Gardner’s Theory Of Multiple Intelligences: Essay You Might Want To Emulate

Before Gardner developed his theory of multiple intelligences, there was just one paradigm for determining competence at accomplishing tasks – or deciding that one had competence to do so, anyway. The traditional system used cognitive tests to determine whether someone was “intelligent” – and if one’s particular brain didn’t necessarily fit the way that the questions were designed to test, then that person’s intelligence simply went unnoticed. Then those people ended up being marginalized (and demoralized) when it came time to dole out the opportunities in society. When Gardner came along and recognized that there were multiple ways to excel, that liberated many people who would otherwise not have had their abilities validated.
The most surprising element of Gardner’s theory was the sheer variety in the number of intelligences out there. There is the logical theory – which does not seem to stray that far from the traditional notion of intelligence. Neither do visual and verbal. However, there are quite a few others that seem to stray far from being able to solve puzzles and put together answers to questions: musical, bodily, interpersonal, intrapersonal, naturalistic and existential. If you think about it, though, a lot of problems simply seem to leach their way through intellectual constructs and into other areas of the soul, and those areas that Gardner’s theories tend to cover – while the traditional model did not.
One way that some have taken issue with Gardner’s theories is that he is simply changing the way that people define “intelligence” and using it to mean a “talent” or perhaps “ability.” Also, there does not seem to be a systematic method for determining those different areas of skill. He appears to be taking his definition from the different types of problems that pop up from time to time. The fact that he eventually came back with the answer that he did not work with a set definition of intelligence and that his taxonomy was more of an aesthetic classification than anything else might be comforting to some, and it might be scientifically unsound to others.
All of this, of course, comes back to the debate between those who want to expand definitions and those who want a more strict classification of everything that has to do with the mind. The more conservative taxonomists are those who tend to take a dim view of the more affective elements of Gardner’s theories. Unfortunately, the people on that end of the spectrum often end up missing out on a number of different ways to find solutions to problems. Consider the ongoing pattern of conflicts in the Middle East. Those who are in leadership seem inclined only to pursue a limited number of options (most of which involve lots of ordnance) in handling the disputes. The problem is that these approaches do not seem to be effective at anything except killing. A different approach might work wonders, but no one seems willing to consider that. The interpersonal approach, rather than the logical approach, certainly seems worth trying.
Ultimately, the issue with Gardner’s theory of intelligences centers on the question as to whether we should allow the aesthetic to enter the discussions about the intellect. Given the gifts of so many terrific thinkers in so many different areas, it’s difficult to argue against that inclusion. Gardner was a pioneer in this area, and many people whose gifts would have been marginalized owe him a debt of thanks.