Looking for something?

I have not developed a multiple intelligences (MI) test myself. The closest I have come is my participation in the creation of Project Spectrum materials, which we have used with children from the ages of 3 to 7—see the three books on Project Spectrum published by Teachers College Press. I don’t place a great deal of weight on self-assessment for two reasons: 

1. There is no reason to believe that most people have particular insights into their own strengths; 

2. Most people do not understand the differences between what you like to do (preferences), what you are interested in, and how powerful your computational capacities are. Only the latter indicates the strength of an intelligence. 

Many people have developed their own measures of the multiple intelligences. The best known instrument is the MIDAS. This approach developed by Branton Shearer (who may be reached at sbranton@kent.edu), has been administered to thousands of people all over the world. 

I realize that many people, and especially policymakers, want some kind of an instrument, and if I were in their position, I would probably use the best available set of instruments for each intelligence or develop my own measures. I’d also rely heavily on triangulation—that is, using more than one source of data. For example, if individuals rate themselves on their intelligences, but one also obtains ratings from those who know them well (family, friends, present and former teachers), the profile of intelligences would be more reliable. 

The gold standard consists of performance measurements, where you have to demonstrate your intelligence and not just testify to it. So, for example, assess interpersonal intelligences by observing how a person handles a conflict situation or motivates others to pursue a certain course of action. Assess spatial intelligence by seeing how quickly a person masters an unfamiliar geographical terrain.  

Please see the book Multiple Intelligences Around the World (Jossey Bass, 2009), which contains an article about the Explorama written by Sahl-Madsen. The Exploramais a site which allows visitors to profile their own intelligences.   

You might also wish to consider attending one of the Project Zero Summer Institutes. They are one week long seminars held each summer in June–August; further information can be found here.   

On MI Oasis, find examples of good practices and common malpractices when applying the theory of multiple intelligences.

You may also want to review my piece for the Washington Post on neuromyths—why they arise and how to scrutinize them.

Educators are prone to collapse the terms intelligence and style. For informal matters, that is no great sin. However, style and intelligence are really fundamentally different psychological constructs. Styles refer to the customary way in which an individual approaches a range of materials—for example, a playful or a planful style. Intelligence refers to the computational power of a mental system: for example, a person whose linguistic intelligence is strong is able readily to compute information that involves language. Speak of styles, speak of intelligences, but don't conflate the two if you can help it.

For further discussion of this point, see Chapter 6, myth #3, in my book Intelligence Reframed.

I am often asked about adding additional intelligences.

My list of intelligences represents a serious scholarly effort to ascertain and delineate these additional cognitive capacities. 

Anyone is free to nominate candidate intelligences, from humor intelligence to sexual intelligence to cooking intelligence. But to be taken seriously, the nominator needs to fulfill two criteria: 

1. Have a set of criteria for what is, and what is not, an intelligence, as laid out, for example, in my book Frames of Mind. 

2. Be sure not to confuse description (how an intelligence works) with prescription (how we would like individuals to act, to use those intelligences). My delineation of intelligences is strictly amoral: any intelligence can be used benevolently or malevolently. How those intelligences are used is very important; my colleagues and I have devoted twenty years to studying Good Workers, Good Persons, and Good Citizens. But the use of an intelligence is a different question than the nature and operation of that intelligence. 

 You will find more information about this on MI Oasis.

I am often asked for my thoughts on extending the idea of multiple intelligences into the second quarter of the 21st century.

For these queries, I recommend reviewing two resources:

• My book Frames of Mind

• My blog on intelligence, “Who Owns Intelligence? Reflections after a Quarter Century” which I co-authored with my colleagues Shinri Furuzawa and Annie Stachura. In writing it, we attempted to come to grips with intelligence in animals, plants, and AI, and propose a new way of conceptualizing intelligence.