The danger of reading a good book, a book like Frames of Mind by Howard Gardner, is that it’s quite easy to jump to a conclusion that the author didn’t even make. For example, the way this book has long been popularized is as an “identifier” for intelligence, such that, after reading it, the kind of intelligence within us is going to become very clear.
And then, it’s quite easy to jump to conclusions like, “I have linguistic intelligence, not musical intelligence, and should work toward it,” or the opposite: “I obviously can’t work a people-heavy job because I don’t have social intelligence.”
The first time I read the book, I was no exception. But when I sat down to write the book review, I realized that I had overlooked the whole point, that, this was not the way the theory was designed to be used. Gardner himself warned against this: this book is not about the idea that we are born with a single type of intelligence, and that all we have to do is find it for all our life problems to be magically solved. He says this book is not just a generous way to think about intelligence. Its purpose is to provide an argument against the common idea that “intelligence” is a single form of competence, and that everybody has to climb a single ladder to prove their competence.
On the surface, this might discourage someone who was initially interested in the concept of “multiple intelligences,” because the argument that we, as individuals, have a significant chance to make it is now a bit diluted. But its ideas can start a really useful conversation within ourselves that will eventually lead us to the kind of competence we want to build around ourselves.
This blog post covers how to initiate this discussion with the concept of multiple intelligences and how it can lead to a more useful way of finding and building competence.
Table of Contents
What lessons should we take from the book Frames of Mind?
To tackle this, let’s go back to the theory itself, which Gardner introduced in 1983 with the book Frames of Mind. The basic argument is that the conventional belief that intelligence can be shrunk down to a simple IQ test should be revisited and corrected.
His approach to doing this is by “fragmenting” intelligence into eight core categories. These eight intelligences are: linguistic, logical-mathematical, spatial, musical, bodily-kinesthetic, naturalistic, interpersonal, and intrapersonal.
Now, with these different “flavours” of intelligence introduced, Gardner makes the argument that one can be extremely athletic but perform really badly on a math test. Or one can be a genius-level musician who can compose music like no other, but be very poor in a social setting.
In other words, he points out that intelligence is “unevenly distributed.”
All Gardner does here is “widen” the concept of intelligence, and it provides a framework for noticing forms of competence that a narrow school-and-test system often misses. For example, primary education often rewards one type of intelligence: academic intelligence, especially linguistic and logical-mathematical ability. But with this concept, the shy kid who always does poorly on tests but is incredibly good at composing music gets the morale boost he needs to become a successful musician in the future.
Also, from a biological point of view, seeing intelligence through this multiple-intelligence theory makes sense. We are not all created equal. Our genetic makeup is significantly different from person to person. So, if we measure what we are good at using the same single academic yardstick, it is inevitable that we are leaving behind some extremely intelligent groups of people as not as intelligent as they actually are.
So this theory of multiple intelligence makes sense, and, to some extent, even necessary.
But there is a negative side to this theory of intelligence as well.
It is quite easy to use this theory as a precise diagnostic.
How not to use the theory of multiple intelligences
Gardner points out in an interview that there is no multiple-intelligence test that he endorses because it goes against the whole purpose of the book in the first place. The point is not to shrink the idea of “intelligence” into a single quantity, and that is exactly what would happen in an intelligence test. The biggest problem with these tests is the fact that they only test the “interests” of a person, but interests do not necessarily signal ability or competence. It’s something you can only figure out in the “lab”, by doing it, by putting it into practice.
Preference is not the same as ability.
Enjoying music does not mean you have unusual musical ability; liking people does not mean you are good at people-heavy work; enjoying books does not mean you can tolerate the long boredom of a writing life; being good at math does not automatically mean engineering, finance, or programming will fit your temperament.
There is a clear difference between enjoying something and it being one of your strengths. Because for any inclination to be a strength, it has to stand against reality: repetition, feedback, difficulty, boredom, and usefulness to other people. More often than not, things that we just enjoy would not survive this test. This is where the theory of multiple intelligences can get too comforting, because it lets people jump to the wrong conclusions. And once we have a conclusion that we just wishfully thought out and that is not necessarily grounded in reality, we are reluctant to let it go. We start protecting it at all costs.
