Howard Gardner : the myth of Multiple Intelligences

Without going through all the other criteria, a word about two of them.

‘the potential isolation of the area by brain damage’

I think we can take it that there are localized areas of function within the brain. If one
part of the brain is damaged, one’s sight is impaired, if another, one’s ability to move
one’s left hand. All this shows is that certain physiological necessary conditions of
exercising these capacities are absent. It does not help to indicate the existence of
separate 'intelligences'.

Given his developmentalism, one can understand why Gardner should look to brain
localization in order to identify intelligences, for he has to provide an account of the
'seed' which is to unfold into its mature form, and this seed has to be part of our
original constitution. But the kinds of function picked out by brain localization
research do not have the power to unfold into maturer versions of themselves.

‘the existence, in an area, of idiots savants, prodigies and other exceptional
individuals’

Gardner invokes the existence of idiots savants to support his theory, but what I know
of them does not lead me to think of them as intelligent. What they all have in
common is a mechanical facility, one which lacks the flexibility of adapting means to
ends found in intelligent behaviour.

Prodigies only support Gardner’s case if there is good evidence that their talents are
innate. But what evidence there is seems to point to acquired abilities (Howe 1997:
131-2)

Conclusion

It would be natural to think that the „criteria’ are all straightforwardly applicable. But
this is not so. The criteria to do with development and with symbols presuppose the
truth of theories - one in psychology, the other in aesthetics - which turn out to be
untenable. And this undermines the viability of MI theory as a whole.

How are the criteria to be applied?

<<   5   6   7   8   9   10   11   >>

More intriguing information