Jump to content

Talk:Theory of multiple intelligences/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2

Add To Do list

I've just archived old material and would like to add a To Do list for this page but do not know how to add that banner yet.Stmullin (talk) 16:44, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

You may find it helpful while reading or editing articles to look at a bibliography of Intelligence Citations, posted for the use of all Wikipedians who have occasion to edit articles on human intelligence and related issues. I happen to have circulating access to a huge academic research library at a university with an active research program in these issues (and to another library that is one of the ten largest public library systems in the United States) and have been researching these issues since 1989. You are welcome to use these citations for your own research. You can help other Wikipedians by suggesting new sources through comments on that page. It will be extremely helpful for articles on human intelligence to edit them according to the Wikipedia standards for reliable sources for medicine-related articles, as it is important to get these issues as well verified as possible. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 22:58, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

By the way, I notice that the way archiving was done on this talk page breaks the functionality of the new section link. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 23:01, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Simple Wikipedia

Hi. I think that this article should have a page in Simple Wikipedia.Frogger48 (talk) 02:30, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

WP:SOFIXIT. Huon (talk) 03:49, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Pseudoscience category

I think the reference to p35 of Introducing Neuroeducational Research: Neuroscience, Education and the Brain from Contexts to Practice by Paul Howard-Jones is fairly convincing that this theory belongs firmly to this category. What do others think? --John (talk) 20:33, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Can you show that MI is typically characterized in those terms in reliable sources? The psychometric literature is broadly dismissive of Gardner, but few authors are as discourteous as to describe his ideas as pseudoscientific ("armchair theorizing" comes up much more often). Wikipedia categorization should reflect essential and defining features of the categorized articles, and I don't think MI is commonly and consistently referred to as a pseudoscience in reliable sources.--Victor Chmara (talk) 13:54, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
Mmm, that is actually a nice point. Let me think about that, please. --John (talk) 14:17, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
As Victor wrote, we should find more than just one source (how widely used is the cited source, and how noted is the author?) characterizing multiple intelligences theory in that manner before adding the category tagging. All the standard reference works on human intelligence make at least passing reference to Gardner's ideas. The multiple intelligences theory has perhaps not been as productive as its proponents had hoped, but it's more difficult to show that it's flat wrong in the way that most ideas that are regarded as pseudoscience are. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 19:54, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
In case this discussion is revived, I would point out that Gardner (and Bruner and others) have a legitimate methodological disagreement with what constitutes proper evidence and by association what constitutes science. Psychometrics has no special claim on the definition of science. The fact that psychometricians look down on other approaches is not surprising or useful in this context. Bruner, for example, would claim it is the "data-crunchers" who take the untenable view. An encyclopedia should let that disagreement stand. (This differs from certain *applications* of 'learning styles', which clearly fit the definition of psuedoscience). Michaelacaulfield (talk) 02:39, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Lead

I'm uncomfortable with the new fourth paragraph in the lead:

According to a 2006 study many of Gardner's "intelligences" correlate with the g factor, supporting the idea of a single dominant type of intelligence. According to the study, each of the domains proposed by Gardner involved a blend of g, cognitive abilities other than g, and, in some cases, non-cognitive abilities or personality characteristics.[6] Empirical support for non-g intelligences is lacking or very poor. Despite this the ideas of multiple non-g intelligences are very attractive to many due to the suggestion that everyone can be smart in some way.[7] Cognitive neuroscience research does not support the theory of multiple intelligences.

There are several problems with this lead paragraph:

  1. It is not a summary of the article, but rather a report of a few select articles, one of which is not available in English.
  2. The 2006 article is actually part of a peer-reviewed debate between supporters and detractors of the theory, but only the supporters' opinion is mentioned.
  3. The 2006 article was not a "study". It was a rebuttal to a response by Gardner to an earlier article.
  4. One person's opinion, not otherwise mentioned in the article (imagining why the theory may be popular), is presented as part of the lead.
  5. The criticism section of the article is largely negative concerning this theory, but not entirely so. The lead should reflect this. But there is no mention of supporters of the theory in this lead paragraph. A proper summary should report the criticism without implying that there is a consensus opinion.
  6. Claiming "empirical support is lacking" is inappropriate without mention of Gardner's defense of his research base. Claiming support is poor is a valid criticism accepted by Gardner himself.

I moved the paragraph to the criticism section and reworded some sentences to correct a few of the errors, but my edit was reversed with the explanation "no, the WP:LEAD is a summary of the whole article". --seberle (talk) 11:12, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

The lead as a whole has to summarise the article as a whole. There is no evidence for this theory and the lead needs to include this. --John (talk) 09:17, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Seems to me as if John, having been prevented from getting this theory anathematised as pseudoscience, has settled for the next best thing, a hatchet-job in the lead. Sorry if that's too crude, but it's what it looks like to me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vidauty (talk • contribs) 16:54, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

I was going to create a section here for exactly the same purpose. I'll be frank: the paragraph is very poor quality, and contradicts itself in a transparent way. Specifically:

  1. The paragraph acknowledges the existence of "cognitive abilities other than g" (a true statement, based on the quantitative facts)
  2. The paragraph then claims the opposite (a false claim) saying "Empirical support for non-g intelligences is lacking or very poor" (yes, cognitive abilities are what comprise intelligence, according to the definition), and g can only explain one dimension of variation, when there are certainly several dimensions visible in the statistics. The key point is that the principal component is not everything.
  3. The paragraph contradicts the true statement a second time at the end saying "Cognitive neuroscience research does not support the theory of multiple intelligences"

There is no reference to support the last two claims, and if such a reference existed it would be in conflict with the quantitative facts. The two falsehoods don't become a truth by reinforcement and need to be removed. I would suggest that the paragraph be reworded in its entirety by someone who can deal objectively with the quantitative facts. Elroch (talk) 15:16, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Theory of multiple intelligences. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 21:11, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Theory of multiple intelligences. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 09:42, 10 April 2016 (UTC)


Should this quote be added in Howard Gardner or / and Theory of multiple intelligences?

Gardner is quoted by a secondary source saying

[E]ven if at the end of the day, the bad guys [such as Jensen, who emphasize the importance of g,] turn out to be more correct scientifically than I am, life is short, and we have to make choices about how we spend our time. And that’s where I think the multiple intelligences way of thinking about things will continue to be useful even if the scientific evidence doesn’t support it. (at 45:11–31)

— Cofnas, Nathan (1 February 2015). "Science Is Not Always "Self-Correcting"". Foundations of Science. doi:10.1007/s10699-015-9421-3.

--The Master (talk) 00:55, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

I think this quote may need context to be understood correctly. --seberle (talk) 06:43, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

This is a freely accessible version of the secondary source, which Wikipedia usually use.--The Master (talk) 11:33, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Twelve Pillars of Wisdom

Is this related to the neurological (MRI) studies and tests done by Adrian Owen and Roger Highfield? They wrote a paper in Neuron ("Fractionating Human Intelligence", Neuron 76, Dec 20, 2012) that argued for the existence of 12 measurable cognitive skills, and they discuss relationships with the Spearman g factor. New Scientist had an earlier article about this work "The 12 Pillars of Wisdom", in October 30, 2010. DonPMitchell (talk) 23:16, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Talents or intelligences

In the second edition of "Frames of Mind" Gardner says that one of the criticisms of this theory has been that some have argued that the intelligences which he writes about may be talents rather than intelligences. This could go in the article when the article talks about criticisms of the theory.Vorbee (talk) 20:02, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

Go ahead and add this to the article. Explain what the difference is and how Gardner responds. --seberle (talk) 12:48, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Denis Postle's model

I happened accross this and thought it might be useful to this article:

Denis Postle’s (The Mind Gymnasium,1989) Model of multiple intelligence. Denis Postle’s model includes four types of intelligence: 1) Emotional Intelligence, 2) Intuitive Intelligence, 3) Physical Intelligence and 4) Intellectual Intelligence.

— Hian, Physical Intelligence of University of Technology MARA Sport Science Students (PDF) citing Postle, D. (1988). The Mind Gymnasium: A New Age Guide to Self Mastery. McGraw-Hill. ISBN 978-0-07-050569-8.

