The Criticism and Relevance of Howard Gardner's Multiple Intelligence Theory in Psychological Research
Dr. Jordan Peterson, a renowned Canadian psychologist, has extensively discussed the shortcomings of Howard Gardner's Multiple Intelligence Theory in his lectures. According to Peterson, one of the primary criticisms is a fundamental problem of definition. Gardner's theory introduces multiple categories of 'intelligence,' each seemingly unique and distinct. However, Peterson argues, if we use the term 'intelligence' to describe these diverse abilities, the core concept of 'intelligence' loses its meaning. This issue is further complicated by how the term 'intelligent' is often used in everyday language to describe traits like extroversion, rather than cognitive abilities.
Another critical point raised by intelligent psychologists, such as Dr. Peterson, is the redundancy of Gardner's theory. As Dr. Peterson explains, IQ tests often explain the variations that Gardner's multiple intelligences are purported to explain. For instance, fluid intelligence and crystallized intelligence, which measure the ability to solve new problems and the accumulation of knowledge over a lifetime, respectively, can explain a far greater portion of trait variance than Gardner's other intelligence types. This point is crucial because people who perform exceptionally well on IQ tests often also excel in tests designed to ascertain multiple intelligences.
Neural Basis and Experimental Design
Peterson also highlights the limitations of Gardner's theory in terms of its neurological underpinnings. Neuroimaging studies have provided some insight into the brain regions that differ in function between individuals with varying IQ levels. However, no such robust neurological evidence supports the existence of the different multiple intelligences proposed by Gardner. This gap in empirical evidence suggests that Gardner's theory lacks a strong scientific foundation, particularly in the realm of neurology.
The poor design of experiments and the subsequent low levels of replication further undermine the credibility of Gardner's theory. When replication attempts fail, they are often attributed to incorrect experimental procedures rather than the inherent flaws in the theory. This lack of robust experimental design and reproducibility is a significant red flag for researchers and practitioners in the field of psychology.
General vs. Specific Intelligence
A key factor that supports the critique of Gardner's theory is the existence of a general intelligence factor, often denoted as 'g.' This factor is typically inferred from IQ tests and is understood to encompass a broad range of cognitive abilities. Peterson emphasizes that 'g' is a real and empirically verifiable phenomenon, as factor analysis consistently shows its influence in countless studies. For example, 'g' has been shown to explain more variation in life outcomes such as academic performance, professional success, personal relationships, and even lifespan compared to Gardner's specific intelligences like 'dancing' or 'musical intelligence.'
Conclusion and Future Directions
In conclusion, while the Multiple Intelligence Theory proposed by Howard Gardner offers a valuable framework for understanding human cognitive diversity, it faces significant criticism from psychologists like Dr. Jordan Peterson. The fundamental problem of definition, the redundancy of Gardner's theory, the lack of strong neurological evidence, and the inconsistent experimental design all contribute to the skepticism surrounding this theory. Future research should aim to integrate Gardner's insights with more rigorous scientific methodologies to better understand the complex nature of human intelligence.
Keywords: Howard Gardner, Multiple Intelligence Theory, Psychological Research, Intelligence