# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Este teste também está disponível nos seguintes idiomas:

O psicólogo do desenvolvimento da Universidade de Harvard Howard Gardner desenvolveu a teoria das Inteligências Múltiplas. De acordo com Gardner, as pessoas têm diferentes tipos de inteligências e a estrutura de múltiplas inteligências é mais justa do que testes de QI, que medem apenas um tipo de aptidão . A teoria das Inteligências Múltiplas goza de considerável popularidade entre os educadores, com muitos professores usando-a em sala de aula para ajudar os jovens a descobrirem seu caminho na vida.

Quais são suas inteligências mais fortes? Para cada uma das seguintes afirmações abaixo, indique o seu nível de concordância.
O Teste de Inteligências Múltiplas (MI) IDRlabs (IDR-MIT) foi desenvolvido pela IDRlabs. O IDR-MIT é baseado no trabalho do Dr. Howard Gardner, autor da Teoria das Inteligências Múltiplas. O IDR-MIT não está associado a nenhum pesquisador específico no campo da psicologia educacional ou a quaisquer instituições de pesquisa afiliadas.
O Teste de Inteligências Múltiplas do IDRlabs foi informado pelo Modelo de Inteligências Múltiplas de Gardner, conforme publicado em Gardner, Howard (1983; 1993) Frames of Mind: The theory of multiple intelligences, New York: Basic Books; Gardner, Howard (1999) Intelligence Reframed. Multiple intelligences for the 21st century, New York: Basic Books; Brualdi, A, C. (1996) 'Multiple Intelligences: Gardner's Theory. ERIC Digest', Eric Digests.

O trabalho do Dr. Gardner também informou alguns dos critérios na forma do modelo educacional e psicológico amplamente utilizado, a Teoria das Inteligências Múltiplas, para uso acadêmico e psicológico, especialmente por profissionais qualificados na academia. O presente teste destina-se apenas a fins educacionais. O IDRlabs e o presente Teste de Inteligências Múltiplas do IDRlabs são independentes dos pesquisadores, organizações ou instituições afiliadas acima.

Este Teste de Inteligências Múltiplas é baseado em um modelo teórico famoso, bem conceituado por sua operacionalização de estilos de aprendizagem preferidos e pela capacidade do candidato para resolver vários problemas. No entanto, testes e questionários online gratuitos como este são apenas as primeiras tomadas e não podem fornecer avaliações precisas de sua inteligência potencial. Portanto, o teste deve ser usado apenas para fins educacionais. A avaliação definitiva da inteligência só pode ser feita por profissional qualificado.

O teste retorna resultados como: Inteligência linguística ou "habilidade com palavras" é a competência com a linguagem falada e escrita. É a capacidade de usar palavras com eficácia para expressar idéias (bem como compreender as idéias de outras pessoas por meio de suas palavras) e compreender vocabulários complexos usando palavras incomuns, técnicas ou estrangeiras. Esse tipo de inteligência é frequentemente encontrado entre escritores, oradores, alunos e professores de línguas, e em outras profissões que envolvem malabarismo com palavras e fala. A inteligência linguística também tem sido associada à resolução de problemas acadêmicos e habilidades de raciocínio abstrato. Aqueles que têm alto nível de inteligência geralmente gostam de palavras cruzadas, leitura e escrita e todos os tipos de jogos de palavras.

Como editores deste teste on-line gratuito de Inteligências Múltiplas, que permite que você verifique os sinais dessa personalidade, nós nos esforçamos para tornar o teste o mais confiável e válido possível, submetendo este teste a controles estatísticos e validação. No entanto, os questionários online gratuitos, como o presente Teste de Inteligências Múltiplas, não fornecem avaliações profissionais ou recomendações de qualquer tipo; o teste é fornecido inteiramente "como está". Para obter mais informações sobre qualquer um de nossos testes e questionários online, consulte nossos Termos de Serviço.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Teste de Inteligências Múltiplas, baseado no trabalho do Dr. Howard Gardner, Ph.D.

