Who is the psychologist and professor who developed the theory of multiple intelligences? What is the name of?

Answer 1

The theory of multiple intelligences was developed in 1983 by Dr. Howard Gardner, professor of education at Harvard University. It suggests that the traditional notion of intelligence, based on I.Q. testing, is far too limited. Instead, Dr. Gardner proposes eight different intelligences to account for a broader range of human potential in children and adults. These intelligences are:

Linguistic intelligence ("word smart"):
Logical-mathematical intelligence ("number/reasoning smart")
Spatial intelligence ("picture smart")
Bodily-Kinesthetic intelligence ("body smart")
Musical intelligence ("music smart")
Interpersonal intelligence ("people smart")
Intrapersonal intelligence ("self smart")
Naturalist intelligence ("nature smart")

Answer 2

Dr. Howard Gardner, Harvard

Answer 3

Howard Gardner

Answer 4

It's Dr. Howard Gardner. Check out the following link...

Answer 5

I study at a college that's for really smart scholars , so all of my schoolmates are considered az smart , yet i imagine there are in basic terms some those who're "really smart" , shall we've like 20 or 30 of them in our college (like ones who bypass in Olympiads) and certain , maximum of them are literally not social human beings , quite those who're reliable in math and physics , I fairly have this buddy who's a real genius in math , she spends maximum of her time studing and interpreting books and fixing math issues ... and she or he would not talk a lot , she in basic terms LOVES math and she or he enjoys studing way more desirable than going out with pals and this stuff , maximum of our scholars are not fairly intelligents , yet because they spent alot extra time on studing nicely deffinetely they grow to be a lot less social besides i imagine being smart or no longer , in case you purely have the skill to imagine you would comprehend what slightly of crap this guy Society has became into and there is no longer some thing large about having solid social skills

Answer 6

It was Howard Gardner.
The Seven types are:
1. Linguistic -- Children with this kind of intelligence enjoy writing, reading, telling stories or doing crossword puzzles.
2. Logical-Mathematical ---Children with lots of logical intelligence are interested in patterns, categories and relationships. They are drawn to arithmetic problems, strategy games and experiments.
3. Bodily-Kinesthetic --These kids process knowledge through bodily sensations. They are often athletic, dancers or good at crafts such as sewing or woodworking.
4. Spatial --These children think in images and pictures. They may be fascinated with mazes or jigsaw puzzles, or spend free time drawing, building with Leggos or daydreaming.
5. Musical -- Musical children are always singing or drumming to themselves. They are usually quite aware of sounds others may miss. These kids are often discriminating listeners.
6. Interpersonal ---Children who are leaders among their peers, who are good at communicating and who seem to understand others' feelings and motives possess interpersonal intelligence.
7. Intrapersonal --These children may be shy. They are very aware of their own feelings and are self-motivated.

Answer 7

1

Answer 8

You mean Sigmund Freud, but it was multiple personality.

Answer 9

Howard Gardner's theory of multiple intelligences is a psychological and educational theory espousing that seven kinds of "intelligence" exist in humans, each relating to a different sphere of human life and activity. Educators, the theory states, can reach all of their students only by adapting their teaching program to meet all the types of intelligence that their target audience possesses. Various books and educational materials are marketed premised on this concept.

The basis of Gardner’s multiple intelligences can be found in his own writings:

“In the heyday of the psychometric and behaviorist eras, it was generally believed that intelligence was a single entity that was inherited; and that human beings - initially a blank slate - could be trained to learn anything, provided that it was presented in an appropriate way. Nowadays an increasing number of researchers believe precisely the opposite; that there exists a multitude of intelligences, quite independent of each other; that each intelligence has its own strengths and constraints; that the mind is far from unencumbered at birth; and that it is unexpectedly difficult to teach things that go against early 'naive' theories or that challenge the natural lines of force within an intelligence and its matching domains.” (Gardner, 1993, p. xxiii)

Gardner states that intelligence is 'the capacity to solve problems or to fashion products that are valued in one or more cultural setting' (Gardner & Hatch, 1989). He developed his multiple intelligences following a review of the intelligence literature, which suggested to him the use of a set of criteria or 'signs' of an intelligence. An intelligence, he feels, is substantiated when it is demonstrated by evidence of

Potential isolation by brain damage.
The existence of idiots savants, prodigies and other exceptional individuals.
An identifiable core operation or set of operations.
A distinctive development history, along with a definable set of 'end-state' performances.
An evolutionary history and evolutionary plausibility.
Support from experimental psychological tasks.
Support from psychometric findings.
Susceptibility to encoding in a symbol system. (Gardner, 1983, p. 62-69)
Contrary to informal opinion in the lay community, Gardner does not feel that everyone is of equal intelligence. Instead, he feels that the single g factor of Spearman and other theorists is not a valid measure of intelligence, and that it is more meaningful to conceive of an individual's intelligence as a unique combination of varying abilities within a number of relatively autonomous intelligences.

