Talk:Theory of multiple intelligences

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)

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)

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)

The importance and application of MI for anyone who guides children and coaches adults.

The terms used in the text, 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:1:58D5:D0E:5B48:D89D (talk) 19:03, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

This hit the Fringe Theory noticeboard recently and a few people who are science-minded and enjoy things like the ins and outs of proper citation (myself included) are on the case (albeit somewhat slowly.) There's a bunch of citation issues here and it looks possible that the case for a pseudoscience designation has been overstated. However some of those citation issues are specific to Gardner - and large sections of the article are in his POV - which should also be avoided. Remember there is no deadline - but this article is currently getting some neutral scrutiny. We'll see where that leads us. Simonm223 (talk) 19:06, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

"Deficits"

I have a big problem with the "deficits" paragraphs of each of the intelligences. The format seems to be:

"Deficits in X are described as Y1, Y2, Y3, etc."

The implication is, for example, that someone with a "deficit in interpersonal intelligence is described as Asperger's Syndrome." Not only is this rarely if ever true, it doesn't even make sense. You're pointing fingers willy-nilly at a number of spectrums and populations. The consequences range from intimidating to insulting to possibly downright dangerous acts (e.g., "She committed suicide because according to Wikipedia from her Asperger's diagnosis it followed that she had a deficit in interpersonal ability"). And where is the diagnostic support for this? DSM-V references, please?

If we can't have some solution soon, then I'd be up for removing these paragraphs entirely. Zelchenko (talk) 13:05, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

A bit too toned down?

I'm comparing the current version against last month. I understand toning down the language, for example dropping the word "pseudoscience" from the first sentence since the cited sources didn't use that word. But, it seems to me that some of the new language, in particular The crux of the debate lies in terminology and interpretation rather than an outright conflict with scientific principles., is not really WP:NPOV, rather it's leaning into Gardner's POV. I'm looking in comparison to this section: G_factor_(psychometrics)#Gardner's_theory_of_multiple_intelligences. It seems to me like there is certainly some truth to the idea that MI is a disagreement about terminology and interpretation, in terms of what counts as intelligence (e.g. does musical talent count). The part that seems to go too far is the idea that that's all there is to the debate (the crux of the debate). When I read the section in G factor, it argues the findings of G factor (that essentially all cognitive tests are positively correlated with each other) do indeed contradict the principles of MI, which would suggest something more like "clusters" or "islands" of correlation (where each "kind" of intelligence correlates with itself more, and other "kinds" of intelligence less). That seems like an empirically testable theory, and it seems like G factor has been proven true, while MI never has. Therefore, it seems to me like the lead has been toned down a bit too far, in making it sound like MI is a matter of opinion / definition, rather than a theory that hasn't been proven. Leijurv (talk) 19:30, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

I definitely agree that that specific sentence is editorializing and should be removed.

While I overall prefer this version of the lead I also agree that it seems too toned down. But to know for sure we'd have to go through the article and check the cites like we did for the lead. Loki (talk) 19:39, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

Removed for now. With regard to the overall rewrite (comparing the versions I linked above), I don't think it should be reverted or anything, I just think there are some turns of phrase that overstate the case for MI. Leijurv (talk) 19:46, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

Some other phrases that I find to have dubious neutrality:

• this framework has significantly influenced educational practices by encouraging the development of diverse teaching strategies that cater to different student strengths This is uncritical, it takes it as a given that MI's influence on educational practices does actually "cater" to different strengths. It creates a possibly unjustified implication that this approach helps students (by catering to their individual strengths).
• A primary point of contention is [...] Same issue as "crux" - it states that the "primary" debate is about terminology, which I think is somewhat true, but perhaps not "primary". I don't feel very strongly about this though, perhaps "primary" is justified.
• Critics argue [...] debates over its scientific validity Seems like WP:FALSEBALANCE between Gardner and his critics, but I'd have to look deeper into the sources to say with confidence.
• empirical research often supports a general intelligence factor Should we drop the word "often"?
• many practitioners find the MI framework valuable This seems a bit of MOS:WEASEL / WP:UNDUE, because it seems to me like the sources don't quite support saying that the MI framework is valuable. I don't think it's wrong to say something along these lines - it's just perhaps misleading when taken in context with the rest of the lead that hedges about the validity of MI.
• the practical applications of MI in education continue to be recognized Same here.
• By acknowledging multiple ways students can excel, educators can tailor their approaches to foster a more engaging and effective learning environment. This sentence seems to directly and uncritically repeat Gardner's perspective. Is this actually supported by WP:RS?

