Some Critiques of Howard Earl Gardner's Theory of Multiple Intelligences

Some Critiques of Howard Earl Gardner's Multiple Intelligences Theory

Book Reviews | Home | Human Intelligences Data Base | Intelligences | Name Index | Subject Index | Writings

Revised on Saturday, 18 July, 2009

Here is a list of some who disagree with Howard Earl Gardner's Theory of Multiple Intelligences.

Bouchard, Thomas, J. Jr.

Brody, Nathan

Carroll, John, B.

Carson, Andrew

Ceci, Steven

Darius, Julian

Eysenck, M. W.

Fodor, Jerry

Gardner, Howard Earl

Guskin, S. L. Peng, C. J., & Simon, M.

Jensen, Arthur Robert

Klein, Perry

Matthews, Donna

McGuinness, Keith

Miller, George

Morgan, Harry

Peterson, K. S.

Richardson, Ken.

Scarr, Sandra

Seebach, Linda

Sempsey, James

Shafer, Barbara

Smerechansky-Metzger, Jean, A.

Sternberg, Robert Jeffrey

Sternberg, R. J. and Frensch, P. A.

Theiler, Janine

Traub, James

Willingham, Daniel T.

Bouchard, Thomas, J. Jr.

July 20, 1984. Review of Frames of Mind: The theory of multiple intelligences. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 54, 506-508.

Brody, Nathan

1992. Intelligence. 2nd ed. New York: Academic Press.
In his evaluation of what he simply terms a taxonomy, Brody argues, at some length, that HEG's "list of intelligences is arbitrary, and that his attempt to restructure the theory of intelligence to omit a general factor is no more successful than the attempts of psychometric theorists to dispense with g" (p. 36). Brody fails to see how Gardner's eight (8) criteria leads to the set of intelligences that he posits. Moreover, Brody has problems with HEG's evidence of the independence of intelligences resulting from HEG's study of 'rare' cases of prodigies and savants, to name just two. And Brody feels that "the independent functioning of intelligences following brain damage may be of little relevance to understand the performance of intact individuals" (p. 29).
Here, the reader sees two (2) well-respected theorists of intelligence (Robert Sternberg and Nathan Brody) finding Gardner's taxonomy to be without empirical foundation, and thus subject to extreme judgment. Gardner (1993) has been the first to admit that his "intelligences are fictions -- at most, useful fictions -- for identifying processes and abilities that (like all of life) are continuous with one another" (p. 70). In defense of Howard Earle, I must point out that the field of developmental cognitive science (DCS) is a new, young, and growing field and that all evidence should thus be taken as tentative rather than definite. In DCS, researchers continue to hypothesize about the existence of 100 distinct areas in the cerebral cortex, still trying to shade them, to ascertain their identities, and to see how they connect with each another.

Carroll, John, B.

1993 Human cognitive abilities: A survey of factor-analytic studies. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Here, Carroll finds it interesting "that the kinds of 'intelligences' described by Gardner show a fairly close correspondence with the broad domains of ability" as suggested by Raymond Cattell and John Horn. For example, Carroll believes that Gardner's linguistic intelligence corresponds closely to the concepts of Cattell and Horn's crystallized intelligence. Carroll also views Gardner's logical-mathematical and visual-spatial intelligence suspiciously similar to the concept of fluid intelligence and visual perception, respectively (p. 641; for a similar critique, see Bouchard 1984, p. 507).

Carson, Andrew

2001 Updated March 16, 2008 Why Has Gardner's Theory of Multiple Intelligences Had So Little Impact on Vocational Psychology?

Carson suggests that "there are a number of reasons for why vocational psychologists have largely ignored Gardner's work in general and his MI theory in particular." To view them, click here.

