Seven different types of intelligence – trumps the classic IQ test
The originator of the theory of multiple intelligences, Howard Gardner, a professor of education at Harvard University, defines intelligence as the potential ability to process a certain sort of information. The different types of intelligence are for the most part independent of one another, and no type is more important than the other.
In all, Gardner identifies seven different types of intelligence. These can be summarised as follows:
1. Verbal = linguistic, e.g. lexical skills, formal speech, verbal debate, creative writing.
2. Body = kinesthetic (movement), e.g. body language, physical gestures, creative dance, physical exercise, drama.
3. Musical = rhythmic, e.g. music performance, singing, musical composition, rhythmic patterns.
4. Logic = mathematic, e.g. numerical aptitude, problem solving, deciphering codes, abstract symbols and formulae.
5. Visual = spatial, e.g. patterns and designs, painting, drawing, active imagination, sculpture, colour schemes.
6. Interpersonal (relationships with others), e.g. person-to-person communication, empathy practices, group projects, collaboration skills, receiving and giving feedback.
7. Intrapersonal (self-understanding and insight), e.g. thinking strategies, emotional processing, knowing yourself, higher order reasoning, focusing=concentration.
Form the book "THE COMPLETE BOOK OF INTELLIGENCE TESTS" by Philip Carter, Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd 2005.
Opinion:
I remember running into this a few years ago, I was very intrigued at it’s premise. I have long suspected that the classic IQ test is inadequate – I have certain friends that are brilliant with their hands, or amazing musicians, yet the classic IQ test rates them as not-so-intelligent.
I assert; that the classic IQ test is a dangerous touchstone because of it’s authoritative position in society – some people score well and can erroneously conclude that they are of superior intelligence (which is a classic characteristic of incompetence), yet other people may score low on the test and internalise an inferior sense of competence.
I favour Howard Gardner’s proposal, as it accounts for relevant variables that the class IQ Test dismisses.
Matt Emery - Author and Caveman
IQ tests are culturally biased also… a fact that is still largely unaddressed. As a Primary Teacher (and someone who has apparently a IQ of 156 lol) I have found the tests completely useless when trying to teach a child. The work of Dr Maria Montessori (Italy’s first female physician) is far more comprehensive and accurate an approach to true intelligence… which interestingly is based on concentration, internal motivation and letting nature be our teacher. I think anyone interested in your work, Matt, and who is a parent or is around children would find her work very interesting.
Montessori was a scientist who had to fight against the pigeon holing, labelling and discrimination that IQ tests, and the like, represented. Her method is just over 100 years old but is based on how we learn naturally and intuitively.
Comment by Tam — July 31, 2008 @ 03:02 UTC
A lot of people don’t realize, the original IQ test was devised with the sole purpose of identifying mentally challenged children who might otherwise slip through the educational system unnoticed. No claims were made that it was suitable for establishing a hierarchy of overall intelligence, but the idea of a test that could ‘prove’ how one compared to others in intelligence was sufficiently intriguing to the self-presumed intelligentsia in high academic circles that it has since been adopted and promoted in that context.
Comment by Shielding — February 16, 2010 @ 03:22 UTC
Tam wrote: “IQ tests are culturally biased.” Do you think that’s why those tests show that (on average) black children are a full standard deviation below whites — but Asians (mainly Japanese) are almost a full standard deviation ABOVE whites? Because those eeeeevil whites slanted these tests to be culturally biased TOWARDS Asian people?! That’s kinda idiotic, isn’t it?
And I believe the “standard” IQ test does, in fact, provide a pretty GOOD indication of who will, and more importantly will not, excel in the academic, technological (modern-day!) working world than those who score lower. I agree that the standard IQ test does not ‘test’ for emotional, physical, musical, etc. “intelligences” — but it DOES pretty adequately indicate which people are more likely to succeed in modern Western technological societies! (The occasional exception does invalidate that. Most people to do poorly on the standard IQ test also do poorly in this society that requires a high(er) IQ! You cannot ‘write off’ the test results because they miss a couple hundred people, but accurately register a couple million!) Pretending that “musical skills” will help thousands of children make a living in this society is craziness! “Body” intelligence may be very useful for the very, very, very few who will be able to make a living as athletes — but the vast majority of children who do well on the “physical IQ” test, but poorly on the standard IQ test, are going to have trouble supporting themselves.
It’s a USEFUL test, within it’s own parameters. Deciding that because it’s sometimes *mis*used to deny people access to something (not guaranteed success at it, merely access to try), that therefore the TEST is wrong, is as idiotic as deciding that, because other tests can show physical or musical “intelligences,” that therefore folks with high physical intelligence can succeed as physicists or computer programmers (or in any highly academic programs!). Let’s use it for what it measures accurately: it shows a higher chance of succeeding in academic and technological fields; the kinds of fields this society is made of! Surely you wouldn’t be intending to say that low-IQ (low “standard-test” IQ) people can do just as well as high-IQ people in ALL fields?! Would you want your doctor to be low-IQ? How about your eye surgeon?
(And again — you CANNOT decide these things based on the exceptions! Just because a few people overcome their inability to do well on standard IQ tests does NOT mean that ALL people who do poorly on them can!)
Comment by Avalanche — May 27, 2011 @ 02:40 UTC