multiple intelligences

is a useful fiction in that it enables scholars to go beyond mere data-crunching of mental testers.

Jerome Bruner agreed with Gardner that the intelligences were 'useful fictions,' and went on to state that 'his approach is so far beyond the data-crunching of mental testers that it deserves to be cheered.'

is an approach to intelligence that encourages teachers to individualize teaching styles and to teach important materials in multiple ways.

Gardner summarizes his approach with three recommendations for educators: individualize the teaching style (to suit the most effective method for each student), pluralize the teaching (teach important materials in multiple ways), and avoid the term 'styles' as being confusing.

is divided into the eight categories (plus two more) of: (1) musical-rhythmic intelligence (2) visual-spatial intelligence (3) verbal-linguistic intelligence (4) logical-mathematical intelligence (5) bodily-kinesthetic intelligence (6) interpersonal intelligence (7) intrapersonal intelligence (8)naturalistic intelligence (9) existential intelligence (10) moral intelligence.

Gardner chose eight abilities that he held to meet these criteria:[2] musical-rhythmic, visual-spatial, verbal-linguistic, logical-mathematical, bodily-kinesthetic, interpersonal, intrapersonal, and naturalistic. He later suggested that existential and moral intelligence may also be worthy of inclusion.

is problematic in that gardner's selection and application of criteria for his 'intelligences' is subjective and arbitrary, and a different researcher would likely have come up with different criteria.

White (2006) points out that Gardner's selection and application of criteria for his 'intelligences' is subjective and arbitrary, and that a different researcher would likely have come up with different criteria.[26]

is problematic insofar as it goes against a tradition which has always sensibly limited the definition to the kind of thinking skills that makes one successful in school.

Generally, linguistic and logical-mathematical abilities are called intelligences, but artistic, musical, athletic, etc. abilities are not. Gardner argues this causes the former to be needlessly aggrandized. Certain critics are wary of this widening of the definition, saying that it ignores 'the connotation of intelligence . . . [which] has always connoted the kind of thinking skills that makes one successful in school.'

is wrongheaded in that gardner is simply using the word 'intelligence' where other people have traditionally used words like 'ability' and 'aptitude'.

One major criticism of the theory is that it is ad hoc: that Gardner is not expanding the definition of the word 'intelligence', but rather denies the existence of intelligence as traditionally understood, and instead uses the word 'intelligence' where other people have traditionally used words like 'ability' and 'aptitude'. This practice has been criticized by Robert J. Sternberg,[22][23] Eysenck,[24] and Scare.[25]

is wrongheaded in that it is tautological... as such, having a high musical ability means being good at music while at the same time being good at music is explained by having a high musical ability.

The theory and definitions have been critiqued by Perry D. Klein as being so unclear as to be tautologous and thus unfalsifiable. Having a high musical ability means being good at music while at the same time being good at music is explained by having a high musical ability. [31]

multiple intelligences, n.Definitions

multiple intelligences