I think this can be fixed up with a handful of words that more appropriately describe the uncertainty about Gardner's POV versus what has been seen empirically. Leijurv (talk) 20:00, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

I've looked into it more and I don't think that the last paragraph of the current lead is supported by the article, and I do not believe its cited source is reliable. The author, David A Sousa, is an author, teacher, and consultant, but I don't believe he is a subject matter expert in psychometrics. To be completely clear, I don't doubt that many educators assume the theory of multiple intelligences. That claim is straightforward and I do believe David A Sousa's book could probably support that, among others. My doubt is on the outcomes, such as the claim that it will foster a more engaging and effective learning environment. I do not believe David A Sousa's book should be considered a reliable source for that specific point, because at that point it's become an empirical claim that MI theory results in more effective learning, and that claim is not supported by the sources. And earlier in the lead, the citation to Thomas Armstrong is similar in vein to David A Sousa. He is similarly a teacher, and poking around google books it seems like he's best known for his book claiming ADHD is a myth (see his website here). Both of these are books written by educators, they're not peer-reviewed research. And on top of all this, the body of the article, under "Use in education" and "Criticism" does not support this. There is research from Gardner himself, but every other source finds no effect. Overall, I am souring on last week's bold lead rewrite, since it is introducing new sources that I don't believe to be reliable, and not really summarizing what the body of the article says. Leijurv (talk) 23:36, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

The issue is that the old lead was also bad, since many of its primary claims were also unsourced or poorly sourced. And in fact the criticism parts of this current version are still not well sourced. If we're going to be discarding sources based on other WP:FRINGE opinions (which to be clear I think is reasonable), the main critical source that's still present in the lead is from Linda Gottfredson, who is mainly known for this open letter defending The Bell Curve, and who receives significant funding from The Pioneer Fund, whose short description is US nonprofit foundation funding scientific racism.

One specific change you made that I disagree with is dropping "often" from "empirical research often supports a general intelligence factor". You yourself linked to the page on g factor, which has a long criticism section and tons of explanation for why some researchers doubt a general intelligence factor exists. Loki (talk) 00:15, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

I didn't (mean to) say anything in support of any of those people, sources, letters, or funds. No problem discarding WP:FRINGE sources. (I believe you're drawing a comparison to how I linked to Armstrong's claim that ADHD is a myth?)

That is a fair point. In my mind, what I was thinking was about G in comparison to MI. When the sentence said that G was "often" supported, in my mind, that created an implication that MI was sometimes supported, because the sentence is comparing G to MI in this manner. That's why I wanted to remove the "often" - not because I think G is unassailably objectively verified to be true or anything like that, but because I didn't like the implication that MI is sometimes favored by empirical research, which doesn't seem to be the case. Probably that whole sentence is WP:SYNTH because the phrasing pits "G has (more) empirical validation" against "but MI is more nuanced".

In my view, last week's lead rewrite was WP:BOLD therefore I think I was justified in editing it as WP:BRD. What do you think of the other parts of my last edit? For instance, might I reinstate the removal of the last paragraph? It seems to me like it's uncritically repeating Gardner's POV. Leijurv (talk) 00:38, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

Yes, that wasn't accusing you of anything (except maybe not being as skeptical of the critical sources as you were of the supporting ones).

I think if we can find reliable sources saying "it's valuable in education" we should say that, and we should make an earnest effort to find those, but if we can't find them we shouldn't say that. Loki (talk) 01:06, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

Right, that's reasonable. But, would you agree with my skepticism of the reliability of sources claiming as such? In my view, I have no problem repeating that MI theory is popular and well-liked etc by educators, based on any old source, I wouldn't be picky. I just have a hangup at claiming that it's effective. In my view, that would require something quite high quality, like a peer reviewed study or similarly strong metastudy or tertiary source (excluding Gardner himself). The article body doesn't make such a claim at all, and it was only added to the lead last week. Therefore, assuming you and I can't find such a source (and I will look for one), I really feel as though the default course of action should be to remove the unsupported claim. Leijurv (talk) 01:20, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

I've looked at some sources, with two questions, the first being from an educational perspective whether the claims in the current lead are supported, and the secondary question being whether MI or G is a better summary/explanation of psychometric correlations (as in my original post). First, I looked at the sources posted by InformationToKnowledge here.

• Shearer (2017) Here. This paper is specifically about neural validity of the eight identified intelligences and it found robust evidence that each intelligence possesses neural coherence that is clear, distinct and aligned with accepted cognitive – neural correlates. This is interesting but I don't think it really pertains to either of my questions. Not surprising at all that things like musical ability can be identified in the brain, but it doesn't make that "intelligence". And the paper really isn't about education, it only mentions it a handful of times as backround, it's not the focus of the paper at all. Here are some quotes Traditional psychologists have criticized MI theory for a number of reasons. One criticism is that MI theory lacks support from large scale studies [4,5] or experimental research [7,8,9]. It has also been proposed that the eight intelligences are simply different manifestations of general intelligence [10,11]. An important practical criticism is that educators should not base instructional and curricular decisions upon a theory whose scientific status is controversial [12, 13, 14, 15, 16]. and Despite this broad appeal to educators, MI remains more of an inspirational educational framework rather than a fully developed scientific theory and Despite the significant influence of MI theory on the field of education, no study has directly and / or comprehensively assessed MI theory using neuroscientific techniques.. And it also doesn't really try to contradict or oppose G factor; here's the conclusion: This investigation uncovered a wealth of neuroscience evidence that describes the neural underpinnings of skills associated with both general intelligence and the eight multiple intelligences. To describe MI and g as mutually incompatible entities seems to be more of a cultural preference rather than a conclusion derived from the neuroscientific evidence. There are important points of confluence that might serve as a basis for a comprehensive theory of educational cognitive neuroscience. Whether MI theory can serve as an effective interface between neuroscience and education remains an open question; but the current study brings up to date the neurological hypothesis put forth by Gardner over thirty years ago and indicates its continuing plausibility. Perhaps the ultimate challenge is to create a Y-shaped bridge that merges IQ with MI. We may then be in a stronger position to hone the “art of teaching” so that all students can develop their unique potentials, both scholarly and other skills.
• Shearer (2020) Here. This article focuses on applying MI theory to gifted education using neuroscience evidence. It's written by the same author as the previous paper and builds on that work. While it does discuss educational applications, it's primarily advancing the author's own interpretation of neuroscience evidence rather than reviewing the educational efficacy of MI theory. The author acknowledges that MI theory is still evolving from framework to a fully realized scientific theory and that Many critics have questioned its scientific basis. The paper attempts to demonstrate neural foundations for what the author calls "Cognitive Qualities" (Creative Cognition, Esthetic Judgement, and Insight/Intuition) that he proposes complement traditional intelligence. The educational recommendations are broad principles rather than evidence-based practices, such as Creating a multiple intelligences-inspired learning culture and Every brain is unique—activate strengths, support limitations! These principles may be reasonable but aren't derived from empirical studies of educational outcomes. The author acknowledges the contentious relationship between MI theory and gifted education: The field of gifted education has had a contentious relationship with the theory of multiple intelligences and notes that critics complain that it took away the privileged position of general intelligence from the identification of gifted individuals and suggest that it promotes merely Edutainment and learning styles-based instruction rather than enhancing the development of real abilities. I suspect the paper represents the author's view rather than consensus: In my view, an interpretation of the neuroscience evidence now builds a coherent bridge between general intelligence (g or IQ) and MI theory. Several key prin- ciples can be extracted from this evidence to forge powerful links between the neuroscience lab and the hectic classroom (Shearer, 2018). The remainder of this article is based on this view, which may not be shared by experts who do not have their feet planted as deeply in the worlds of the MI-inspired classroom and the cognitive neuroscience lab.. This paper doesn't provide evidence that MI theory has been widely adopted in educational contexts or that it has influenced educational practice. Instead, it's arguing for how MI theory might be used, acknowledging that educators have shown great creativity in devising lessons that are inspired by the multiple intelligences but that A goal yet to be realized for MI implementation is the design of personalized instruction. In summary, it doesn't really provide evidence that favors MI for either of my questions.

Also I note that Shearer sources have been recently removed per WP:CITESELF by MrOllie such as in these diffs here and here. As InformationToKnowledge also says, the author promotes this technique, for example the 2020 one says: Disclosure statement: Dr. Shearer is the creator of The MIDAS assessment mentioned in this article..

