The theory of multiple intelligences is one of the most popular myths and the most resilient to refutation. Although it figures prominently in the list of “pedagogical legends” compiled by the philosopher Normand Baillargeon, just as in the series of “neuromyths” counted by the La Main à la pâte foundation, it continues to be invoked and come back, particularly in the world of education.
This theory was invented by psychology professor Howard Gardner in 1983, then developed in several successive books. It postulated that there were seven distinct forms of intelligence: logical-mathematical, linguistic, musical, spatial, bodily-kinesthetic, interpersonal and intrapersonal. By further postulating that these intelligences were “largely independent” of each other, it aimed to oppose the dominant theory of “general intelligence”, defined as the part common to all cognitive abilities. It also aimed to denounce intelligence tests as being too restrictive.
An abuse of language
It is true that usual intelligence tests do not probe all human abilities, neglecting, for example, to measure social or artistic skills. Unfortunately, Gardner never filled this gap by proposing tests to measure these different intelligences. Not only did he not improve the measurement of intelligence, he did not even provide a way to empirically test his theory. Other researchers did this, and found that performance in the different areas distinguished by Gardner were all correlated, in accordance with the theory of general intelligence.
It is of course indisputable that human beings have multiple cognitive functions, and can deploy their talents in many areas. Calling each ability “an intelligence” does nothing except confuse the notion of intelligence. We can also ask ourselves why stop at seven, and not call the dozens of known cognitive functions “intelligences”? In fact, Gardner himself went as far as ten, and others have proposed many more, without ever having a clear principle distinguishing the cognitive functions which would be entitled to the title of intelligence from those which should remain simple capabilities.
Thus, it is not so much a scientific theory as an abuse of language consisting of calling already known cognitive abilities “intelligences”. This “theory” explains nothing more than the theory of general intelligence, and does not predict any new facts. For these various reasons, it no longer enjoys any credit in psychological research.
Varied cognitive profiles
On the other hand, it has had more success with the general public, who perhaps appreciate the slightly demagogic idea according to which “everyone is intelligent in their own way”. To teachers, she can suggest that it is important to identify “their type of intelligence” in each child to better strengthen it. Unless on the contrary it is necessary to develop the intelligences in which it is weaker?
Overall, no approach consisting of categorizing students into “intelligence types” or “learning styles”, nor any other educational application of multiple intelligences, has ever demonstrated its validity or effectiveness. Howard Gardner himself ended up distancing himself from most of them.
In my opinion, what teachers can learn from this is rather that the cognitive profiles of their students are varied. For those who have difficulty with language and mathematics, which are the skills most required at school, it can be useful to identify and promote their other skills. This would prevent these students (especially those with a learning disability) from feeling stupid, incompetent, rejected, and from falling into the self-fulfilling prophecy of failure. Many teachers are already paying attention to this. For this, there is no need to claim a discredited scientific theory, nor to commit the abuse of language of calling each ability an intelligence.