However, a quick search does not indicate to me that this model has been used or accepted, or that Denis Postle is notable. I mention it here in case it is useful to other editors. Daask (talk) 13:22, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Why do we deal twice with physical intel. (and only w/ that)?

"Bodily-kinesthetic" and "Physical intelligence" have the same topic. 1) There's an "anchor" on the heading "Physical intelligence" - can't we go around this silly restriction? And 2) "Physical intelligence" has got far more material then the other 9 or so modalities. Why not create a separate article and leave here only the general presentation, the one under "Bodily-kinesthetic"? Since we're talking of smarts :) Or are we just sticking to theory? Arminden (talk) 20:02, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Eight or nine modalities?

Under Intelligence Modalities, it first says (emphasis mine): "Howard Gardner proposed eight abilities that manifest multiple intelligences." After that nine modalities are mentioned. Who can explain this discrepancy and remove it? Thanks. Bcurfs (talk) 02:45, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

Existential has been invalidated and refuted
=> Otherwise 10 modalities (MoON) has been discovered by Yves Richez while observing and evaluating nature and humans in their environment : cf Corporate Talent Detection and Development > https://www.wiley.com/en-us/Corporate+Talent+Detection+and+Development-p-9781119564133
S.L. 2A01:CB10:854A:7600:1490:2B46:99B7:A43 (talk) 00:33, 22 January 2022 (UTC) (1:32 in France)

Spiritual intelligence

Gardner says in the second edition of "Frames of Mind" that he continues to think some type of spiritual intelligence may exist. This could go in the article. Vorbee (talk) 20:02, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

Yes, there is a section in the article on existential or spiritual intelligence. --seberle (talk) 12:47, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

In 2000, Howard Gardner had a paper published in the International Journal for the Psychology of Religion, Volume 10 Issue 1, called "A Case Against Spirtual Intelligence". In this article, he argues that spirituality is distinct from the intellectual domain. I seem to recall I had an article published in response, asking whether some conceptual distinctions are needed. YTKJ (talk) 20:03, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

Yes, the article was called "Response to the Spiritual Intelligence Debate: Are Some Conceptual Distinctions Needed Here?" and was published in the International Journal for the Psychology of Religion for 2003. YTKJ (talk) 20:08, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

the link isn't to a publicly accessible site. Coderiety.py (talk) 04:36, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

Evidence rather than criteria

When, at an early stage in the article, it says "According to the theory, an intelligence "modality" must fulfil eight criteria" and then lists them, would it not be better to say that these are the eight pieces of evidence Gardner cites for the theory? Yes, I have read Frames of Mind! YTKJ (talk) 18:47, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

Better Treatment

The theory of multiple intelligences introduced in Howard Gardner’s scholarly book, Frames of Mind: The Theory of Multiple Intelligences (1983) deserves a fair, accurate and thorough presentation in Wikipedia. Multiple intelligences (MI) was a revolutionary scientific theory that shook the foundations of conventional psychology and educational establishments around the world. This is not an exaggeration and was surprising because the intended audience for Frames of Mind was psychologists and not educators. Unlike many other innovative theories that are unsustainable or “educational fads,” MI theory after 40 years remains a powerful idea that continues to inspire researchers and teachers around the world. This is despite organized and concerted efforts by conventional psychologists to defend the IQ (unitary, general intelligence) with disinformation, misinformation and biased opinions. Traditional psychologists have a deep investment in IQ theory, both professionally and personally. This bias is exemplified in the current Wikipedia article on multiple intelligences in which with the lead paragraph begins not with an objective description of the theory but instead with four negative evaluations and opinions… “The (MI) theory has been criticized for its lack of empirical evidence, its dependence on subjective judgement and its overall unscientific nature, being referred to as a "neuromyth".

This sets the tone and content for about two thirds of the present article despite my efforts to offer a text that is clear, fair and balanced. I have modified the descriptions of the eight intelligences to present them with clarity, detail and practical examples.

While teachers and educators appreciate MI theory for how it helps them to better understand students' unique intellectual profiles, psychologists are threatened by its goal to replace the unitary concept (g) that each individual's intellectual potential may be adequately measured by a single number. Psychologists have over a 120 years invested in research supporting the “empirical validity” of the IQ score and no other theory of intelligence has so strongly challenged IQ’s preeminence.

This situation is represented in Wikipedia’s several articles that address traditional, psychometric, general intelligence. There is a strong bias in these Wiki articles where g (IQ) is presented positively with minimal criticisms while the MI page is tilted negatively, superficially and with very limited information.

My essay was modeled on several Wikipedia pages on topics related to intelligence. These pages present mostly positive supporting opinions and information and do not include numerous references that question the essential validity of their topic.

Wikipedia is not the place to litigate the scientific question of the validity of MI theory but instead readers should be presented with an outline of the arguments on both sides of the debate. Then given resources for them to investigate further.

There are two fundamental arguments against MI theory that the critics make: 1) it is not scientifically valid and 2) it is not effective as an educational model. Each of these criticisms require fair responses. Our essay describes several of these key criticisms and then summarizes the evidence and arguments in support of MI theory, both conceptually and educationally. Our article strives for an objective presentation of the facts and conclusions of scholars and scientists. We welcome feedback for where we fail in this effort. However, we will not do as the critics and be silent on the supportive evidence that has accumulated over the past 40 years. Of particular note, is the extensive library of neuroscience investigations that describe the neural systems underlying each of the eight intelligences that I have documented.

On a personal note, let me say that I have over the past four decades interacted with many highly esteemed MI critics. These are thoughtful and learned people, but I have been shocked at their blind devotion to IQ and utter rejection of MI theory. They base their opinions on little actual knowledge about MI theory and research evidence subsequent to its introduction in 1983. In fact, very few have read Frames of Mind nor do they keep informed about ongoing research evidence. It appears that they can’t be bothered but still they think of themselves as good scientists and scholars who are qualified to condemn MI theory as being “unscientific”. Being well versed in your own theory does not qualify you to condemn a competing model. This appears to me to be the situation on Wikipedia. Critics wish to minimize and misrepresent MI to support their own bias. Multiple Intelligences theory deserves a better treatment. Below are a few articles that served as models to inform our MI theory page. The g factor (psychometrics) article is perhaps the closest model to our essay. These pages range from about 1500 words to 11,000. We believe that Wikipedia is the right place for a fair, informed and balanced review of MI theory in the marketplace of ideas. Currently my essay is about 12K words.

Some of these pages include charts, pics and historical contexts for their topic. That is why ours includes these also. We are happy to provide our credentials supporting our knowledge about MI theory, research qualifications and publication history. We appreciate that no one wants to support the advocacy of “crack pot” theories that may do more harm than good. Thank you for your consideration.

PS: Please find the proposed section of "Criticism and reponses" in my sandbox.

C. Branton Shearer

For the Assn for Multiple Intelligences BrantonShearer (talk) 13:22, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for your work on this. The article is looking so much better. --seberle (talk) 13:56, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

A dialectical overtaking (dépassement dialectique) by the C.U.P theory

the semiologist, mentor, talentprofiler and entrepreneur Yves Richez base his scientific researches on Howard Gardner's theory[1]. He studies « talent », emergence and actualization of potentiales[2].

He discovers 10 Natural Operating Modes (Modes Opératoire Naturel - MoON) during anthropological and semiological studies and trips around the world. Each mode is structured by a couple of antagonistic components [3].

Interpersonal Mo.O.N. : empathic >< interactive

Kinesthesic Mo.O.N. : gestual >< material

Spatial Mo.O.N. : emulative >< inferring

Musical Mo.O.N. : tonal >< rythmic

Linguistic Mo.O.N. : phonetic >< figurative

Mathematical Mo.O.N. : abstract >< general

Scientific Mo.O.N. : correlative >< pragmatic

Naturalistic Mo.O.N. : classify >< appreciate

Extra-personal Mo.O.N. : tentacular >< multiple

Intrapersonal Mo.O.N. : autonomous >< assertive

Theory, correlations and applications

  • Theory and praxis

His studies show a gap between Chinesese thought and Western thought. In China, notions of Being and notion of intelligence don't exist. Those are greek-Latin inventions. Instead of intelligence, Chinese speaks of « operating modes ». Thus, Yves Richez does not speak of « intelligence » but of « natural operating modes » (Mo.O.N.).

But, we can connect intelligence and operating modes. Indeed, to Henri Wallon : « We can not distinguish intelligence from its operations ». [4]

Yves Richez's theory on the talent corrects errors of Howard Gardner's theory of multiple intelligences. The C.U.P. theory (configuration, utility, potentialisation) surpasses dialectically theory of multiple intelligences.

  • Correction of Gardner's theory and correlations with others studies

Yves Richez shows that it is wrong to attach a sense at an « operating mode » : visuo-spatial or verbal-linguistic. Indeed, a blind or a hedgehog are able to move in space despite their blindness. They emulate space.

He observes that individuals who skilfully operate with a mathematical Mo.ON have difficulties to emulate the space. They are difficulties to read a mind map. They prefer to read lists or series. His observations confirms an experiment of René Zazzo. Zazzo discovers a young girl who is unable to read despite an IQ of 120. IQ definie globaly a Mathimatical Mo.O.N.. Origin of this dyslexia is a problem of recognition in space[5]. The emulative component of Mo.O.N. Spatial play a decisive role in learning to read (cf again the pedagogy of Ovide Decroly).

He notes that employees defined by the DSM like autistist (Asperger (?)) spontaneously engage a Naturalistic Mo.ON.. We find also cases of the population of certains primitive societies.

... etc.

  • Applications in the society

The C.U.P. theory of Yvez Richez has a few applications in management, in education (which is analogous to education reform : John Dewey, Ovide Decroly, Maria Montessori, Anton Makarenko, Célestin Freinet...) and in complex psychology (in connection with Lev Vygotsky, Henri Wallon, Jean Piaget, Jacqueline Nadel, Michel Cariou, Émile Jalley...).

Yves Rivez applies the results of his studies in his own company (Talent Reveal). Decathlon Academy use his studies to form their mananagers [6]. We can found again this applications in a few municipales services, a few sports clubs and a Montessori school, En Terre D'Enfance[7] who are applying the C.U.P. theory.

He provides his studies to the general public through various media : books, youtube and internet articles.

His book, Détection et développement des talents en entreprise, edited by ISTE editions follows his doctoral thesis in semiology[8]. It is published in English in 2018 : Corporate Talent Detection and Development, Wiley Publishing.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.223.129.253 (talk • contribs) 11:05, May 24, 2018 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Eymeric de Saint Germain (2015)[http://enterredenfance.com/de-howard-gardner-yves-richez-une/ De Howard Gardner à Yves Richez: Une évolution des Intelligences Multiples. On the site En Terre d'Enfance.
  2. ^ Richez, Y. (2006). Emergence et actualisation des potentiels humains. Mémoire de recherche, Université de Tours.
  3. ^ Richez, Y. (2017). Détection et développement des talents en entreprise. ISTE éditions
  4. ^ According to formulation of Émile Jalley for Henri Wallon in Principes de psychologie appliquée (In Œuvre 1, édition L'Harmattan, 2015) : « On ne saurait distinguer l'intelligence de ses opérations »
  5. ^ Zazzo, R (1983). À propos de ces enfants que vous dites exceptionnels. René Zazzo in Ou en est la psychologie de l'enfant, 1983, édition Denoël/Gauthier
  6. ^ Decathlon Academy - Yves Richez, chasseur de talents
  7. ^ En Terre d'Enfance, Les Talents
  8. ^ Richez, Y (2015). Stratégie d’actualisation des potentiels, Qui-opère-selon-stratégie. Thèse doctorale, Université Paris Diderot.

« too much weight on one author in addition to being written in a language other than English »

J'espère que c'est une blague, ElKevbo ? Les anglophones ne sont pas plus con que les autres. Ils peuvent se débrouiller dans d'autres langues que la leur. Certes, j'écris mal, même dans ma langue. Darwin avait aussi un mauvais anglais bien qu'elle fut sa langue de naissance. Par ailleurs, je ne suis pas choqué lorsque l'on m'apporte autre chose qui sort du cadre de ma nation, de ma pensée et de mon piédestal quand bien même mal écrit. La théorie C.U.P. d'Yves Richez, parfaitement bien écrit, dépasse de manière dialectique la théorie d'Howard Gardner. Elle se concilie parfaitement à d'autres études. Il serait dommageable de ne pas en profiter puisque qu'elle est déjà disponible : Détection et développement des talents en entreprise. Une version anglaise de son livre va bientôt sortir. J'anticipe les choses d'autant plus que ça va faire du bruit. L'anglais ne prime pas sur d'autres langues. Certes les éditeurs des USA cherchent à contrôler les revues scientifiques et philosophiques. Mais, la pensée américaine représente seulement 8% de la pensée globale dans les universités dans le monde contre 68% de la pensée française selon Émile Jalley. Cordialement. S.L.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.223.129.253 (talk • contribs) 11:38, May 24, 2018 (UTC)

Opening paragraph

The opening paragraph is brief and to the point. I think it is well written, except that it ends with "being referred to as a neuromyth." There is a reference to Lynn Waterhouse. Have other psychologists used this term for this theory? Usually "neuromyth" is reserved for thoroughly debunked theories, such as learning styles, "classical music increases babies' intelligence," or "we only use 10% of our brain." Gardner's theory is controversial, for sure, but reception has been mixed, as the article states. I'm not aware of the theory being placed in the same category as "neuromyths." If this is a one-time insult by Waterhouse, then it probably belongs in the criticism section, not the opening paragraph. If it is commonly accepted as a "neuromyth" by psychologists, then there should be a reference to this fact. The opening paragraph should summarize the article and represent a reasonable consensus of the theory's reception. seberle (talk) 02:53, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

I agree - the opening paragraph seems somewhat biased and would lead a reader to think the whole thing should be dismissed (which is not consistent with the rest of the entry). 23.240.148.47 (talk) 17:55, 20 September 2024 (UTC)
Ok. I am modifying anything in the opening paragraph that is biased, not referenced, or which does not accurately reflect the controversy described in the remainder of the article. Let's keep discussion going here if there's any disagreement so we can keep the article NPOV. seberle (talk) 15:55, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

I see the opening sentence has now changed to calling this theory "pseudoscientific." I am not convinced this is a consensus opinion. It is certainly debated, and this is well described in the article. But being "pseudoscientific" is nowhere mentioned in the article. The opening paragraph should summarize the article, which it currently does not. --seberle (talk) 23:00, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

Please keep in mind audience, purpose, and Wikipedia requirements for sources

@BrantonShearer: Thanks so much for your recent contributions to this article. I'm sorry that I reverted some of them recently but you added a ton of detail to the article that doesn't quite seem appropriate for an encyclopedia article intended for a general audience, especially if we're to keep this article to a reasonable length and scope. It may be appropriate to create a new article, however, if length is the primary concern - that's a common approach in Wikipedia when one section in an article becomes too long. ElKevbo (talk) 14:13, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