• "In the Know: Debunking 35 Myths about Human Intelligence" (Warne 2020). This was suggested by InformationToKnowledge. It has a chapter focusing on multiple intelligence, this is the second paragraph of that chapter: Despite the popularity of Gardner’s theory, it is not a viable theory of human cognitive abilities because of two major types of problems. The first problem is empirical, where Gardner’s theory does not find support in the data from psychological research on cognitive abilities. The second is that the theory has fundamental flaws in its logic and construction that prevent it from being a useful scientific theory. I will explore these issues in this chapter. The rest of the chapter is very very negative about MI, I can provide more quotes but wow it's very negative. Gardner habitually cherry picks evidence in his favor and ignores evidence that contradicts his theory Despite Gardner’s beliefs, the reality is that even when researchers attempt to measure the multiple intelligences, the result is a series of correlated variables that produce a general factor (e.g., Castejon, Perez, & Gilar, 2010; Pyryt, 2000). A g factor emerges from these scores, even though that is exactly what should never occur, according to the theory of multiple intelligences. Yet it does anyway. the theory lacks important characteristics of useful scientific theories, especially because of the theory’s (a) vagueness, (b) incoherence, and (c) inability to make new predictions. At the end of the chapter, it does talk about education: Gardner’s theory of multiple intelligences has seen its warmest reception in education (Gardner, 2011, 2016; Hunt, 2011), where many teachers and educators see the theory as validating their folk theories of learning (Klein, 1997). In one survey of educational professionals, a majority endorsed each of Gardner’s intelligences as useful traits for identifying gifted children (Schroth & Helfer, 2009). I agree that Gardner has many positive ideas for school reform, and he argues convincingly that schools should educate all areas of talent, instead of focusing on the “core” areas of math and language arts. However, none of Gardner’s suggestions for school improvement requires his theory in order to be implemented. And if these ideas are successful, they do not prove his theory true (Hunt, 2001; Klein, 1997; Waterhouse, 2006). One can support, for example, stronger musical education programs in schools without referring to the existence of a musical intelligence. The educational establishment’s embrace of the theory of multiple intelligences is not without cost, though. Interventions based on incorrect ideas are more likely to cause harm than programs based on correct theories. For example, Gardner’s (2011) recommendation to identify a child’s strongest intelligence(s) in order to foster and build that intelligence may close off educational and career opportunities from children at an early age (Klein, 1997). Gardner (2011) also states that schools and society should value all intelligences equally. This sounds good, but business, science, and technology are major drivers of economic growth and human progress; giving equal school time and funding to manifestations of neglected intelligences – like dance, self- reflection, music theory, or leadership – may stunt economic growth and slow medical, technological, and scientific breakthroughs.
• The Cambridge Handbook of Intelligence here. This is the last source suggested by InformationToKnowledge. It talks a lot about MI in education. Here's an example from page 672: These issues have been most extensively investigated during the Schools Using MI Theory (SUMIT) study (Kornhaber, Fierros, & Veenema, 2004). As part of SUMIT, researchers conducted qualitative interviews among an intentional sample of forty-one public schools with diverse populations in eighteen US states and one Canadian province that used MI for three or more years. Of these schools, 49 percent associated improved test scores with MI; 54 percent associated improvements in student discipline with MI; 60 percent reported improvement in parent participation associated with MI; 78 percent associated the theory with improvements for students with learning disabilities; and 2 percent reported improvements for that population not associated with MI (Kornhaber, Fierros, & Veenema, 2004). It also says The SUMIT study has been critiqued for not reporting statistical significance, using control groups, offering causal claims, or accounting for changes that might be due to other factors, but on the other hand it defends SUMIT: These critiques evince a limited understanding of qualitative research, which typically does not seek to generate causal explanations via control groups, and the goals of the SUMIT research in particular, which focused on identifying the practices educators used to implement MI and the changes they associated with the imple- mentation of MI. It's overall pretty mixed, here's the conclusion which doesn't really say anything with much certainty: Within psychology, MI has stood as a provocation to normative psychometric con- ceptions of intelligence. The theory’s foundations are empirical, though not restricted to psychometric evidence. Gardner himself has largely moved on from the theory to other research (e.g., Gardner, 2011b, 2018; Gardner & Davis, 2013). Others have tested the theory’s claims by using psychometric methods and have come to disparate conclusions regarding the relative autonomy of the intelligences (Almeida et al., 2009; Castejón, Perez, & Gilar, 2010; Visser, Ashton, & Vernon, 2006; Plucker, Callahan, & Tomchin, 1996; Waterhouse, 2006a; Willingham, 2004). New research involving neuroscience has begun to test such claims. Research involving genetics could also be brought to bear. Through such research, MI may be refuted. Or it may allow the theory to come to rest as both a constructive and a principle theory of intelligence.