Intelligences Which Focus on Thinking and Thought

Verbal-linguistic
To do with words, spoken or written. People who specialise in this area are generally good at writing, oration and (to a lesser extent) learning from lectures. They also tend to have broad vocabularies and learn languages very easily.

Logical-mathematical
To do with numbers, with logic and abstractions. Those who favour this intelligence generally excel in mathematics and computer programming, and are often jacks of all trades by virtue of logic. Careers might include those involving science and computer programming. A common criticism of this intelligence is that some people feel that logical ability in general is more strongly associated with verbal than with mathematical intelligence; for example, the old Analytic section of the GRE correlated more strongly with the Verbal section than the Mathematical. One possibility is that formal, symbolic logic, and strict logic games are under the command of mathematical intelligence, while skills at fallacy hunting, argument construction, etc. are under the command of verbal intelligence.

Naturalist
A late addition to Gardner's theory, [1] naturalist intelligence enables human beings to recognize, categorize and draw upon certain features of the environment. It combines a description of the core ability with a characterization of the role that many cultures value. From an interview with Howard Gardner by Ronnie Durie in Mindshift Connection, a publication of Zephyr Press. "The core of the naturalist intelligence is the human ability to recognize plants, animals, and other parts of the natural environment, like clouds or rocks. All of us can do this; some kids (experts on dinosaurs) and many adults (hunters, botanists, anatomists) excel at this pursuit.

"While the ability doubtless evolved to deal with natural kinds of elements, I believe that it has been hijacked to deal with the world of man-made objects. We are good at distinguishing among cars, sneakers, and jewelry, for example, because our ancestors needed to be able to recognize carnivorous animals, poisonous snakes, and flavorful mushrooms."

Intelligences Which Focus on the Senses

Visual-spatial
To do with visual perception and spatial judgement. People in this group are generally possessed of high hand-eye coordination, can interpret art well and can tessellate objects (as in loading a truck) easily. Such people might work as artists, artisans and engineers. One of the most common criticisms of the whole frame work of the theory of multiple intelligence is the extremely high degree of correlation between visual and mathematical intelligence. There are several responses to this line of criticism, the most common being that though they may share several different factors they can be distingushed and have been demonstrated to vary by enormous quantites in some cases.

Body-kinesthetic
To do with muscular coordination, movement and doing. In this category, people generally are more adept at sports and dance, and work better when moving. In addition, they learn better by doing things and interacting with them physically. Most dancers, gymnasts and athletes are in this category.

Auditory-musical
To do with hearing. Those good with this tend to be better singers and have better pitch, in addition to liking music more. Music also helps people in this category work better, and those here will also learn better from lectures.

Aural capabilities have physiological and psychological similarities to other gifts associated with the processing of any input by the brain/mind. Those with "perfect pitch" have the ability to identify and differentiate notes to an exact degree, without a reference pitch. Also, most have the ability to play one or more musical instuments with exceptional ease and style, or to compose music of exceptional quality (such as Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart). Many other traits are indicative of a musical/auditory genius.

Intelligences Which Focus on Communication

Interpersonal communication
To do with interaction with others. People categorized here are usually extroverts, and good with people. They can be charismatic and convincing and diplomatic. They tend to learn better when people are involved, e.g., in discussions. People in these fields often become politicians or educators.

Intrapersonal communication
To do with oneself. People categorized here are most often introverts and have very complex philosophies. These people often end up in religion or psychology, and like to be alone. One of the major areas of attack on the theory of multiple intelligences, it is alleged that a concept like intrapersonal intelligence is vague and immeasurable, and hence not a proper study for psychology. Others question whether intrapersonal intelligence can really be considered an intelligence, and claim that it instead should be considered more a personality trait, and a set of desires. (Information headhunting, someone else put it into a well-written connection with the above: Intrapersonal intelligence is first and foremost the ability to objectively examine and judge oneself, including one's own weaknesses and strengths, motivations and desires; perhaps often with the purpose of improving one's understanding of the general human experience. It is in basic terms, a sense of insight into one's nature).

