What is the nature of intelligence? Is intelligence an objective thing, or is there some subjectivity to it?
Howard Gardner explores this fascinating topic in his book Frames of Mind, where he presents criteria for identifying various forms of intelligence. He argues that the nature of intelligence is far more complex than traditional IQ tests suggest.
Keep reading to discover how Gardner’s groundbreaking ideas about the nature of intelligence might change your understanding of human capability.
The Nature of Intelligence
What is the nature of intelligence? Gardner presents some criteria for identifying a form of intelligence. He emphasizes that these criteria are not rigid requirements, but rather guidelines for evaluating potential intelligences. He also discusses the abstract and subjective nature of intelligence.
Gardner’s key criteria for intelligence include the following characteristics.
1) A unique core function or set of functions. To qualify as a form of intelligence, it must handle a task or tasks that are completely separate from those handled by other forms of intelligence. For instance, choosing the right words is a core function of linguistic intelligence—no other type of intelligence can help you write a poem or find the right words to describe an experience you’ve had.
2) The ability to be isolated. Since each intelligence is distinct, Gardner says that it should be possible for changes to the brain to affect one form of intelligence without impacting any others. For example, damage to certain areas of the brain can cause dyscalculia (difficulty understanding and processing numbers) without hindering other abilities. Another way to think about this criterion is that each type of intelligence must come from specific, identifiable parts of the brain.
(Shortform note: Gardner’s theory of multiple intelligences is not widely accepted by psychologists or neuroscientists. This is largely because newer evidence doesn’t support the idea that different parts of the brain are responsible for processing and using different types of information. On the contrary, modern imaging technology has shown that various regions of the brain communicate with each other constantly, working together to do activities and solve problems. This discovery seems to refute Gardner’s concept of unique “core functions” rooted in specific areas of the brain, and to support the older theory of a single general intelligence.)
3) Evolutionary and developmental history. Gardner says that all types of intelligence originate from a person’s biology and neurology. This has two significant implications: First, humans as a species have evolved to possess these intelligences, just as we’ve evolved to have thumbs. Second, on an individual level, the intelligences become more developed as a person’s brain develops. Therefore, it should be possible (at least in theory) to trace each intelligence from its evolutionary roots to its fully developed state in an adult human.
For example, leadership is one expression of interpersonal intelligence, and we can see hierarchical behavior (leaders and followers) in animals ranging from wolves to bees. Theoretically, scientists could find the first species to ever display leadership behavior, and follow the evolution of that behavior up until modern humans. Furthermore, child psychologists can chart how leadership skills develop in an individual, starting from how toddlers and young children interact with their peers while doing activities together. Therefore, it should be theoretically possible to create a timeline of interpersonal intelligence from its very beginnings in the distant past to its present expression in modern-day people.
(Shortform note: Using evolution and development as criteria for an intelligence may lead to conflicting results. This is because of the age-old “nature versus nurture” debate, which asks whether our actions are determined by genetics or by our upbringing. In Behave, neurologist Robert Sapolsky says that “nurture” has a much greater impact than “nature.” For instance, identical twins (who, by definition, have the same genetics) could grow up to be very different people. Therefore, expecting an intelligence to develop and present in the same way across all humans because of genetics is unrealistic—people might express an intelligence in different ways, or perform similar behaviors for different reasons, rather than because of an inborn intelligence that they share.)
4) The existence of prodigies or “geniuses.” For every type of intelligence, there will be a small number of people who are exceptionally intelligent in that way, while developing normally in all other ways. For example, someone who’s extremely good with numbers won’t necessarily be extremely good with words, and vice versa.
(Shortform note: In Limitless, educator Jim Kwik also says that there are multiple types of geniuses, but not in quite the same way. While Gardner views a genius as a person who’s exceptionally talented in one particular area, Kwik describes a genius as someone who’s exceptionally good at a particular way of thinking—for example, some people are naturally good at large-scale, long-term planning, while others are extremely detail-oriented. In Kwik’s view, the different types of genius have nothing to do with a person’s ability to learn and apply a certain type of knowledge, but rather with how that person learns and uses information.)
5) The tendency to be encoded in symbols. Gardner says that humans naturally develop symbol systems to record and share information, such as the way we encode linguistic information by developing letters and arranging them into words. It logically follows that most forms of intelligence will have specific sets of symbols associated with them.
(Shortform note: Scientists believe that symbolic thought (the ability to convey information through written symbols or pictures) is unique to humans. For one thing, we’ve found no evidence of other animals sharing their thoughts through writing or drawing. For another, symbolic thought emerged relatively recently among humans—about 40,000 years ago, which is not long at all in the history of the Earth—meaning there hasn’t been much time for this trait to evolve in other species. Note that this doesn’t mean humans are the only intelligent animal, but rather, that intelligence should be measured by different criteria in other species.)
Intelligences Are Abstract and Subjective
Gardner adds that identifying an intelligence is not a purely scientific process. This is because not all of his criteria have clear measurements and benchmarks—for instance, there’s no tool to scientifically measure musical ability, and no way to definitively say whether someone is a musical prodigy.
Because of the abstract nature of intelligences, identifying one always involves some degree of personal judgment. Gardner thus argues that it’s important for researchers to publicize their evidence and reasoning when identifying a form of intelligence. This allows other researchers to review their work and challenge their conclusions as needed.
| How Scientific Progress Is Made Challenging—and in some cases overturning—the work of other scientists is an important part of scientific progress. In The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, science historian Thomas Kuhn explains that many major breakthroughs happen when researchers realize that an existing theory can’t explain the results of their studies and then put forward a more accurate theory to replace it. For example, people once believed that the Earth was the center of the universe, but some astronomers realized that their observations about the movements of stars and planets weren’t compatible with that theory. That inconsistency led to the (more accurate, but still incorrect) theory that the Sun is the center of the universe, and eventually to our current understanding of solar systems. Similarly, researchers continue to study intelligence, updating existing theories based on new evidence. Some studies support Gardner’s multiple intelligences theory while others seem to refute it, prompting further investigation and gradual refinement of how we define and measure intelligence. |
Finally, Gardner cautions against treating intelligences as tangible, measurable entities. He reminds readers that “intelligences” are merely constructs; they’re concepts that help people discuss cognitive processes and abilities, but they don’t describe real, concrete things in nature.
(Shortform note: By saying that intelligences aren’t real, and that identifying them is a subjective process, Gardner may seem as though he’s undermining his own work. However, science and math often make use of such artificial constructs. For example, “infinity” is a concept, not a number: It describes things that can’t be measured or counted. Even so, infinity is mathematically useful, particularly in calculus. Similarly, psychology is always subjective to some extent, simply because thoughts and experiences can’t be precisely observed or measured. However, that doesn’t stop scientists from recognizing psychology as a valid field of study.)