This recent edit of the MI Theory lead paragraph is wrong for several important reasons and needs to be corrected.
It violates several fundamental Wikipedia policies that content be “complete information and not to promote one particular point of view over another. . . the neutral point of view does not mean the exclusion of certain points of view; rather, it means including all verifiable points of view… avoid stating opinions as facts”.
Pejorative statements such as:
-pseudoscientific;
-lack of empirical evidence,
-subjective judgement and
-overall unscientific and speculative nature
reveal the author’s biased opinions and judgement based on incomplete information designed to promote IQ theory over MI theory.
The validity of MI theory as a constructive empirical scientific theory has been cogently explained by Kornhaber (2020) and extensive empirical evidence described by Shearer (2019; 2020) and Shearer & Karanian (2017).
References
Kornhaber, M.L. (2020). The theory of multiple intelligences. in Sternberg, R. J. (Ed.). The Cambridge handbook of intelligence. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Shearer, C. B. (2019). A detailed neuroscientific framework for the multiple intelligences: Describing the neural components for specific skill units within each intelligence. International Journal of Psychological Studies, 11 (3). doi:10.5539/ijps.v11n3p1
Shearer, C. B. (2020a). A resting state functional connectivity analysis of human intelligence: Broad theoretical and practical implications for multiple intelligences theory. Psychology & Neuroscience. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1037/pne0000200
Shearer, C. B., & Karanian, J. M. (2017). The neuroscience of intelligence: Empirical support for the theory of multiple intelligences? Trends in Neuroscience and Education 6, 211–223. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2211949317300030 BrantonShearer (talk) 18:42, 4 February 2025 (UTC)
This comment is based on a misunderstanding of what WP:NPOV requires. It does not mean WP:FALSEBALANCE, and it does not mean that we ignore WP:FRIND. That you have arbitrarily labeled words you dislike as 'pejorative' does not mean the article should not use them when they reflect the scientific mainstream's position on this subject - rather than your own, as given in the citations you have left here.
I understand from the comments you made on your talk page that you are not happy about this, but nonetheless it is how Wikipedia operates. MrOllie (talk) 19:05, 4 February 2025 (UTC)
Let's see . . . what part of this direct quote from Wikipedia guidelines am I misunderstanding:
“complete information and not to promote one particular point of view over another. . . the neutral point of view does not mean the exclusion of certain points of view; rather, it means including all verifiable points of view… avoid stating opinions as facts” ? ?
I have listed the five negatively biased terms used in the lead paragraph that violate FUNDAMENTAL Wikipedia guidelines. Only a diehard IQ warrior could fail to appreciate these words as negatively skewed judgements. BrantonShearer (talk) 19:29, 4 February 2025 (UTC)
You cannot cherry pick sentences, you must read the policies as a whole, including the specific parts I have linked for you. MrOllie (talk) 19:36, 4 February 2025 (UTC)
most curious . . . words don't mean what words say even on multiple pages . . . LOL . . . BrantonShearer (talk) 14:54, 5 February 2025 (UTC)
Quoting things out of context is not going to convince anyone, particularly since the policies in question directly contradict your interpretation. MrOllie (talk) 15:04, 5 February 2025 (UTC)
. . . thus speaks the IQ warrior . . . BrantonShearer (talk) 15:52, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

I tend to agree that the opening paragraph has become rather one-sided and does not reflect the acknowledged controverisal nature of this theory, which is well described in the rest of this article. Terms such as "pseudoscientific" should not be used in the opening sentence unless there is support that this is a consensus opinion of the scientific community and this consensus is explained in the article. It is one thing to describe controversy in the article, and even in the opening paragraph; it is quite another to appear to take a position in the opening sentence. --seberle (talk) 20:46, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

Hello everyone, @BrantonShearer, @MrOllie, @ElKevbo and @Seberle, I have read this thread and the current definition of MI, I tend to agree with Seberle and Branton. I see some points taken but the text done by Branton here in the 19th October of last year seem well defined. I would suggest we open an RFC to discuss this change to enrich wikipedia, as currently it doesn't seem to be accurate.
I believe that we can all find an understanding at the end of this week. Pedro Manuel da Silva Faria (talk) 23:29, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

Opening paragraph of the Theorie of Multiple Intelligences

The terms used in the opening pragraph, such as 'pseudoscientific' and 'speculative', are presumptuous to say the least. Since 1983, teachers, counselors and coaches (psychologists/psychotherapists) worldwide have shown that the one-sided approach to IQ (math/language) is not sufficient to show children, adolescents and adults in their intelligence. The MI has now developed into an instrument that shows that intelligence is not only limited to mastering numbers and language. The MI as included in the MIDAS questionnaire offers an insight-enriching view of the intelligences of people. The many neuroscientific articles from research by B. Shearer Ph.D. underline the importance of a broader view of intelligence compared to the current one-sidedly formulated view as a single general ability. Frits Schoeren MA (psychotherapist and management consultant) 2A02:A46D:450E:1:4D47:1789:C3F4:DA76 (talk) 14:38, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

See discussion further up the page. Wikipedia gives weight to independent reliable sources on this, and that is the language they use. Can I ask how you found this page? MrOllie (talk) 14:58, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

Introduce new discussion to change/improve the "opening lead" paragraph and the "Conclusion and Ending"

WP:PR Hello Everyone. After some discussions and a proposal of an RfC, we come back to the discussion point and see if we can all get into a final understanding. I hope everyone can contribute, and I really hope we can make something very positive after this discussion. This is the proposal for opening paragraph:

The theory of multiple intelligences proposes a differentiation of human intelligence into specific distinguishable multiple intelligences, rather than defining it as a single general ability. Since 1983, multiple intelligences (MI) theory has been popular among educators around the world. In the influential book Frames of Mind: The Theory of Multiple Intelligences (1983) and its sequels, Howard Gardner identifies at least eight distinct intelligences that humans use to survive, thrive and build civilization. Gardner describes intelligence as being more than academic ability. Intelligence is also displayed in everyday life in activities such as creating products, providing services, and practical problem solving. MI theory describes intelligence as the "brain's toolkit" for creating symbolic thought that is mobilized within one’s specific culture (Gardner, 2024). All people have all the intelligences and each person has their own unique cognitive profile of strengths and limitations. The eight intelligences identified are: (1) linguistic, (2) logical-mathematical (these two are generally associated with I.Q.), (3) visual-spatial, (4) musical, (5) kinesthetic, (6) naturalistic, (7) intrapersonal and (8) interpersonal. While the concept of a unitary or general intelligence (I.Q.) has been controversial since its introduction in the early 1900s (Herrnstein & Murray, 1994), no other multi-intelligence theory has endured to challenge its dominance to the same degree as Gardner’s MI theory (Schaler, 2006). Introduced as a revolutionary psychological construct, MI was enthusiastically received by educators while severely criticized by psychologists because it is not based on the psychometric tradition as used for I.Q.


And for the ending: Validity Considerations and Empirical Evidence The assumption that a unitary model of intelligence (IQ, general intelligence) can adequately describe the intellectual capacities of people around the world in widely disparate cultures has long been criticized (Gould, 1981, 1996; Halpern, 2012; Lynn, 2006). Even Alfred Binet questioned the validity of intelligence tests to accurately provide a full measure of human intelligence (Binet, 1911). A basic problem for psychology is that an adequate definition of human intelligence has never been agreed upon. A review by Legg and Hutter (2007) found more than 70 different definitions. Gardner’s definition of intelligence that includes creative and common-sense reasoning along with logical thinking associated with I.Q. makes psychometric testing and empirical investigations a challenge. Cross cultural evidence supportive of MI theory has been obtained in Jordan (Al-Onizat, 2014), Korea (Kim, 1999), Turkey (Saban, Kayiran, Isik & Shearer, 2012), Iran (Saeidi, Ostvar, Shearer & Jafarabadi, 2015), Denmark (Sahl-madsen & Kyed, (2009), and Taiwan (Wu, 2004).


According to Visser, et al. (2006b) many of Gardner's "intelligences" correlate with the g factor, supporting the idea of a single dominant type of intelligence. This lead to the criticism that the intelligences are a blend of g, of cognitive abilities other than g, and, in some cases, of non-cognitive abilities or of personality characteristics. This criticism is countered by the fact that each intelligence by definition is a composite of both convergent problem solving and divergent thinking. This has been supported by Sternberg’s Triarchic model of intelligence (1985) where each intelligence gets expressed in at least three distinct ways: convergent logic, creative and common sense solutions. A review of 94 neuroscientific studies found neural support for the coherence of several Cognitive Qualities (Creative Cognition, Insight-Intuition, Aesthetic Judgment) as distinct from the convergent problem-solving of IQ (Shearer, 2020a). A similar neural pattern was evidenced among the three Cognitive Qualities that are valued abilities integral to the definition and practical expression of each of the eight intelligences.