Okay, that's the end of InformationToKnowledge's sources. My perspective is that they do not support the part of the current lead that I dispute (that MI theory is effective at improving educational outcomes).

Now I'll look at the four sources that were initially cited, and evaluated by Loki here.

• Waterhouse (2006). Available here. The summary at the top: This article reviews evidence for multiple intelligences theory, the Mozart effect theory, and emotional intelligence theory and argues that despite their wide currency in education these theories lack adequate empirical support and should not be the basis for educational practice. This source is clearly also negative about MI but I won't paste more of it because it's immediately accessible on the internet archive.
• New York Review. Here. This is a book review and I didn't try that hard to find a copy.
• Geake (2008). Here. Negative on MI, calls it a myth. We do not learn by one sense alone, hence VAK learning styles do not reflect how our brains actually learn, nor the individual differences we observe in classrooms. Neuroimaging studies do not support multiple intelligences; in fact, the opposite is true. Through the activity of its frontal cortices, among other areas, the human brain seems to operate with general intelligence, applied to multiple areas of endeavour. Studies of educational effectiveness of applying any of these ideas in the classroom have failed to find any educational benefits.

The next original source was Frontiers in Psychology, and it also said neuromyth but that journal doesn't appear to be reliable.

I also did a quick search myself. I found some general ideas on how MI could be used in education, here's one example of that. One that I'll highlight is this meta-study, here's an interesting figure from it, the most damning part is probably columns 11, 12, and 17 (no control, insufficient description of what the intervention actually was, no data). It doesn't quite conclude that MI doesn't work, rather that the studies so far have significant issues. It was published in Intelligence, whose summary on Wiki is strange, calling it respected, except those times when it talked about race? I also found this article, it's written by Shearer again and it's essentially more of the same (no actual evidence of effectiveness in education). This article is mostly conceptual and suggestive, it relies on Shearer (2020).

In summary, I do not find support for the idea that MI theory creates a more effective learning environment. I am not too surprised by this, given that the lead was rewritten from a long-standing description as "pseudoscience" to "effective" - that's a complete 180° swing in perspective. I'll now reinstate my edit where I remove the paragraph describing it as effective. I'm not sure what a good overall description could be - perhaps "false theory" like here, given this new information that the InformationToKnowledge sources aren't actually that supportive? Leijurv (talk) 04:58, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

Like I said there, the Shearer sources especially make me think it should actually be something more like "controversial theory" or "disputed theory" or something like that. It doesn't seem clear that it's false because there is some mainstream supporting evidence. I don't have a problem with saying there's no evidence it actually helps educational outcomes, though, because it doesn't seem to. Loki (talk) 06:08, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

I'm not sure about the Shearer sources. We agree it doesn't support MI outcome in education, but I don't really think it supports much of anything in this article. Yes, Shearer (2017) has a bunch of pages of interesting brain scans, but what does that mean for this article? It could be added to the article as an interesting fact, but I really don't see what it could be cited to support. The relevant summary in the abstract is This investigation reviewed 318 neuroscience reports to conclude that there is robust evidence that each intelligence possesses neural coherence. Leijurv (talk) 06:29, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

The big dispute in this article is whether multiple intelligences is scientifically supported. Shearer, at least, sure thinks his brain scans support MI.

That's a separate issue from whether it's actually effective in education, for which the answer seems to be somewhere between "no" and "it's unclear". Loki (talk) 17:04, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

Hmm, I feel as though my question still stands: which claim in this article (lead or body) could we cite Shearer (2017) to support? Something like the eight multiple intelligences have been identified to activate different areas of the brain - absolutely, that would be well supported. My perspective is that that does not constitute evidence that MI is "true".

