Myths around multiple intelligences travel faster than papers. Each item pairs a folklore line with a tighter claim.
Worldwide notes name real systems — 영재교육, 예고, 部活, CTY, AIS, Iten — as places and policies, not racial essences.
Myths
- MI disproved g — It offered another story Test intercorrelations did not vanish in 1983.
- Each child has one intelligence — Profiles are mixtures Gardner’s own writing is about a set, not a single stamp.
- MI is the same as learning styles — Gardner rejected that mashup Domains of competence ≠ preferred input channel.
- Eight scores can be tested like IQ — Independent psychometrics are the weak point Waterhouse and Visser are the assigned reading.
- Using MI in school is therefore worthless — Taxonomy can still widen the timetable Use and theory validation are different jobs.
- Savants prove eight school IQs — They prove jagged profiles Treffert’s clinic is not a factor model.
Worldwide
- United States — Project Zero and district posters — The idea’s home, and the place Waterhouse watched adoption outrun evidence.
- China — MI translations plus exam reality — Classroom rhetoric of many intelligences beside gaokao’s thin academic gate.
- South Korea — 예고 and 과학고 as de facto domains — Arts and science high schools already sort by craft — closer to taxonomy than to Gardner tests.
- United Kingdom — Early MI in primary, then core-subject squeeze — A familiar widening-then-narrowing pattern.
- Brazil — Freirean breadth plus MI imports — Multiple-ways-of-knowing talk meets a different political tradition.
- Spain — Inteligencias múltiples in private schools — A branding import; quality varies with whether products or quizzes follow.
Multiple intelligences: drop the folklore that ranks groups. Keep the systems that can be named and improved.