The Johnson O'Connor Research Foundation has tested hundreds of thousands of people to determine their "aptitudes" ("intelligences"), such as manual dexterity, musical ability, spatial visualization, and memory for numbers. There is correlation of these aptitudes with the g factor, but not all are strongly correlated; correlation between the g factor and "inductive speed" ("quickness in seeing relationships among separate facts, ideas, or observations") is only 0.5, considered a moderate correlation. Linda Gottfredson (2006) has argued that thousands of studies support the importance of intelligence quotient (IQ) in predicting school and job performance, and numerous other life outcomes. Gardner argues that high level performance in a particular career or vocation requires strengths in two or three pertinent intelligences. Studies by Shearer (2007) and Wu (2004) found common sense relationships among the eight intelligences and careers success in areas such as speech pathologist, pilot, art teacher, musician, naturalist and architect. Psychometric Test Evidence Many critics argue that there is no empirical evidence supporting the existence of the eight intelligences (Visser, Ashton, & Vernon, 2006a; Waterhouse, 2006, 2023; White, 2006). Investigators have used both exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses to determine if these psychometric tests can distinguish the underlying factors as described by MI theory (Almeida, et al, 2010; Castejon, Perez, & Gilar, 2010; Gridley, 2002; Plucker, Callahan, & Tomchin, 1996; Pyryt, 2000). These analyses provided mixed results which is not unexpected given the mismatch between the differing assumptions of psychometric testing and MI theory. Using confirmatory factor analysis where the factors were allowed to correlate Gridley (2002) concluded, “the loadings of the factors (g) were substantial for the various models, [but] there was still room for interpretation of these factors as separate abilities. . . these performance tasks measure something more than general intelligence . . . the tasks are not so separate from general ability as proposed by the original authors, nor so unitary as argued by their critic” (p. 233). Despite mixed results, the data from psychometric testing sheds light on two important questions regarding the relationship between MI and general intelligence. First, the data confirms Gardner’s proposition that g is most strongly associated with a combination of the logical-mathematical and linguistic intelligences (Visser, Ashton, & Vernon, 2006a). Second, each of the intelligences have logical problem-solving as one of its behavioral expressions. It is also evident that the core ability assessed by the typical psychometric tests for general intelligence is logical reasoning and problem solving (p. 490). Neuroscience Evidence In 1983, Gardner was one of the early contemporary theorists to include neural evidence as an essential element in the description of intelligence. Gardner identified several key neural regions known to be crucial for the processing of each intelligence (See Table 1) but the evidence at that time was limited by prevailing technology. Since 1983 there has been an explosion in our understanding of how complex neural systems underpin various cognitive functions (Clark, Boutros, & Mendez, 2010). A multi-phase review of the neuroscience evidence pertaining to each of the multiple intelligences was conducted. Using a rational-empirical methodology, more than 500 studies of brain function (largely fMRI experiments) were matched to the skills and abilities central to each of the eight intelligences.

Table 1. The Neural Correlates of the Multiple Intelligences Originally Identified by Gardner in 1983

Intelligences Neural Regions
Interpersonal Frontal lobes as integrating station, limbic system
Intrapersonal Frontal lobe system
Logical-Mathematical Left parietal lobes & adjacent temporal & occipital association areas, left hemisphere for verbal naming, right hemisphere for spatial organization, frontal system for planning and goal setting
Linguistic Broca’s area in left inferior frontal cortex, Wernicke’s area in the left temporal lobe, lateral sulcus loop inferior parietal lobule
Spatial Right parietal posterior, occipital lobe
Naturalist Left parietal lobe for discriminating living from non-living entities
Musical Right anterior temporal and frontal lobes
Kinesthetic Cerebral motor strip, thalamus, basal ganglia, cerebellum


Summary of Neuroscientific Evidence

This summary is adapted from Shearer, & Karanian, 2017 and Shearer, 2018. The first question investigated the localization of neural cognitive functions for each intelligence. Analyses of over 318 reports indicated that all eight of the proposed intelligences were associated with appropriate neural architectures (Shearer, & Karanian, 2017). These clearly identifiable frameworks were comprised of structures with known cognitive correlates that were well-aligned with the core behavioral components for each of the multiple intelligences. The neural evidence for the multiple intelligences was as robust as the most widely accepted neural models underpinning general intelligence. The neural relationship between MI and general intelligence was as predicted by MI theory where IQ was most closely associated with the logical-mathematical and linguistic intelligence (see Tables 2-6).

The second investigation involved 417 studies examining the neural correlates for specific skill units within seven intelligences (naturalist not included due to a paucity of data) (Shearer, 2019). Neural activation patterns demonstrated that each skill unit has its own unique neural underpinnings as well as neural features that were shared with other skill units within its designated intelligence. These patterns of commonality and uniqueness provided a richly detailed neural architecture in support of MI theory as a detailed, scientific model of human intelligences.

The third investigation examined the neural differences among groups of people of varying ability levels for seven intelligences. This study of over 420 reports found that there were observable and meaningful differences in the neural activation patterns among groups with three levels of ability: skilled, typical, and impaired (Shearer, unpublished). These differential patterns were evidenced in four levels of brain analysis: primary regions, sub-regions, particular structures, and multi-region activations. These data indicated that there were distinctive neural differences for each MI among ability groups.

The fourth investigation addressed the question whether there might be intrinsic, resting-state functionally connected (rsFC) neural networks related to each of the multiple intelligences? This study of 48 rsFC studies found seven to fifteen neural networks that were clearly aligned with each of the multiple intelligences and with general intelligence (Shearer, 2020a). Twelve whole brain, model-free rsFC investigations revealed 13 neural networks that were closely associated with seven of the eight intelligences. These data were supported by 35 region-of-interest, model-dependent studies that also identified 20 sub-networks associated with multiple intelligences and specific skills. These data indicated that the neural regions with cognitive correlates associated with the eight intelligences form coherent units with well aligned sub-units. This evidence suggests that the relationship among neural structures is aligned in patterns that are described by MI theory and not merely random.



Conclusions

Validity of any novel concept that challenges conventional wisdom is not easily established, especially when the conflicting scientific theories employ evidence from different disciplines and paradigms. This is not dissimilar to drawing the political lines on a continent demarking the borders of various countries. Every generation suffers through upheavals and realignments so what made sense 100 years ago appears ridiculous in hindsight. There might not be a “perfect” model of intelligence but rather models that are increasingly useful and able to evolve as human cultures mature and technology becomes more sophisticated. Can I.Q. theory be successfully merged with the multiple intelligences model of human intelligence? Emerging neuroscience evidence suggests that this is possible but problematic. Since 1983 psychologists have not appreciated Gardner’s expanded definition of what cognitive behaviors count as essential parts of human intelligence (e.g., divergent and practical thinking). Also disparaged is the value of including other scholarly domains beyond the dominance of psychometric evidence in the study of intelligence and its measurement. These points of contention fit into Kuhn’s (1970) description of how novel ideas are actively resisted by “normal science” in its early stages of formulation. For a new hypothesis to “spark a paradigm shift”, an extended exploration of how a new theory accounts for anomalies better than an existing model is necessary. While of worldwide interest and value to teachers for understanding students’ potential, multiple intelligences theory has yet to establish a body of evidence so that it can be accepted as fully realized scientific model of human intelligence.


Tables 2 - 6. Top Neural Structures Localized for Each MI and General Intelligence

Table 2. Logical-Mathematical and Linguistic: A review of top neural structures

Neural Regions for Logical-Mathematical and Linguistic Intelligences
c|}{Logical-Mathematical} c|}{Linguistic}
Rank Primary Sub-regions Primary Sub-regions
1 Frontal Cortex Prefrontal Cortex, Inferior Frontal Gyrus Temporal Cortex Superior Temporal Gyrus
2 Parietal Intraparietal Sulcus, Inferior Parietal Lobule, Angular Gyrus Frontal Cortex Broca’s Area, Motor Cortex
3 Temporal Cortex Medial Temporal Lobe Parietal Inferior Parietal Lobule, Supramarginal Gyrus, Angular Gyrus 
 PFC= Prefrontal Cortex

Sample of Neuroscience Studies of Logical-mathematical Intelligence 1.Piazza, M. and Dehaene, S. (2009). From Number Neurons To Mental Arithmetic: The Cognitive Neuroscience Of Number Sense. In Gazzaniga, M., Ivry, R., and Mangun, G. The Cognitive Neurosciences: A Biology of the Mind. WW. Norton Co., NY:NY 2. Pesenti, M. et al (2001). Mental calculation in a prodigy is sustained by right prefrontal and medial temporal areas. Nature Neuroscience 4, 103 – 107. doi:10.1038/82831 3. Barbey, AK & Barsalou,LW. (2009). Reasoning and Problem Solving: Models. Encyclopedia of Neuroscience (2009), vol. 8, pp. 35-43 4. Goela, V. and Dolan, RJ. (2004). Differential involvement of left prefrontal cortex in inductive and deductive reasoning. Cognition 93, B109–B121. 5. Fugelsang, JA, & K.N. Dunbar, KN, (2005). Brain-based mechanisms underlying complex causal thinking. Neuropsychologia 43 (2005) 1204–1213. Sample of Neuroscience Studies of Linguistic Intelligence: 1. Price, C. (2012). A review and synthesis of the first 20 years of PET and fMRI studies of heard speech, spoken language and reading. NeuroImage 62. 816–847. 2. Reinke, K., et al. (2008). Functional specificity of the visual word form area: General activation for words and symbols but specific network activation for words. Brain and Language ,104, 180–189.

3. Sandak , R., Mencl, W.E., Frost, S. & Pugh, K. (2009). The neurobiological basis of skilled and impaired reading: Recent findings and new directions. Scientific Studies of Reading, 8:3, 273-292, DOI: 10.1207/s1532799xssr0803_6

4. Editorial. (2007). Gesture, brain, and language. Brain and Language, 101, 181 – 184.

5. Muller, R. Basho, S. (2003). Are nonlinguistic functions in ‘‘Broca’s area’’ prerequisites for language acquisition? FMRI findings from an ontogenetic viewpoint. Brain and Language 89 (2004) 329–336.


Sample of Neuroscience Studies of Interpersonal Intelligence 1. Adolphs, R. (2009). The social brain: Neural basis of social knowledge. Annu Rev Psychol. 2009 ; 60: 693–716. doi:10.1146/annurev.psych.60.110707.163514.

2. Kanwisher N, McDermott J, Chun MM. The fusiform face area: a module in human extrastriate cortex specialized for face perception. J Neurosci 1997;17:4302–11. [PubMed: 9151747]

3. Adolphs R, Tranel D, Damasio H, Damasio A. (1994). Impaired recognition of emotion in facial expressions following bilateral damage to the human amygdala. Nature;372:669–72. [PubMed: 7990957] 4. Keysers C, Gazzola V. (2007). Integrating simulation and theory of mind: from self to social cognition. Trends Cogn Sci;11:194–96. [PubMed: 17344090]

5. Botvinick MM, Cohen JD, Carter CS. (2004). Conflict monitoring and anterior cingulate cortex: an update. Trends Cogn Sci; 8:539–46. [PubMed: 15556023]

Sample of Neuroscience Studies of Intrapersonal Intelligence 1. Northoff, G.; Heinzel, A.; de Greck, M.; Bermpohl, F.; Dobrowolny, H.; Panksepp, J. (2006), Self-referential processing in our brain—A meta-analysis of imaging studies on the self. NeuroImage. Vol. 31 Issue 1, p440-457. 18p. DOI: 10.1016/

2. Gillihan, S.J., Farah, M.J., 2005. Is self special? A critical review of evidence from experimental psychology and cognitive neuroscience. Psychol. Bull. 131 (1), 76–97.

3. D’Argembeau, A., Collette, F., et al., 2005. Self-referential reflective activity and its relationship with rest: a PETstudy. NeuroImage 25 (2), 616–624.

4. Kelley, W.M., Macrae, C.N., et al., 2002. Finding the self? An event-related fMRI study. J. Cogn. Neurosci. 14 (5), 785– 794.

5. Vogeley, K., Fink, G.R., 2003. Neural correlates of the first-personperspective. Trends Cogn. Sci. 7 (1), 38–42.

6. Kjaer, T.W., Nowak, M., et al., 2002. Reflective self-awareness and conscious states: PET evidence for a common midline parietofrontal core. NeuroImage 17 (2), 1080– 1086.

7. Macrae, C.N., Moran, J.M., et al., 2004. Medial prefrontal activity predicts memory for self. Cereb. Cortex 14 (6), 647–654.

Table 3. Interpersonal and Intrapersonal: A review of top neural structures

Neural Regions for Interpersonal and Intrapersonal Intelligences
c|}{Interpersonal} c|}{Intrapersonal}
Rank Primary Sub-regions Primary Sub-regions
1 Frontal Cortex Prefrontal Cortex Frontal Cortex Prefrontal Cortex
2 Temporal Cortex Medial Temporal Lobe, Amygdala, Superior Temporal Sulcus Cingulate Cortex Anterior Cingulate
3 Cingulate Cortex Anterior Cingulate Temporal Cortex Medial Temporal Lobe, Anterior Temporal Lobe, Amygdala
4 Parietal Cortex Parietal Cortex Medial Parietal Cortex, Inferior Parietal Cortex
5 Subcortical Basal Ganglia, Brainstem


Table 4. Spatial and Naturalist: A review of top neural structures

Neural Regions for Spatial and Naturalist Intelligences
Rank Spatial Naturalist
Primary Sub-regions Primary Sub-regions
1 Frontal Cortex Motor Cortex, Prefrontal Cortex Temporal Cortex Superior Temporal Sulcus, Amygdala
2 Parietal Cortex Intraparietal Sulcus, Superior Parietal Lobe Subcortical Structures Brainstem, Thalamus, Basal Ganglia
3 Temporal Cortex Medial Temporal Lobe Frontal Cortex -
4 Occipital Cortex - Occipital Cortex -
5 - - Parietal Cortex -


Sample of Neuroscience Studies of Visual-Spatial Intelligence 1. Kosslyn, S., Ganis, G. & Thompson, W. (2001). Neural foundations of imagery. Nature Reviews Neuroscience 2, 635-642 (September) | doi:10.1038/35090055.

2. Kwon, H., Reiss, A., & Menon, V. (2002). Neural basis of protracted developmental changes in visuo-spatial working memory_ PNAS _ October. vol. 99 _ no. 20, . 13336–13341.

3. Petrosini, L., Leggio,M., Molinari, M. The cerebellum in the spatial problem-solving: a co-star or a guest star? Progress in Neurobiology Vol. 56, pp. 191 to 210, 1998.b 4. Atherton, M. et al (2003). A functional MRI study of high-level cognition. The game of chess. Cognitive Brain research 16 26 – 31.

5. Aziz-Zadeh, L., Liews, & Dandekar, F. (2013). Exploring the neural correlates of visual creativity SCAN 8, 475^ 480

Sample of Neuroscience Studies of Naturalist Intelligence 1. Rosch, E. et al. 1976. Basic objects in natural categories. Cognitive Psychology. 8, 382 – 439.

2. Henley, N. 1969. A psychological study of the semantics of animal terms. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 8, 176 – 184.

3. Farah, M. et al. 1991. Can recognition of living things be selectively impaired? Neuropsychologia, vol. 29, no. 2, 185 – 193.

4. Grezes, J. et al. 2001. Does perception of biological motion rely on specific brain regions? NeuroImage, 13, 775 – 785. 5. Johnson, M. 2006. Biological motion: A perceptual life detector? Current Biology. 16, No. 10.

