Psychologists are very interested in intelligence. Its study brings up many conceptual questions, and we can start with: What is intelligence? How do we assess it? And, how does it change over the
lifespan?
The truth is, one’s idea of “intelligence” is highly dependent on your socio-cultural context. In America,
we might say that “smart” means having good mental skills, ones that ensure your success in a job or in the classroom. But if we think more broadly about intelligence, we might also include the ability to
acquire knowledge, to solve problems, to reason effectively, and to deal adaptively with the
environment. We might be “intelligent” in some ways, but not others. I’ve met many an academic
powerhouse that can’t figure out to how print a document, or stellar students who don’t have basic
real-world skills like paying a utility bill. Perhaps intelligence isn’t just one thing, but many things.
One model of intelligence that still gets a lot of play is Gardener’s theory which states that there are 8, count em EIGHT facets of intelligence. They include:
Naturalist: Connection to nature and one’s surroundings (ecological receptiveness)
Linguistic: facility with words, languages, and storytelling
Logical-mathematical: Facility with abstractions, reasoning, numbers, mechanisms, rules, and underlying principles of systems
Musical: Sensitivity to sounds, rhythms, tones, melody, timbre, meter, and music
Spatial: spatial judgment and the ability to visualize with the mind’s eye, can rotate objects in space
Bodily-kinesthetic: control of one’s bodily motions and the capacity to handle objects skillfully
Intrapersonal; introspective and self-reflective, can identify strengths and weaknesses and what makes one unique
Interpersonal: emotionally-intelligent, sensitive to others’ moods, feelings, temperaments and
motivations
According to Gardener, each person is a unique constellation of these intelligences. It’s important to
note that there is a lack of empirical support for this model, ex. it’s not supported by brain scanning
technology. But chances are, if you ever took a test that claimed it could identify you your perfect job, it was likely based on this theory.
Is there anything notably missing for you?
