Darker cells mean a higher score for this topic on that metric.
LessMore
Last reviewed Sources & creditsMedia creditsMethodology
Quick answers
Does this atlas rank groups by IQ, race or nation?
No. Pathways and evidence stay individual. Scores are browsing aids — never group biological or racial ranks.
Did Gardner refute g?
He argued g was too narrow for a human-worth story. He did not make the intercorrelations among tests disappear. Spearman’s positive manifold remains a psychometric fact.
What did Waterhouse 2006 argue?
That MI lacks the cognitive-neuroscience and psychometric support a new theory of intelligence would need, and that schools adopted it ahead of the evidence.
What did Visser, Ashton and Vernon 2006 find?
Tasks written to tap Gardner’s intelligences still loaded on general and broad factors rather than eight independent IQs.
Is MI the same as learning styles?
Gardner has rejected the popular “teach to visual/auditory styles” version. MI is about domains of competence, not preferred input channels — though schools often mash the two.
Why do teachers still like it?
It licenses music, movement and social work as serious. That institutional use can be good even if the psychometrics are thin.
Practice means designed work with feedback — Ericsson’s construct, not Gladwell’s hour ticket.
Where Macnamara et al. 2014 published domain bands (games ~26%, music ~21%, sports ~18%, education ~4%), this page uses those rounded figures and does not invent new precision.
Steps
- Name eight as a list, not scores
Linguistic, lm, musical, spatial, bk, inter, intra, naturalist.
Taxonomy mode.
- Assign one real product each term
Across different symbol systems.
Spectrum, not a quiz.
- Ban styles surveys
Different claim, weak evidence.
Keep MI from the mashup.
- Keep maths and writing strong
Do not use MI as escape.
g-loaded skills still matter for access.
- Cite Waterhouse or Visser once
In the staff handbook.
Honesty.
- Review who gets which label
Stereotype check.
Equity.
Checklist
- Used as taxonomy — Not eight IQs.
- Products exist — Not only posters.
- Styles mashup refused — Different literature.
- g not denied — Tests still intercorrelate.
- Hard symbols taught — No opt-out caste.
- Savants not circus — Clinical respect if cited.
- No group ranks — On any “intelligence”.
- Critique on the syllabus — Waterhouse / Visser.
Drills
- Domain week — Same theme in music, map, essay, model.
- Poster rewrite — Replace eight thermometers with eight example tasks.
- Factor-story lesson — Teach Spearman’s manifold in one staff meeting.
- Stereotype tally — Who is invited to dance versus debate.
- Product critique — Judge the work, not the supposed intelligence type.
Pitfalls
- Eight fake scores — The psychometric overclaim.
- Learning-styles slide deck — A different and weaker industry.
- Using MI to track kids — New labels, old sorting.
- Ignoring Waterhouse — Adoption ahead of evidence was her point.
Tools
- Frames of Mind (1983) — The primary text, read as proposal.
- Waterhouse 2006 — The educational-psychologist critique.
- Visser et al. 2006 — The measurement paper.
- Domain rubrics — For music, design, writing — crafts, not IQs.
Multiple intelligences: design the hour; retire the poster. Education is not a diagnosis.
OriginsScienceSignsDevelopPracticeExemplarsMyths In this language region