Table 5. Musical and Kinesthetic: A review of top neural structures

Neural Regions for Musical and Kinesthetic Intelligences
Rank Musical Kinesthetic
Primary Sub-regions Primary Sub-regions
1 Frontal Motor Cortex Frontal Cortex Motor Cortex, Primary Motor, Premotor, Supplementary Motor
2 Temporal Cortex Superior Temporal Sulcus, Primary Auditory Cortex Parietal Cortex Posterior Parietal Cortex
3 Subcortical Structures Basal Ganglia Subcortical Basal Ganglia, Thalamus
4 - - Cerebellum -

Sample of Neuroscience Studies of Kinesthetic Intelligence 1. Berlucchi G, Aglioti S (1997) The body in the brain: neural bases of corporeal awareness. Trends Neurosci 20:560--564. 2. Parsons LM, Sergent J, Hodges DA, Fox PT (2005) Brain basis of piano performance. Neuropsychologia 43:199--215.

3. Melzack R. 1990. Phantom limbs and the concept of a neuromatrix. Trends Neurosci; 13: 88–92.

4. Bonda, E. et al. (1995) Neural correlates of mental transformations of the body-in-space Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 92, 11180–11184

5. Shadmehr,R. & Krakauer,J.W. A computational neuroanatomy for motor control. Exp. Brain Res. 185, 359-381 (2008).

Sample of Neuroscience Studies of Musical Intelligence 1. Zatorre, Robert J.; Chen, Joyce L.; Penhune, Virginia B. When the brain plays music. Nature Reviews Neuroscience. Jul2007, Vol. 8 Issue 7, p547-558. 12p. DOI: 10.1038/nrn2152. 2. Patterson, R. D., Uppenkamp, S., Johnsrude, I. S. & Griffiths, T. D. (2002). The processing of temporal pitch and melody information in auditory cortex. Neuron 36, 767–776 3. Zatorre, R. J., Belin, P. & Penhune, V. B. (2002). Structure and function of auditory cortex: music and speech. Trends Cogn. Sci. 6, 37–46 (54) 4. Janata, P. & Grafton, S. T. (2003). Swinging in the brain: shared neural substrates for behaviors related to sequencing and music. Nature Neurosci. 6, 682–687 5. Peretz, I. (1990). Processing of local & global musical information by unilateral brain-damaged patients. Brain 113, 1185–1205


Table 6. Neural Highlights for General Intelligence

General Intelligence Neural Highlights
Primary % Sub-regions % Frontal Structures Ct.
Frontal 33 Inferior Parietal Lobule 10 Prefrontal Cortex 12
Parietal 33 Prefrontal Cortex 9 Inferior Frontal Gyrus 6
Temporal 15 Anterior Cingulate 6 Posterior Inferior Frontal Gyrus 4
Cingulate 12 Inferior Frontal Gyrus 5 Broca’s Area 4
Supramarginal Gyrus (Angular Gyrus) 4
Total 100 Total 132 Total 47

References

Almeida, L.S., Prieto, M.D., Ferreira, A.I., Bermejo, M.R., Ferrando, M., & Ferrándiz, C. (2010). Intelligence assessment: Gardner multiple intelligence theory as an alternative. Learning and Individual Differences, 20, 225-230. Al-Onizat, S.H. (2014). The psychometric properties of an Arabic version of the Multiple Intelligences Developmental Assessment Scales for Adolescents (TEEN-MIDAS). Creative Education, 5(8) 590 – 605. DOI:10.4236/ce.2014.58070 Binet, A. (1911). Les idees modernes sur les enfants. Paris: Flammarion. Castejón, J. L., Perez, A. M., & Gilar, R. (2010). Confirmatory factor analysis of Project Spectrum activities. A second-order g factor or multiple intelligences? Intelligence, 38(5), 481–496.

Clark, D., Boutros, N., & Mendez, M. (2010). The brain and behavior: An introduction to behavioral neuroanatomy. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Gould, S. J. (1996). The mismeasure of man. WW Norton Co.

Gridley, B. E. (2002). In search of an elegant solution: reanalysis of Plucker, Callahan, & Tomchin, with respect to Pyryt and Plucker. Gifted Child Quarterly, (3), 1−11. Halpern, D. F. (2012). Sex differences in cognitive abilities: 4th edition. New York: Psychology Press. DOI https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203816530 Haier, R. (29 May 2014). "Gray Matter and Intelligence Factors: Is There a Neuro-g?". p. 4. Retrieved 7 May 2019. Johnson O'Connor Research Foundation. "About Us" Retrieved 7 May 2019. Johnson O'Connor Research Foundation. "Aptitude Testing and Research since 1922". Retrieved 7 May 2019. (1999). A validation study of multiple intelligences measurement. (doctoral dissertation, Graduate School of Seoul National University). Legg, S. & Hutter, M. (2007). "Universal intelligence: A definition of machine intelligence". Minds and Machines. 17 (4): 391–444. arXiv:0712.3329. Bibcode:2007arXiv0712.3329L. doi:10.1007/s11023-007-9079-x. S2CID 847021. Lynn, R. (2006). Race differences in intelligence: an evolutionary analysis. Washington Summit Publishers. Plucker, J.A., Callahan, C.M., & Tomchin, E.M. (1996). Wherefore art thou, multiple intelligences? Alternative assessment for identifying talent in ethnically diverse and low income students. Gifted Child Quarterly, 40, 81-92. Pyryt, M.C. (2000). Finding g: Easy viewing through higher order factor analysis. Gifted Child Quarterly, 44,190-192. Saban, A. İ., Kayıran, B. K., Işık, D., & Shearer, B. (2012). The validity and reliability study of Turkish version of the multiple intelligences developmental assessment scales. Journal of Human Sciences, 9(2), 651-666.

Saeidi, M., Ostvar, S., Shearer, B., & Asghari Jafarabadi, M. (2015). Content validity and reliability of multiple intelligences developmental assessment scales (MIDAS): Translated into Persian. The Journal of Applied Linguistics Vol.5, No. 11 Archive of Scientific Information Database, Tehran, Iran. Sahl-Madsen, C., & Kyed, P. (2009). The explorama. In J.-Q. Chen, S Moran, & H. Gardner (Eds.), Multiple intelligences around the world (pp. 169–183). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Sternberg, R. J. (1985). Beyond IQ: A triarchic theory of human intelligence. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Shearer, C. B. (2007). The MIDAS: A professional manual. (Rev. Ed.). Kent, OH: MI Research and Consulting.

Shearer, C. B. (2017) unpublished manuscript) Cognitive Neuroscience of Multiple Intelligences: Describing the Neurocognitive Differences Among Ability Groups.

Shearer, C. B. (2018). Multiple intelligences in teaching and education: Lessons learned from neuroscience. Journal of Intelligence, 6 (3), 38. https://doi.org/10.3390/jintelligence6030038

Shearer, C. B. (2019). A detailed neuroscientific framework for the multiple intelligences: Describing the neural components for specific skill units within each intelligence. International Journal of Psychological Studies, 11 (3). doi:10.5539/ijps.v11n3p1

Shearer, C. B. (2020a). A resting state functional connectivity analysis of human intelligence: Broad theoretical and practical implications for multiple intelligences theory. Psychology & Neuroscience. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1037/pne0000200

Shearer, C. B. (2020b) Multiple intelligences in gifted and talented education: Lessons learned from neuroscience after 35 years, Roeper Review, 42(1), 49-63, DOI: 10.1080/02783193.2019.1690079

Shearer, C. B., & Karanian, J. M. (2017). The neuroscience of intelligence: Empirical support for the theory of multiple intelligences? Trends in Neuroscience and Education 6, 211–223. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2211949317300030 Visser, B. A., Ashton, M. C., & Vernon, P. A. (2006a). Beyond g: Putting multiple intelligences theory to the test. Intelligence, 45(5), 487–502. Visser, B. A.; Ashton, M.C.; Vernon, Philip P. A. (2006b). "g and the measurement of Multiple Intelligences: A response to Gardner" (PDF). Intelligence. 34 (5): 507–510. doi:10.1016/j.intell.2006.04.006 Waterhouse, L. (2006). Inadequate evidence for multiple intelligences, Mozart effect, and emotional intelligence theories. Educational Psychologist, (41)4, 247–255. Waterhouse L (2023) Why multiple intelligences theory is a neuromyth. Frontiers in Psychology 14:1217288. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1217288 White, J. (2006). Multiple invalidities. In J. Schaler (Ed.), Gardner under fire (pp. 45–71). Chicago: Open Court. Wu, W. (2004). Multiple intelligences, educational reform, and successful career. Teachers College Record, 106(1), 181-192. Pedro Manuel da Silva Faria (talk) 00:37, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