Evidence that the eight intelligences are 1. "intelligences" and 2. uncorrelated (or nearly uncorrelated) would be the closest / purest claim to MI being "true" (and G being "false"), in my view, and I don't see any evidence for that. As you say, effectiveness as an educational intervention is its own thing - it's WP:DUE to discuss in this article because of how MI is popular as "pop psychology" especially among teachers, but it doesn't constitute evidence that MI is true. I also claim that activating different identifiable areas of the brain is similarly its own thing. For example: I don't doubt that "linguistic-verbal" tasks activate different areas of the brain from "visual-spatial" tasks. The claim of "G" versus "MI" is something else - it's about whether aptitude at these tasks is more of correlated between persons in one big blob (G) or more of uncorrelated, producing identifiable clusters or areas of distinct "intelligences" (MI). Leijurv (talk) 18:55, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

1 sounds like a semantic argument to me.

2 is closer but IMO proponents of g saying "correlations between skills = g = one intelligence only" kinda misses the point; g can be not "real" in the sense of an actual thing that exists in the brain and the positive manifold can still exist as a statistical artifact.

Which is to say I kinda think that neurological studies like what Shearer is doing are the best scientific way to get at whether g is real, because other ways tend to break down into semantics like what intelligence means or whether g is a modeling convenience vs a real thing in the brain. Which is kind of what the removed parts were saying, so I'm sort of wondering about whether we should add some part of them back. Loki (talk) 19:50, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

I agree that there does exist a terminology argument here, I said so in my original post. I think the current wording is reasonable and I didn't touch it: A primary point of contention is Gardner's use of the term "intelligences" to describe these modalities. Critics argue that labeling these abilities as separate intelligences expands the definition of intelligence beyond its traditional scope. I only removed the POV claim that this was the "crux" of the debate. Nevertheless, it is part of the debate. I would agree with this criticism (pasted from g factor): For example, Gardner contends that a successful career in professional sports or popular music reflects bodily-kinesthetic intelligence and musical intelligence, respectively, even though one might usually talk of athletic and musical skills, talents, or abilities instead. Seems clear enough to me. Those things are only barely/tangentially "intelligence", so if they don't correlate that much, it doesn't make me think G is false, rather it makes me think MI is a list of aptitudes where not all of them are intelligence. For example if he included how well you can paint, I'm sure there is some nonzero amount of intelligence involved, but most people would call that "having an artistic eye" or something, rather than being "smart", and it wouldn't disprove G in any way if "artistic eye" was not particularly correlated with other subjects.

Could you say more? I'm not really familiar with this nuance of G to be honest. I have a very lay understanding, I thought the basic construct was that just about every kind of cognitive test you could imagine (even grades in school) has a positive correlation, so one can make a statistical construct ("G") that takes the most reliable of these and outputs an overall score, and this single variable captures a large portion of the variance of all these original tests. Why would it matter if these tests activate different areas of the brain? That wouldn't disprove the correlation, right? What would be evidence against G would be if, for example, you found some cognitive tests that the G theory would claim ought to be correlated, say two vocab tests V1 V2 and two math tests M1 M2, if you found V1<->V2 and M1<->M2 correlated MUCH stronger that V1<->M1 and V2<->M2, that would be evidence against G / evidence in favor of MI.

Anyway, sorry that last paragraph was verging on WP:NOTFORUM. Back to the article. I don't agree with kind of what the removed parts were saying, because what I removed didn't relate to semantics, nor brain modeling. I did remove the "crux" claim but kept the "primary" claim for terminology, mostly I just toned down the educational effectiveness claims.

So, for brain modeling, would you want to add it to the article? I don't think I'd be opposed. At the very end of the article, it goes into cognitive neuroscience research does not support the theory of multiple intelligences, after that quote we could have something like However, more recent research from Shearer in 2017 was able to identify both structures that activate in common, as well as apart, across Gardner's 8 intelligences.<ref>Shearer 2017</ref>? Leijurv (talk) 22:13, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

[...] Why would it matter if these tests activate different areas of the brain? That wouldn't disprove the correlation, right?

Yes, and that's what I meant above by "g as a modelling convenience". You can say that "g" is just an observation of positive correlation between tests and has no physical meaning, and by this definition obviously g exists.

However, most proponents of g will call it stuff like "general intelligence" and believe it is some sort of cognitive ability underlying all other mental skills, which is a more specific theory and which you can't prove from just the correlations. Like you can see on the page for g factor there's lots of explanations for the positive correlations that do not require this sort of general intelligence.

So, for brain modeling, would you want to add it to the article? I don't think I'd be opposed. At the very end of the article, it goes into cognitive neuroscience research does not support the theory of multiple intelligences, after that quote we could have something like However, more recent research from Shearer in 2017 was able to identify both structures that activate in common, as well as apart, across Gardner's 8 intelligences.?