Ceci, Steven

Steven Ceci, a developmental psychologist at Cornell, praises Gardner as "a wonderful communicator" who has publicized "a much more egalitarian view of intelligence." But he points out that Gardner's approach of constructing criteria and then running candidate intelligences through them, while suggestive, provides no hard evidence -- no test results, for example -- that his colleagues could evaluate. Ceci adds: "The neurological data show that the brain is modular, but that does not address the issue of whether all these things are correlated or not." Track-and-field athletes, he notes, may have special gifts in one particular event, but they will score better than the average person on every event. Psychological tests show the same kind of correlation (p. 20)."

Darius, Julian

Against Gardner September 20, 2008 Originally published online on 18 February 2003 An opinion critiquing HEG's MIT. Here are two (2) quotes from his longer piece.

"But the most damaging element of Gardner’s taxonomies is not his particular choices -- which should not be taken all so seriously, though they often are -- but the labeling of all such elements as “intelligences.” Previous eras and generations did not ignore the awe-inspiring abilities of athletes and musicians and interpersonal schmoozers, but they called such things “abilities” or “aptitudes” instead of “intelligences.”
"Howard Gardner’s popular theory has made him, in his effects if not his intentions, a traitor not only to the academy but some two and a half millennia of learning. Such is the power of a single word, calamitous in its misuse."

To read the rest of what Darius has to say, go to http://www.literaryescorts.com/?act=non-fiction&item=556

Eysenck, M. W.

1994. Intelligence. In M. W. Eysenck, (Ed.), The Blackwell dictionary of cognitive psychology (pp. 192-193). Cambridge, Massachusetts: Blackwell Publishers.
Here, Eysenck severely criticized HEG for confounding talents and abilities with intelligence.

Fodor, Jerry

1983 The modularity of mind: An essay on faculty psychology. Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT / Bradford Press
1985 Précis of the modularity of mind. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, March, 8(1), 1-42.

In these two (2) writings, Fodor claims that Gardner rejects a central processor form of intelligence that cuts across his eight (8) separate modules. In its stead, Fodor defends the now standard consensus of brain localization, the modularity of mind -- a theory holding that the different forms of human intelligence occupy separate areas of the brain.

Gardner, Howard Earl

1994 Multiple intelligences theory. In Robert Jeffrey Sternberg (Ed.), Encyclopedia of human intelligence (Vol. 2, pp. 740-742). New York: Macmillan.

Here, we read HEG being critical of his own MIT. Note especially how he comments that his model does not incorporate specifying underlying executive processes.

Guskin, S. L. Peng, C. J., & Simon, M.

Winter 1992. Do teachers react to "multiple intelligences"? Effects of teachers' stereotypes on judgments and expectancies for students with diverse patterns of giftedness/talent. Gifted Child Quarterly, 36(1), 32-37.

Jensen, Arthur Robert  (2008, January -- February).  [Review of Howard gardner under fire: The rebel psychologist faces his critics, Jeffrey A Schaler (Ed.), (2006), Chicago and La Salle, Illinois: Open Court, ISBN-13:978-08126-9604-2, pp.xxi+ 407, Hbk price $36.95].  Intelligence, 36(1), 96-97.

Arthur Robert Jensen is known for his work in psychometrics and differential psychology, which is concerned with how and why individuals differ behaviourally from one another.  He is a major proponent of the hereditarian position in the nature-versus-nurture debate, his position being that genetics play a significant role in behavioural characteristics, such as intelligence and personality.  His emergence as an important figure in the history of human intelligence theory occurred, in the opinions of many, in February of 1969, with the publication of his controversial 123-paged essay in the Harvard Educational Review journal (33, 1-123).  In How much can we boost I.Q. and scholastic achievement?, Jensen, in so many words, responded with a firm Not Very Much.   Throughout that lengthy article, he presented evidence that racial differences in intelligence test scores may have a genetic origin.
Thus, and as one might expect, Jensen does not have many favorable comments regarding Gardner's above 428-paged 2006 book.  The significant criticism that Jensen (and most other intelligence scholars from a more empirical/psychometric tradition) has for Gardner's work is perhaps best captured in the following quote, lifted directly from his review:

Probably many educationists with little interest in acquiring a clear understanding of scientific psychology and psychometrics have uncritically embraced Gardner's psychology out of desperation.  The persistent frustration of the educational system's dealing realistically with the wide range of scholastic aptitude in the nation's schools creates a fertile ground for seemingly attractive educational nostrums.  Gardner's invention of the term “multiple intelligences” capitalizes on the high valuation the public accords to the word “intelligence.”  The appeal of Gardner's terminology has been parodied as the Marie Antoinette theory of schooling: if the people have no bread, let them eat cake.  If some pupils have inordinate difficulty learning the 3 Rs, let them spend more time exercising those other skills constituting the several distinctive “intelligences”: music, art, dance, athletics, empathic understanding of other persons, or insightful understanding of oneself, and possibly a few other still debatable abilities that might intuitively qualify as “intelligences” in Gardner's system, such as naturalist intelligence and spiritual intelligence. (pp. 96-97, emphases are mine alone and not those of Jensen)

To see Jensen's complete review, go to http://www.iapsych.com/articles/jensen2007.pdf

Klein, Perry

(Autumn, 1997). Multiplying the problems of intelligence by eight: A critique of Gardner's theory. Canadian Journal of Education, 22(4), 377-394.

Here is the abstract of Klein's article. Howard Gardner has theorized that the mind comprises eight intelligences. Multiple intelligence theory has inspired educational innovations across North America, but has received little critical analysis. I contend that Gardner is on the horns of a dilemma. A "weak" version of multiple intelligence theory would be uninteresting, whereas a "strong" version is not adequately supported by the evidence Gardner presents. Pedagogically, multiple intelligence theory has inspired diverse practices, including balanced programming, matching instruction to learning styles, and student specialization. However, the theory shares the limitations of general intelligence theory: it is too broad to be useful for planning curriculum, and as a theory of ability, it presents a static view of student competence. Research on the knowledge and strategies that learners use in specific activities, and on how they construct this knowledge, may prove more relevant to classroom practice.

Gardner, Howard. (1998). A Reply to Perry D. Klein's "Multiplying the problems of intelligence by eight". Canadian Journal of Education, 23(1), 96-102.

Klein, Perry, D. (1998). A response to Howard Gardner: Falsifibality, empirical evidence, and pedagogical usefulness in educational psychology. Canadian Journal of Education, 23(1), 103-112.

Matthews, Donna

(1988, December). Gardner's multiple intelligence theory: An evaluation of relevant research literature and a consideration of its application to gifted education. Roeper Review, 11(2), 100-104. In this article, Matthews comments that while Gardner's MI model is practical and theoretically appealing, this quality alone cannot validate the theory.

McGuinness, Keith

@ http://www.nswagtc.org.au/info/articles/McGuinessMultIntellig.html comments on Howard Gardner's ideas. Here is part of what he said:

" ... Gardner himself had a specific reason for calling the qualities he identified "intelligences". He wrote: "In delineating a narrow definition of intelligence, however, one usually devalues those capacities that are not within that definition's purview: thus, dancers or chess players may be talented but they are not smart.

There are three points I would like to make about this statement. First, Gardner's conclusion is, obviously, incorrect: dancers and chess players can be talented AND smart. Second, in our society, talents seem to be valued (or at least applauded) more readily than intelligence. Third, as most people know, redefining a word to have a meaning at odds with current usage is a common practice in political or social debate: it is, in my experience, rarely done to enlighten, usually to confuse (e g killing civilians becomes "collateral damage")."

Miller, George

George Miller, the esteemed psychologist credited with discovering the mechanisms by which short-term memory operates, wrote in The New York Times Book Review that Gardner's argument boiled down to "hunch and opinion" (see p. 20). And Gardner's subsequent work has done very little to shift the balance of opinion.

