Gardner's Eight Intelligences: What the Theory Claims and What Psychologists Object To

Types of intelligence
Eight luminous symbols orbiting a head like planets, representing Gardner's multiple intelligences
Eight orbits around a single mind: the picture that made Gardner's theory famous.

The theory of multiple intelligences is probably the best known idea in the entire psychology of intelligence, and it is better loved by teachers than by psychologists. That split says a lot about what each group wants from a theory, and understanding it helps you think more carefully about what being intelligent means.

What Howard Gardner proposed

In 1983, Harvard psychologist Howard Gardner published the book Frames of Mind. His argument was that the notion of a single intelligence, summed up in one IQ number, was too narrow. In its place he proposed several relatively independent intelligences, each with its own way of processing information. To decide what counts as an intelligence he used criteria such as: it can be damaged in isolation by a brain injury, it appears in extreme form in exceptional people such as prodigies, and it has a symbol system of its own.

The eight intelligences

Gardner originally proposed seven and added the eighth in the 1990s:

  1. Linguistic: using words precisely, speaking and writing well.
  2. Logical-mathematical: reasoning with numbers, patterns, and arguments.
  3. Spatial: imagining and manipulating shapes and scenes.
  4. Musical: perceiving and producing rhythm, pitch, and melody.
  5. Bodily-kinesthetic: controlling the body skillfully, like an athlete or a surgeon.
  6. Interpersonal: understanding other people and relating to them.
  7. Intrapersonal: knowing yourself, your emotions and your motivations.
  8. Naturalist: recognizing and classifying plants, animals, and natural phenomena.

Gardner has also discussed the possibility of an existential intelligence, centered on questions about the meaning of life, but he never formally added it to the list.

Why it caught on

Because it is an optimistic idea that is easy to use in a classroom. It says a child who does not shine in math may be extraordinary at music, at sports, or as a leader, and that school should recognize it. Many teachers adopted it to plan lessons with more varied activities, which is often good teaching in its own right, whatever the fate of the theory. Gardner has also made clear that his proposal is not the same as so-called learning styles (visual, auditory, kinesthetic), a very widespread mix-up.

What psychology objects to

This is the part many popular write-ups leave out. The main objections are these:

  • Thin empirical support. Critics such as Lynn Waterhouse, in 2006, pointed out that no study clearly shows the eight intelligences to be independent of one another.
  • Abilities tend to go together. When different tests of cognitive skills are given, scores tend to correlate, which is read as a general intelligence factor, the famous "g." IQ testing rests on that finding.
  • Talent is not the same as intelligence. Many psychologists consider musical or bodily skill to be talents or abilities, and say that calling them intelligences blurs the term.
  • No standard test. Without validated measuring instruments, the theory is hard to put to the test.

Gardner replies that his theory grows out of biology, anthropology, and case studies rather than tests, and that tests capture only a limited slice of the mind. Neither camp disputes that a single score describes a person only in part. The argument is over how much structure lies beneath it.

So is it true?

The most honest answer is that it works as an idea and is debatable as science. It recognizes something real: people have very different profiles of strengths, and success in life depends on a good deal more than one score. But there is no scientific consensus that eight separate intelligences exist, and the dominant model in psychometrics is still hierarchical: a general factor with several specific abilities beneath it.

Using it with judgment

A sensible approach is to treat it as a list of questions, not a diagnosis. Asking yourself which activities make you lose track of time, or what comes naturally, can guide choices about study and work. What to avoid is boxing yourself in, or boxing in a child ("you are the bodily type, not the logical one"). Rigid labels limit people, and nearly every skill can be developed with practice.

If you want to explore the part that can be measured in a standardized way, our free IQ test takes a few minutes. Treat it as a partial snapshot of your strengths, not a verdict.

Not sure about a term? Check the IQ and psychometrics glossary for short definitions of each concept.

Emotional Intelligence vs. IQ: Which One Matters More?What emotional intelligence is, who defined it, how it differs from IQ and why the claim that it "matters more than IQ" needs some nuance. An honest guide. Fluid and Crystallized Intelligence: Two Ways of Thinking That Age DifferentlyOne handles problems you have never seen; the other puts what you already know to work. How psychologists tell them apart, and what happens to each with age. Working Memory: The Mental Notepad That Caps How Much You Can Think About at OnceYou can hold only about four items in mind at once. What working memory is, how psychologists measure it, and what does, and does not, help improve it.
← All articles