Howard Gardner’s Frames of Mind (1983) argued that a single general intelligence was too thin a story for schools, and offered several relatively autonomous intelligences — linguistic, logical-mathematical, musical, spatial, bodily-kinesthetic, interpersonal, intrapersonal, later naturalist.
As a reminder that children can be strong in different symbol systems, MI is a useful taxonomy. As a psychometric theory it is weak: Lynn Waterhouse (2006) and Beth Visser and colleagues (2006) argued that the “intelligences” are not independently measured the way Gardner’s claims require, and that g still organises test batteries.
This page treats MI as a curriculum conversation starter, not as a replacement for Spearman’s positive manifold and not as a new caste system. It also refuses to turn “intelligences” into group rankings.
Profile
Seven chapters
Origins
How multiple intelligences was named, dated and argued — a history of claims, not a verdict on a child.
Read →
Science
Findings, mechanisms and debates around multiple intelligences, with evidence sized honestly.
Read →
Signs
How multiple intelligences is noticed without over-labelling — cues, tests and false positives.
Read →
Develop
Growing multiple intelligences as a system of catalysts, windows and supports — educational, not diagnostic.
Read →
Practice
Designed methods for multiple intelligences — steps, drills and pitfalls, not a promise.
Read →
Exemplars
Historical people in the orbit of multiple intelligences — a set, not a ranking.
Read →
Myths
Misconceptions and real systems around multiple intelligences, across more than three continents.
Read →