Morgan, Harry

(1992). An analysis of Gardner's theory of multiple intelligence. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of The Eastern Educational Research Association. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 360 088).
In this paper, Morgan contended that Gardner's index of intelligences bore striking resemblance to cognitive style constructs and intelligence quotient factors identified by others in unified theories of intelligence. Morgan stated that MI theory merely adapted factors identified as primary abilities in factor analyses of data derived from intelligence tests and re-labeled them as intelligences. Morgan reviewed the literature on cognitive styles. His findings suggested numerous similarities between MI framework and styles of cognition. For example, Morgan interpreted Gardner's logical-mathematical intelligence as being applied to those who are simply sensitive to logical or numerical patterns and thus have the ability to handle long chains of reasoning and whose ideal careers are scientists or mathematicians. That is, Morgan saw Gardner's characteristics as compatible with the cognitive styles identified as field independent and also with numerical ability, one of the factors identified by intelligence factor analysis. To sum, Morgan agreed that single factor constructs of intelligence have certainly been invalidated by current research; however, he failed to see how the label of separate intelligences for aspects of cognition could be warranted.

Peterson, K. S.

(1997). Do new definitions of smart dilute meaning? USA Today, pp. D1-D2

Richardson, Ken.

(1991). Understanding Intelligence. Philadelphia: Open University Press.
Gardner's inattentiveness to the scientific method has also been contested. Here, Richardson feels that the MI 'theory' seems to be "more a pragmatic framework for accentuating the individual strengths that children currently have, and as a rationale for providing programs of activity within the different intellectual domains" (p. 145). And during a review of Multiple Intelligences: The Theory in Action, Fred Smolucha (1993) commented that Gardner has simply coined a new term "subjective" factor analysis as his excuse for lack of statistical data supporting his "theory" (p. 368; and for a similar critique, see Kline, 1991, p. 137).

Scarr, Sandra

(1985). An author's frame of mind [Review of Frames of mind: The theory of multiple intelligences] New Ideas in Psychology, 3(1), 95-100. Here, Scarr severely critiques HEG for confusing talents and abilities with intelligence.

Seebach, Linda

2004.05.21 Scoping out multiple intelligences Scripps Howard News Service

@ http://www.shns.com/shns/g_index2.cfm?action=detail&pk=SEEBACH-05-21-04

Sempsey, James

October 19, 1993. The Pedagogical Implications Of Cognitive Science and Howard Gardner's M. I. Theory (A Critique).
This paper briefly assesses some of the pedagogical implications of Gardner's work. Simply stated for here, Sempsey insists that Gardner’s theory is too broad and can be abused. To cite Sempsey directly: "Since our national culture is supposed to become increasingly multi-cultural, could not any individual pick and chose between various sub-culturally valued competencies and then proclaim their own unique set of abilities as equally legitimate to any other set?,” And “To define intelligence in terms of culturally relative values is to deny the intrinsic value (or even existence) of higher orders of organization. If intelligence can only be subjectively valued, then ultimately intelligence has no true value and perhaps never existed to begin with."

Shafer, Barbara

Shafer cites the following five (5) why parents often have apprehension over the implementation of HEG's MIT in public schools.

Some parents view HEG's MIT as being a further "dumbing down" of academic achievement.

MIT fails to allow parents to know how their child is doing in school.

Multiple Intelligences are often the excuse used for abandoning letter grades and adopting "Performance Based Assessments" that further muddy the waters in academic accountability.

MIT is the reason behind more posters, songs, dances, videos, and dioramas as classwork (often as group work) in lieu of written papers, book reports, and oral presentations.

MIT requires more work on the part of parents.

Smerechansky-Metzger, Jean, A.

(1995, May-June). The quest for multiple intelligences. Gifted Child Today, 18(3), 12-15.
For the MI model to be successful and validated, educators, especially classroom teachers, must "begin to open their minds to the possibilities surrounding the [MI] concept" (Smerechansky-Metzger, 1995, p. 14)

Sternberg, Robert Jeffrey

(1983, Winter). How much Gall is too much gall? [Review of Frames of Mind: The theory of multiple intelligences]. Contemporary Education Review, 2(3), 215-224.

(1988). The triarchic mind: A new theory of human intelligence. New York: Penguin Books.
Here, Sternberg is unclear as to "exactly what each intelligence consists of, because HEG's theory, like other map-based theories, does not specify processes. In other words, it is one thing to identify a linguistic intelligence but quite another to specify the underlying processes. How do we read, learn vocabulary, write prose or poetry, produce oral speech, summarize, and so on? HEG's theory names the so-called intelligences without pinning down just what they are (and aren't)" (p. 42).
Sternberg continues his critique of HEG by calling Gardner's MIT model "a theory of talents, not one of intelligences" (p. 42). Sternberg sees the difference between talent and intelligence as qualitative by stating "[I]ntelligence is general: without it we cannot function independently. Talents, however, are specialized" (p. 42).

(1991). Death, taxes, and bad intelligence tests. Intelligence, 15(3), 257-270.
Here, Sternberg writes that bad intelligence tests seem as inescapable as death and taxes. However, new theories of intelligence are resulting in some promising developments. Sternberg describes thirteen (13) approaches to the measurement of intelligence; he divides then into the following categories: classical psychometric; developmental; culture-sensitive; cognitive; biological; and systems. And, like others, Sternberg criticizes HEG for confounding talents and abilities with intelligence.

Sternberg, R. J. and Frensch, P. A.

(1990). Intelligence and cognition. In M. W. Eysenck (Ed.), International review of cognitive psychology. Chichester: Wiley.

In critiquing HEG's MIT, Sternberg and Frensch write that "it seems strange to describe someone who is tone deaf or physically uncoordinated as unintelligent" (p. 193). But in defense, Gardner believes that if spatial or musical ability must be called a "talent", then language and logic must be called merely a talent as well. I'm going to give HEG the final word here when he comments "I balk at the unwarranted assumption that certain human abilities can be arbitrarily singled out as intelligence while others cannot" (Peterson, 1997, p. D2).

Theiler, Janine

(2006). A Comparative Study: Ericsson's Theory of Expertise and Gardner's Theory of Multiple Intelligences. University of Nebraska at Lincoln.
In a recent explorative investigation, Theiler, of the University of Nebraska at Lincoln, published a comparative study matching Karl Anders Ericsson's Expertise Theory to Gardner's Theory of Multiple Intelligences. Throughout the comparative analysis, the Gardner model is once again somewhat sneered.

Traub, James

1998, October 26. Multiple intelligence disorder, The New Republic, pp. 20-23.
James Traub's article in The New Republic notes that Gardner's system has not been accepted by most academics in intelligence or teaching. In other words, Gardner has failed to persuade his peers. Traub comments that the scientific establishment has never fully accepted HEG's MIT on intellectual quotient (IQ). He writes that this has not stopped educators from using Gardner's teachings to transform American schools. Here are two (2) quotes from that article. To grasp Traub's complete message, the more interested reader is referred to the complete article, as referenced above. As I do not plan to summarize Traub exactly, I here cite him directly:

George Miller, the esteemed psychologist credited with discovering the mechanisms by which short term memory operates, wrote in The New York Times Book Review that Gardner's argument boiled down to "hunch and opinion" (p. 20). And Gardner's subsequent work has done very little to shift the balance of opinion. A recent issue of Psychology, Public Policy, and Law devoted to the study of intelligence contained virtually no reference to Gardner's work. Most people who study intelligence view M.I. theory as rhetoric rather than science, and they're divided on the virtues of the rhetoric.

"In the 15 years since the publication of Gardner's Frames of Mind, multiple intelligences has gone from being a widely disputed theory to a rallying cry for school reformers to a cultural commonplace. And, amazingly, it has done so without ever winning over the scientific establishment."
"Gardner's central claim is that what we normally think of as intelligence is merely a single aspect, or two aspects, of a much wider range of aptitudes; he has counted eight so far. Thus, we have exalted the attribute measured by IQ tests -- the hyperlogical style Gardner half jokingly calls the "Alan Dershowitz" model of intelligence -- and have slighted our creative and interpersonal gifts. Of course, the primary question about this theory is whether or not it's true" (p. 20).

