Bests & Worsts Reviews from Amazon

While Gardner should be commended for attempting to create a more complex description of human intelligence than the traditional I.Q. measures, his taxonomy is still pretty crude. He proposes that there are discrete types of intelligence that operate independently of each other; I believe that cognition is a lot messier than that and it is impossible to neatly separate different kinds of thinking. Musicians, for instance, must perpetually employ "kinesthetic intelligence" as well as "musical intelligence" simply to manipulate their instruments or voices. There is also frequent overlapping between "musical intelligence" and "linguistic intelligence". The great tenor saxophonist Coleman Hawkins stressed the importance of playing the lyrics, or using the words of a composition to guide the way he played. Certainly for blues, folk and rap performers it is impossible to separate language from music. Conversely, writers use musical elements such as rhythm, repetition and assonance in their work. The same elements are an integral part of spoken language (with the addition of performative vocal musical qualities), as demonstrated by great orators such as Martin Luther King, Jr. and Franklin Roosevelt. From an evolutionary standpoint, our language and music abilities certainly evolved from the same behaviors (various calls, cries and groans for communication, bonding and display) and became more specialized over time; separating them into two distinct intelligences is a blunt, inaccurate approach for understanding them. There are many other examples of how inextricably bound Gardner's proposed modes of thinking are. Einstein stated that in addition to being able to move numbers around and think abstractly, it was his ability to visualize concepts, to "think in pictures", that enabled him to develop his theories. On the other hand, Gardner also oversimplifies the enormous complexity that involves each type of intelligence he lists. Visual processing, for example, takes place in so many different parts of the brain that one can hardly consider it a discrete operation. Many wonderful painters have been able to master only certain aspects of the visual world--Ingres was peerless in depicting the human figure but needed architectural draftsmen to help him with perspective problems; Turner's masterful handling of atmosphere and space was occasionally marred by his clumsy, puppetlike figures. Chuck Close suffers from an inability to recognize faces but is still able to accurately describe shapes and value changes. Language is also dizzyingly complex, involving diverse neurological functions. Rather than focusing entirely on the kinds of intelligence needed for specific disciplines--a horizontal model--it might useful to consider a more vertical understanding of cognition. Explicit (conceptual/factual/critical) intelligence is quite distinct from implicit (procedural/intuitive) intelligence--they employ separate parts of the brain and require different approaches to learning. Ultimately though, these are also interdependent processes that complement each other. Mathematics requires us to memorize multiplication and addition tables through mechanical, rote learning: only when automaticity with basic skills is acheived can we explore more challenging concepts. Gardner also states that people who are gifted in one type of intelligence are usually not gifted in others; there is certainly no shortage of examples that contradict this assertion. Leonardo da Vinci is the most obvious one--aside from his accomplishments as an artist and scientist, he completed no known paintings between the ages of 20-25 because he was in such high demand as a musician! Michelangelo, Cellini, Rubens, Blake and Newton are a few other multi-talented giants throughout history who come to mind. It is true that very few people become GREAT in more than one field, but few people become GREAT at anything--that does not mean they are not multi-talented. More recently, there was an entire generation of rock stars--including John Lennon, Janis Joplin, David Bowie, Brian Eno, Brian Ferry, and David Byrne--who started off as visual art students during the 1960's and 1970's. The layered collage techniques that were pioneered in the recordings of that era, as well as the avant garde sensibility of rock performances, were imported from art school training. My hunch is that the very opposite of Gardner's statement is true: most people who are gifted excel in more than one of his dimensions of intelligence. The human brain is a restless organ and, if encouraged, a creative child will voraciously explore and combine different kinds of thinking. There are examples, such as Mozart, of astonishing highly-specified talents but I think these are not the norm. Ultimately, it is the ability to "think big", to see metaphors, relationships and structures, that allows us to create meaningful work in any discipline. What Gardner classifies as "existential intelligence" seems to be a prerequisite for any important artist, writer, musician, philosopher, or scientist. Self-esteem, identity and other emotional factors are perhaps the most crucial elements in all learning--Gardner's approach to teaching creates the risk of prematurely labeling students as either gifted or limited in particular areas. Many people are told at an early age that they are not good at math, art, writing, etc., and end up permanently stunted in their development. This is the classic "Wizard of Oz" scenario--we get a notion that we are dumb/heartless/cowardly and this becomes who we are until someone tells us otherwise. It is extremely important for teachers to make children aware of what a magnificent, versatile organ the human brain is and how great their potential is in many possible fields of endeavor.