“I am a verbal person.”
“I am a visual person.”
“I am a people person.”
These may be true. But we have to figure out what they actually mean in terms of practicality. In what context? At what level? Under what pressure? With what kind of feedback? And most importantly, toward what kind of contribution?
Because these are the questions that will lead to something real and durable, something that gives us satisfaction and does not disappear under the pressure of real life.
Multiple intelligences are not learning styles
Once the theory of multiple intelligences is laid out, the point made in the previous section becomes instantly clear. But there’s another really important and somewhat elusive distinction that is easy to miss. Multiple-intelligence theory is not a learning style.
What does that mean? What is a learning style in the first place?
A learning style is the idea that a person learns best when information is delivered in their preferred style. This style could be visual, auditory, or kinesthetic.In other words, the best way to learn something often depends on the thing being learned.
You cannot learn pronunciation only by reading, or learn piano by just reading instructions in a textbook without using your hands, or learn how to write well without reading sentences and trying to make sentences on your own.
The point is that you cannot just decide first that you are good at something and then build your life around that assumption. The real knowledge of what you’re actually good at only comes by doing and experimenting in the real world.
And then use the theory of multiple intelligences after you have gathered real evidence to name the pattern you are beginning to see.
So, what are the right questions to ask?
So the better questions to ask have something to do with other people, or, better put, your contribution to others:
How have I been useful to other people? What abilities do I specifically have that people always come to seek my help for?
And this can be tested through different types of evidence.
- Ability: What can I do unusually well, or learn unusually fast?
- Attention: What do I keep noticing without forcing myself to it?
- Energy: What kind of work gives me continuous satisfaction rather than draining my energy?
- Tolerance: What difficulty can I stay with longer than most people?
- Environment: Where does this strength become visible and valuable?
This is a more practical framework because it does not stop at self-description.
It moves toward real-world fit.
Use the test as a clue, not a conclusion
So is there a reason to even consider this multiple-intelligence theory in this case?
Of course there is.
The hardest step in figuring out the best fitting career for you is knowing where to begin, to find a starting point to evaluate your actual strengths.
The theory of multiple intelligences, here, can be a really useful starting point because it makes it really easy to take the first step.
If you’re worried that school never really appreciated much of your ability, the theory of multiple intelligences signals that this should not be the only way that your competence is recognized.
In other words, it opens up a wider view of human ability.
This is a much-needed jump start.
The better use of multiple intelligences
Seen this way, multiple intelligences are best understood as a vocabulary to think about intelligence, but not as a verdict.
It gives people permission to look beyond one narrow definition of intelligence, which is its most important use case.
However, it is as important to understand that merely understanding what intelligence is is not enough to build a satisfying career.
Because a useful career is not built from identity alone. It is built where our abilities and our intelligences meet real life. It grows when your strengths are tested, sharpened, and directed toward something other people actually need.
And that is the real point, the point that Howard Gardner himself was trying to show in his book Frames of Mind.
The goal is not to discover which type of intelligence you have.
The goal is to find the form of work where your particular intelligence becomes useful to other people.
References and further reading
- Howard Gardner, Frames of Mind: The Theory of Multiple Intelligences.
- Howard Gardner, “Frequently Asked Questions: Multiple Intelligences and Related Educational Topics”.
- Howard Gardner, “Multiple Intelligences Are Not Learning Styles”, Harvard Graduate School of Education.
- Harold Pashler, Mark McDaniel, Doug Rohrer, and Robert Bjork, “Learning Styles: Concepts and Evidence”, Psychological Science in the Public Interest.
- Lynn Waterhouse, “Why Multiple Intelligences Theory Is a Neuromyth”, Frontiers in Psychology.
- Annelies E. M. van Vianen, “Person–Environment Fit: A Review of Its Basic Tenets”, Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior
