MI lacks. If there is evidence, where is it? There's plenty of evidence that Gardner has made money, but where are the improvements to the school system brought by MI?

[LeeMIlby]

@chrismca

I was actually agreeing with what you had said earlier. I get the feeling like you're immediately taking a defensive position when all we're really doing here is having a conversation :( but if you're hell-bent on standing your ground then it's not worth talking to you. Anyway, it seems like you're spending so much time looking for "evidence" that you can't see the common sense sitting right in front of you. It's human nature to be individual.

[chrismca]

@LeeMIlby #2 You wrote "people are all individuals who understand things in different ways than other people" To the extent that this is true, Mi again has never been shown to be an accurate description of these differences. Why support MI when it has no evidence? Why not look for another theory? Why should America's (or any nation's) school children be taught through a theory with no evidence?

[LeeMIlby]

@chrismca

...Because, like i said, it's common sense. Unless you disagree that people are all individuals and all different and learn things in different ways?

[pseudosimplicity]

@chrismca Actually, there are many studies that show that students achieve more and they keep their interest in learning. Learning becomes meaningful while the learner takes an active part in their learning. Why limit a person's way of learning when there are multiple ways each individual learns. Also, brain imaging shows that more areas of the brain are active when engaging different intelligences.

[chrismca]

@pseudosimplicity Are you saying that these studies show these good outcomes because of the use of Gardner's ideas? I've looked through the literature pretty thoroughly, and I can't find any studies that allow a reader to conclude this. If you have the references, I'd be very glad to read the studies or anything you think might help me learn more about this. Thanks

[chrismca]

@LeeMIlby #3 "Not only is technique a problem, but so is content." Again your diagnosis of this problem is right on the money but, any implication that MI would, somehow, effectively address this issue runs counter to the facts we have.

MI has been around for more than 25 years and it has no supporting evidence.

Question: It seems you're (rightly) criticizing the use of unproven methods, so, do you think MI has evidence? If so, where? Or, are you advocating it without evidence? If so, why?

[LeeMIlby]

@chrismca

Like i've told you multiple times (and i hate repeating myself so please read) -the evidence is common sense- If you can't comprehend that, then i really can't help you.

[chrismca]

@LeeMIlby I don't want you to repeat yourself or help me, just think about something honestly.

Common sense says that multi-ton objects won't fly or float, but science gives us planes and ships that do. Common sense says that inoculations won't work, yet this science has saved millions of lives.

As to schooling, common sense tells us that a child suffering from hyperactivity will not be helped by a stimulant, but science has shown us that they are.

Isn't science is the far better guide?

[ursulahd]

I'm a teacher trainer so for my students would be awesome to hear him, but unfortunately we don't have internet in the classrooms, anyway is refreshing seeing and hearing him.

[cindychristina]

love him !

[TheOneCatastrophe]

Very good watch,

[peterteriele66]

I read and learned a lot about MI. The video tells more about MI but also about Howard Gardner. It's interesting what he tells you in this youtube-clip.