That sounds good. Loki (talk) 03:43, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

Interesting! It's wild that there's no real explanation or agreement on why this positive manifold exists, yet at the same time, there are results like Research indicates that tests of g are the best single predictors of job performance (!!!)

For the purposes of this article, maybe we should try to draw a distinction between the general idea of subgroups / strata of correlation, versus Gardner's specific choices of intelligences? Because the former seems to be accepted (e.g. Today, the Cattell–Horn–Carroll theory is widely accepted as the most comprehensive and empirically supported theory of cognitive abilities, informing a substantial body of research and the ongoing development of IQ (Intelligence Quotient) tests (McGrew, 2005)), while the latter isn't?

Added the Shearer reference here. Leijurv (talk) 04:34, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

Hi All-  First, I want to say that I appreciate this careful and thoughtful discussion of MI and its relationship to IQ. There is much to say . . . let me pick just a few things to clarify. It seems that everyone has their own favorite definition and theory of intelligence that criticizes MI and that the conversation wanders away from MI itself. Too often critics only have a superficial understanding of MI.

1.    MI definition of intelligence

The criticism that MI extends intelligence beyond “tradition” is tautological reasoning. Of course, MI is an innovative reimagining of what constitutes intelligent behavior in the world and not merely on decontextualized tests conducted in small quiet rooms on standard problem solving tasks. Gardner contends that such tests reveal some things about intelligence but not EVERYTHING in the real world. Second, I believe that the real crux of the debate is that IQists do not accept the definition of intelligence (if indeed they know it) as employed in MI that includes divergent and practical thinking as well as logical-problem solving. If you deny this 3-part definition then MI theory makes no sense and you will fail to see the higher level thinking (ala Bloom) in the 8 intelligences. It is like failing to appreciate contemporary art (a child could do these scribbles) through a 19^th century sensibility expecting realism as the only legitimate form of ‘art’. Also, remember that the French traditionalists HATED impressionist art, at first.  Similarly, IQists fail to appreciate the full picture for how MI “reframes” / redefines what it means to function intelligently. This applies also to how followers of behaviorism had to give way to cognitive psychology, etc. etc. MI is part of an evolution of our understanding of human behavior.

2.    IQ integrated with MI

So… MI has never denied that IQ exists. Research evidence indicates that (as the theory predicts) IQ is most strongly correlated with a combination of the Logical-mathematical and Linguistic intelligences. Second, there is a logical problem-solving behavioral component to the expression of all 8 intelligences so.. this explains why some tests are moderately correlated.  BUT, and this is important, logical tests fail to capture the creative expressions of each intelligence in the real world – improvisational jazz, hip-hop, poetic expression, visual art, etc. This is why “tests” for MI need to be more “real world demonstrations” of the various skills for each intelligence.

3.    Neuroscience evidence supporting MI combine with Bloom’s taxonomy

Extensive neuroscience evidence reveals how each of the 8 intelligences are supported by coherent neural networks as well as the logical relationships among the various intelligences in ways that MI theory predicts (Intra & Inter; Music and Language; Spatial & Naturalist, etc.). Second, Bloom’s hierarchy of cognition can be used as a model for each intelligence to account for higher level thinking ‘Synthesis” and Analysis arising from the lower levels of Knowledge. Most critics fail to take this model into account.

4.    Cross-cultural Factor analysis supporting construct validity and criterion validity

I have conducted both exploratory and confirmatory analyses of MI using 20,000 cases from multiple cultures in various languages. These results have then been compared to numerous matched ability groups and psychometric tests to differentiate each theorized construct and its relationship to demonstrated ability groups. This has also been done with the neuroscience mixed ability groups for each intelligence. These data indicate that MI is more than ‘interests’ or personality but instead describe skills and abilities.

I tried to explain many of these studies in my original – rather lengthy – MI Wikipedia page and then cut it down but now understand that it was too much as “argument” for MI rather than a “descriptive summary”. I guess I was reacting to the existing very strong argument in the MI page that argues with much negativity that MI is not a legitimate psychological theory.  This is the crux of what's wrong with much of the current MI page. It end with negative evaluations, not merely a 'summary' of existing evidence. I appreciate your valued contributions to this discussion and have renewed confidence that we can produce a fair and accurate page that describes MI as a well researched psychological theory. Branton Shearer BrantonShearer (talk) 14:16, 8 March 2025 (UTC)