Proposed areas
Other intelligences have been suggested by popular psychology writers such as Tony Buzan, including "sexual intelligence" and "spiritual intelligence". Gardner himself has entertained the notion of "existential intelligence"—which he sees as less fraught with theological baggage than "spiritual intelligence"—but remains uncommitted to it. Additional intelligences such as cooking intelligence, humor intelligence and football intelligence have been proposed, but similar to the other intelligences proposed by Gardner, they have not been fully isolated in experimental studies. Metaphysical writers have discussed the possibility of there being at least 53 identifiable senses.

Relationship to education
Schools emphasize the development of logical intelligence and linguistic intelligence (mainly reading and writing). People may also have various degrees of spatial intelligence (such as that possessed by architects and sculptors), kinesthetic intelligence (athletes and ballet dancers for instance), musical intelligence, intrapersonal intelligence (ability to reflect and know oneself) and interpersonal intelligence. According to Gardner, schools must strive to develop all intelligences, at the same time recognizing that children will usually excel at only one or two of them and should not be penalized for this.

This line of argument has been challenged by those in the Gifted and Talented community because every multiple domain IQ test ( Weschler, Wais, Standford Binet, Dr Hoeflin’s Mega test) has shown that all areas are correlated. This trend is also shown in tests like the GRE, the SAT, the PSAT, the ACT, etc., on every one of which each section correlates to a high degree with the others; the correlation rarely drops below 0.6 on the -1 to 1 scale. It is hence argued that persons who excel in one set of intelligences usually excel in several others, very often all. This issue is especially important to the Gifted and Talented advocacy and support community because Gardner's theory has often resulted in students being accelerated only in a small set of areas, rather than the full set. In addition, many educators feel that the theory of multiple intelligences gives support to the idea that every child is equally gifted, which leads to the cutting of funding for Gifted and Talented Education programs, or their broadening to include all students. Gardner himself has attacked the latter view, saying that he felt there was a lot of nonsense propagated about the supposed consequences of his theory for Gifted and Talented Education, and that he never intended his theory to affirm that all children are equally gifted.

Opposing Views
As one would expect from a theory that redefines intelligence, one of the major criticisms of the theory is that it is ad hoc. The criticism is that Gardner is not expanding the definition of the word "intelligence"; rather, he denies the existence of intelligence, as is traditionally understood, and instead uses the word intelligence whenever other people have traditionally used words like "ability". In this view, it is intellectually dishonest to relabel all of a person's talents as "intelligences". This tactic has been criticised by Robert J. Sternberg (1983, 1991), Eysenck, 1994, and Scarr, 1985. Defenders of the M.I. theory would argue that intelligence has never been rigorously defined, thus inviting new efforts to define it.

Gardner has not settled on a single definition of intelligence. He originally defined intelligence as the ability to solve problems that have value in at least one culture, or as something that a student is interested in. However, he added a disclaimer that he has no fixed definition, and his classification is more of an artistic judgement than fact:

Ultimately, it would certainly be desirable to have an algorithm for the selection of an intelligence, such that any trained researcher could determine whether a candidate's intelligence met the appropriate criteria. At present, however, it must be admitted that the selection (or rejection) of a candidate's intelligence is reminiscent more of an artistic judgement than of a scientific assessment. (Gardner, Frames of Mind: The Theory of Multiple Intelligences, 1983)
One of the criticisms against M.I. theory is aimed at the underlying ideology. Gardner writes "I balk at the unwarranted assumption that certain human abilities can be arbitrarily singled out as intelligence while others cannot" (Peterson, 1997, p. D2) Critics hold that given this statement, any interest or ability is now redefined as "intelligence"; and adherents of M.I. theory can and do declare that all human beings are equally intelligent. Some logical problems are pointed out:

Gardner doesn't prove that all people are intelligent. Rather, he states this as his assumption, and redefines the word "intelligence" such that all people are equally intelligent by virtue of his definition.
Once someone adopts Gardner's position, studying intelligence becomes difficult because it diffuses into the broader concept of ability or talent. In accord with this prediction, Gardner has repeatedly changed his theory; students who show an interest in nature are now deemed to have "Natural intelligence", and students interested in spirituality or religion are now deemed to have "Spiritual intelligence".
A number of articles have surveyed the use of Gardner's ideas in classrooms, and claim that there is no evidence that his ideas work in practice. Steven A. Stahl found that most of the previous studies which claimed to show positive results had major flaws:

Among others, Marie Carbo claims that her learning styles work is based on research. [I discuss Carbo because she publishes extensively on her model and is very prominent in the workshop circuit...] But given the overwhelmingly negative findings in the published research, I wondered what she was citing, and about a decade ago, I thought it would be interesting to take a look. Reviewing her articles, I found that out of 17 studies she had cited, only one was published. Fifteen were doctoral dissertations and 13 of these came out of one university—St. John’s University in New York, Carbo’s alma mater. None of these had been in a peer-refereed journal. When I looked closely at the dissertations and other materials, I found that 13 of the 17 studies that supposedly support her claim had to do with learning styles based on something other than modality.
Analysis of Learning Styles Research In 1999, Steven Stahl’s article, “Different Strokes for Different Folks: A Critique of Learning Styles” was published in the American Educator. In it he concluded that there was little or no research in learning styles. Stahl’s conclusion was incorrect, either because of his own weak research or because of a deliberate manipulation of data to grind an old axe. (Stahl was Jean Chall's student at Harvard and never fogave Carbo for revealing, in her courageous and highly praised articles in "Kappan," Chall's flawed research base in her book "The Great Debate.") There is indeed a strong research base, some of it ignored by Stahl, both for the Carbo Reading Styles Program (CRSP) (Barber, Carbo & Thomasson, 1998; Bradsby, Wise, Mundell, & Haas,1992; Brooks, 1991; Carbo Reading Styles Program, 2000; Hodgin & Wooliscroft, 1997; LaShell, 1986; Oglesby & Suter, 1995; Skipper, 1997; Snyder, 1994, 1997); and for the Dunn and Dunn Model of Learning Styles upon which CRSP is based (Braio, Dunn, Beasley, Quinn & Buchanan, 1997; Dunn, Griggs, Olson, Gorman & Beasley, 1995; Research on the Dunn and Dunn Model, 2000). In fact, between 1997 and 2006, the Carbo Reading Styles Program was honored repeatedly as a research-based language arts program based on the high quality of its research, and listed in the following: A Guide to Research-Based Programs and Practices for Improving Early Literacy (New England Comprehensive Assistance Center, 1999); List of promising practices in reading (Education Commission of the States, 2000); NWREL’s Catalog of School Reform Models (Northwest Regional Lab, 1998, 2002, 2006); Reading programs that work: A review of programs for pre-kindergarten to 4th grade (Milken Foundation, 1999); Results-based practices showcase for "consistently high student performance results" (Kentucky Department of Education, Division of School Improvement, 1997-1998); and What works in the elementary school: Results-based staff development (the National Staff Development Council and the National Education Association, 2002). The Carbo Reading Styles Program has repeatedly met the high standards of the most prestigious organizations in the United States. For example, in a letter from the National Staff Development Council, Joellen Killion (October 21, 2002) wrote that the Carbo Reading Styles Program “met rigorous criteria, including demonstrating an impact on student achievement, established by the National Advisory Panel.” And the Northwest Regional Educational Laboratory’s Mark Buechler (February 12, 2002) stated that CRSP was “examined against a set of four criteria: (1) evidence of effectiveness, (2) capacity for scale up, (3) training and support, and (4) comprehensiveness. CRSP “met the threshold for all four criteria”in 1998, 2002, and 2006 and was, therefore, listed in NWREL’s Catalog of School Reform Models. Why, then, did Stahl draw such different conclusions? Strangely enough, Stahl looked at the wrong research and overlooked the correct research. In his 1999 article, he chose to mention the old modalities research of the 1960’s and 1970’s. Overall, that research did use instruments with low reliability and validity to identify modality strengths, and was not well designed and carried out. These problems were described in detail in an article byMarie Carbo in Exceptional Children (Carbo, 1983). Most important, the old modalities research has nothing to do with the Dunn and Dunn Model of Learning Styles or the Carbo Reading Style Program, each of which has a strong body of research as evidenced by their many research awards and national validations. For research on the Dunn and Dunn model of learning styles and on the Carbo Reading Styles Program, please go to www.learningstyles.net and www.nrsi.com, respectively.

Answer 10

Please use yours and google it!!