Willingham, Daniel T.

Summer 2004, 4(3). Reframing the Mind by Daniel T. Willingham Howard Gardner and the theory of multiple intelligences

Throughout, Daniel Willingham critiques HEG's MIT

To read his critique, go to http://www.hoover.org/publications/ednext/3261311.html

References
Bouchard, T. J., Jr. (1984, July 20). [Review of Frames of Mind: The theory of multiple intelligences]. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 54, 506-508.
Brody, N. (1992). Intelligence. (2nd ed.). New York: Academic Press.
Carroll, J. B. (1993). Human cognitive abilities: A survey of factor-analytic studies. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Eysenck, M. W (1994). Intelligence. In M. W. Eysenck, (Ed.), The Blackwell dictionary of cognitive psychology. (pp. 192-193). Cambridge, Massachusetts: Blackwell Publishers.
Fodor, J. A. (1983). The modularity of mind: An essay on faculty psychology. Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT / Bradford Press.
Fodor, J. A. (1985, March). Précis of the modularity of mind. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 8(1), 1-42.
Gardner, H. (1993). Frames of mind: The theory of multiple intelligences: Tenth anniversary edition. New York: Basic Books. (Original work published 1983)
Gardner, H. (1994). Multiple intelligences theory. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.), Encyclopedia of human intelligence (Vol. 2, pp. 740-742). New York: Macmillan.
Guskin, S. L., Peng, C. J., & Simon, M. (1992, Winter). Do teachers react to "multiple intelligences"? Effects of teachers' stereotypes on judgments and expectancies for students with diverse patterns of giftedness/talent. Gifted Child Quarterly, 36(1), 32-37.
Jensen, Arthur R. (2008, January -- February). [Review of Howard Gardner under fire: The rebel psychologist faces his critics]. Intelligence, 36(1), 96-97.

Kline, Paul (1991). Intelligence: The psychometric view. New York: Routledge.
Matthews, D. (1988, December). Gardner's multiple intelligence theory: An evaluation of relevant research literature and a consideration of its application to gifted education. Roeper Review, 11(2), 100-104.
Morgan, H. (1992). An analysis of Gardner's theory of multiple intelligence. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of The Eastern Educational Research Association. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 360 088)
Peterson, K. S. (1997). Do new definitions of smart dilute meaning? USA Today, pp. D1-D2
Richardson, K. (1991). Understanding Intelligence. Philadelphia: Open University Press.
Scarr, S. (1985). An author's frame of mind [Review of Frames of mind: The theory of multiple intelligences]. New Ideas in Psychology, 3(1), 95-100.
Smerechansky-Metzger, Jean, A. (1995, May-June). The quest for multiple intelligences. Gifted Child Today, 18(3), 12-15.
Smolucha, F. (1993, October). [Review of Multiple Intelligences: The Theory in Practice]. Choice, 31(2), 368.
Sternberg, R. J. (1983, Winter). How much Gall is too much gall? [Review of Frames of Mind: The theory of multiple intelligences]. Contemporary Education Review, 2(3), 215-224.
Sternberg, R. J. (1988). The triarchic mind: A new theory of human intelligence. New York: Penguin Books.
Sternberg, R. J. (1991). Death, taxes, and bad intelligence tests. Intelligence, 15(3), 257-270.
Theiler, J. (2003). A Comparative Study: Ericsson's Theory of Expertise and Gardner's Theory of Multiple Intelligences. University of Nebraska at Lincoln. Here, Theiler discusses an explorative study whereby Howard Gardner's Theory of Multiple Intelligences was matched with Anders Ericsson's Expertise Theory.
Traub, James (1998, October 26). Multiple intelligence disorder. The New Republic.

Book Reviews | Home | Human Intelligences Data Base | Intelligences | Name Index | Subject Index | Writings

Revised on Saturday, 18 July, 2009

Some Critiques of Howard Earl Gardner's Multiple Intelligences Theory