Hi there, I found this conversation based on a noticeboard posting. I have a question: this very extensive post is effectively in an argumentative essay style. This is not entirely a proper way of handling material on Wikipedia as we summarize other sources rather than synthesizing sources into novel formations. However there are quite a few citations here. Can you please pick apart what these specific citations have to say about Theory of multiple intelligences independent of each other? Because, for Wikipedia, the structure of argumentation you presented makes it very difficult for an uninvolved editor such as myself to assess the relevance of any given source for inclusion of any given statement. Simonm223 (talk) 15:56, 25 February 2025 (UTC)
This article on MI provides a clear picture of multiple intelligences, so that interested readers can better understand the backgrounds, possibilities and applications from the scientific study of human intelligence. 2A02:A46D:450E:1:BDD6:2ACF:85A5:F0D7 (talk) 16:39, 25 February 2025 (UTC)

Should we avoid terms to "Theory of multiple intelligences" that can lead to some frivolity such as 'pseudoscientific' and ‘speculative’? Should we try to find a better way to define MI in Wikipedia?

Let's open a Request for Comment and open a discussion around the page of Theory of Multiple Intelligences, which contains a lead paragraph that includes several terms and conclusions that seems deceiving, such as "pseudoscientific" and "subjective judgement” and “overall unscientific and speculative nature", rather than factual descriptions. The remainder of the articles does not support these kind of evaluations, but still does have an overall negative bias. These evaluations are drawn from critics with lack of sustained references on the theory itself neither shows other empirical research evidence. It is our understanding that Wikipedia policy and guidelines require a Neutral Point of View: Quote: 2. Neutral Point of View (NPOV): Maintain a neutral tone throughout the article. Present information objectively without promoting a particular point of view or bias. Ensure that conflicting viewpoints are represented fairly.

Wish to hear the views of all contributors, with or without a particular point of view on this subject, as long as we can make the Wikipedia page more fair, accurate and up to date information. Pedro Manuel da Silva Faria (talk) 23:32, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

  • Bad RFC. RFC statements are supposed to be brief and neutral. This is neither. - MrOllie (talk) 23:37, 13 February 2025 (UTC)
    When you mention brief, how long do you think it should be? please be precise and not subjective.
    When you say neutral, I get even more confused. I am open case for discussion.
    Please explain how is this a bad RFC for you, please be neutral, specific, substantiated and open minded, but less subjective. Pedro Manuel da Silva Faria (talk) 20:37, 14 February 2025 (UTC)
    It's a bad RFC for everyone, as explained at WP:RFC. RFC statements are brief, as in 'Should the article contain this sentence: <sentence goes here>'. They should never present the RFC proposer's side of the argument. This is very important, as no one will respect a RFC going forward that has been tainted in this way, because the incoming users will be prejudiced before they arrive. Most new users are not able to successfully put together an RFC. I would suggest you read through some completed RFCs, and think about WP:RFCBEFORE, which you appear to have ignored. Do not simply start another RFC, as it will just fail again and any necessary dispute resolution down the road will become more difficult. - MrOllie (talk) 21:03, 14 February 2025 (UTC)
    @MrOllie not very sure how do you see my side, I actually notice that in the thread only one side is being taken. The self argument of "bad" is itself subjective and tendencious which leads a lot to what i read in the talk. I would propose you to help more before you just act like an expert. If you are really an expert, don't send me links, be constructive and open minded, and above all impartial. Everyone will benefit including new users.
    I am going to reshape this to a discussion as our colleague @CaptainEek proposed well , and will see if it will lead somewhere, if the discussion solves the problem, even better! I will be certainly more happy too to see 2 sides solving a problem. Pedro Manuel da Silva Faria (talk) 21:42, 15 February 2025 (UTC)
    There is no way to 'help' this RFC, it was fatally flawed and needed to be halted early, as was correctly done. My most constructive advice is this: read what you wrote again, and if you still believe it was neutral, have a look at WP:CIR and consider that you cannot possibly start a proper RFC until you are able to understand and accept that your first attempt contained major flaws. MrOllie (talk) 21:47, 15 February 2025 (UTC)
    @MrOllie, it seems that you do have some difficulties to help, you might be right in some points, I don't know, but the way you communicate is out of scope. I hope you won't use these kind of arguments into the discussion, because it is not constructive tojust put here links. if you have any specific opinion, say, quote and contra-argument will be well taken for sure. You can be precise and then you can link it specifically, but not just link a whole page. Hope you can understand and thank you for your contribution. Pedro Manuel da Silva Faria (talk) 22:55, 16 February 2025 (UTC)
  • I've removed the RFC header. If you have a specific aspect of the lead you'd like to change, you're welcome to brainstorm ideas, or suggest changes in a "change X to Y because of Z" format. Before creating more rfcs, please read WP:RFCBEFORE. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 00:38, 14 February 2025 (UTC)
    Thank you for your observation, but When you mention more RfCs... I don't see many RfCs here. But the question is, why have you removed it or in what "powers" do you have to do something like that? If you don't like it, don't comment, if you have something to propose, make your proposal, but do not impose your terms without substantiation. Else, we will just exchange links of how to do things on Wikipedia, whichI believe it's not very helpful.
    Please understand this observation well in a constructive way because it wasn't polite to remove the RfC like that, never seen that happen yet with such determination. Pedro Manuel da Silva Faria (talk) 20:42, 14 February 2025 (UTC)
    @Pedro Manuel da Silva Faria I have removed or altered dozens of RfC's over the years for being malformed, not properly discussed before hand, or otherwise ill-considered. I'm not saying you can't have this discussion. I'm saying, and other folks are agreeing with me, that you need to have a better sense of what the problem is. Just saying "this article is problematic" isn't enough. You need to concretely identify the problem, and proposed solution. If you just want to discuss how to improve the article, you don't need an RfC for that. Remember, an RfC creates a burden on the community, sends out messages inviting other users to the page, etc. It isn't an all purpose summoning tool, it must be used in a standard way. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 01:20, 15 February 2025 (UTC)
    Thank you for your kind words @CaptainEek for the explanation.
    It is easier when we try to understand others, better than just send them links like we are just unaware of the platform. I am not question your experience on Wikipedia, I have noticed that the discussion here and some ideas came to a deadlock, which were not leading to any evolution.
    I can reopen this as a discussion but I would mention that previously the discussions were just terminated before it happen on this talk and lead nowhere. From my point of view and experience this is going only to waste time, else I would not open this RfC.
    From my point of view, I would not remove the RfC as you did so early as you did, I would first try to understand before act.
    But I will accept your decision, as long as you can supervise the future discussion or other escalation will go somewhere and not be manipulate for just one side, in a very subjective point of view and some very weak reliable substantiation. Pedro Manuel da Silva Faria (talk) 21:37, 15 February 2025 (UTC)
Would weakly Support… but certainly not if like this though. 2601AC47 (talk·contribs·my rights) Isn't a IP anon 02:04, 14 February 2025 (UTC)
The opening paragraph had a negative tone, which I adjusted to be more neutral in line with the first core content policy.
Debate on whether this is “pseudoscience” or not is better located in the section on criticism, because that enables the opening paragraph to be more neutral and encyclopedic.
I preserved the critical references and moved them into the relevant sentence where they were duplicated. Most of those references are pay-walled and thus difficult to verify Bionhoward1337 (talk) 00:27, 24 February 2025 (UTC)
We're specifically not supposed to do WP:FALSEBALANCE, nor are we supposed to move all criticism into a separate section (WP:CRITS). Whatever 'first core content policy' you are referring to, you have apparently misunderstood it. MrOllie (talk) 00:33, 24 February 2025 (UTC)
“This is an improved text that presents the arguments about MI in a fair and accurate way. 84.47.253.41 (talk) 17:23, 25 February 2025 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Theory_of_multiple_intelligences/Archive_2&oldid=1292536378"