# data[].attributes.headline
Todas as Inteligências são iguais? - Howard Gardner

# data[].attributes.subject
Todas as Inteligências são iguais? - Howard Gardner

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Ⓒ Howard Gardner 2023

CORMAC MCCARTHY THROWS DOWN THE GAUNTLET

In Stella Maris, the second of Cormac McCarthy's recently published pair of novels, protagonist Alicia Western baldly asserts:

"The Stanford Binet (IQ test) is racist-no questions about music... For instance, music doesn't count. So here's a black guy with a measured IQ of 85 who is by any matrix you might care to choose a musical genius. Simply off the charts. But to the IQ folks he's little more than a half wit."

Whether or not he's aware of it (and we have known each other casually since the 1980s), author McCarthy is giving voice to the insight that led to MI theory- "the theory of multiple intelligences." Put simply, the human intellect cannot be adequately assessed by a single paper-and-pencil (or computer-administered) instrument. Rather, there are various forms of intelligence-linguistic, logical-mathematical, spatial, interpersonal, etc., each deserves to be assessed separately and in an "intelligence-fair" way. Strength-or weakness!-in one form of intelligence does not predict strength-or weakness-in other intellectual realms.

Alicia Western goes on to ridicule other forms of psychological testing-from the MMPI (Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory) to the Raven's Progressive Matrices. But by no means does she equate all intelligences. Indeed, as spelled out convincingly by reviewer James Wood, Alicia embraces a definite hierarchy or ranking system for intelligences. In her view, numerical gifts are the most important- the single index of intellect by which one should judge individuals. Like mathematics, music is also a gift from the gods-and therefore has a special status. Definitely of a lower rank is language-on Alicia's account invented far more recently, subject constantly and unpredictably to historical forces and cultural factors, lacking in precision, and inherently incapable of achieving the universality of mathematics.

Clearly, this literary creation is proposing an intellectual pecking order among humans: Mathematicians stand above all others; physicists are those who are not quite gifted enough to carry out "pure mathematics;" those restricted to ordinary language-like novelists and even poets-are not in the same league. Perhaps, as reviewer James Wood suggests, McCarthy is ranking himself well below the mathematicians and scientists with whom he has long engaged at the interdisciplinary Santa Fe Institute. But perhaps as Graeme Wood, another reviewer, points out, it is language itself which may be better equipped to attack and (unpack) the philosophical issues that undergird and motivate many of Cormac McCarthy's searching writings.

In what follows, I step back from the sheer ranking of importance, or priority, of various forms of intellect. I seek to identify and illuminate some of the various lenses with which one can consider intellect. And I put forth my own views.

THE BATTLE AMONG PSYCHOLOGISTS

Over a century ago, French psychologist Alfred Binet created the first test for intelligence that became widely used. Binet deliberately assembled a potpourri of questions which predicted, with some accuracy, who would succeed readily in (indeed, breeze through) French public schools- and who could be expected to encounter difficulties. Developed (and successfully so) for this limited purpose, these "IQ tests" soon swept much of the Western world. They were used not only in scholastic settings but as a tool for placing individuals in putatively appropriate niches in the military; or for determining whether a person accused of a crime might be treated differently, depending on whether considered a genius, of average intelligence, or-per the lingo of the day-an imbecile.

Psychometricians (along with other psychologists) being a contentious crowd, Binet's work (particularly as reformulated by American test-makers Louis Thurstone and Lewis Terman) has often been critiqued. As early as the 1940s, psychometrician David Wechsler articulated the need to assess "social intelligence." And then forty years later, both Robert Sternberg and I put forth more detailed dissections of intelligence-Sternberg introducing his triarchic theory, I putting forth the theory of multiple intelligences (MI); Sternberg created measures, I largely desisted from doing so. And once a pluralistic view of intellect had been proposed, psychologists as well as psychologically-oriented pundits readily proposed other forms of intelligence-ranging from financial to sexual to emotional (the latter put forth initially by psychologists Peter Salovey and John Mayer, and effectively communicated to the rest of the world by science journalist Daniel Goleman.)

INTELLIGENCES BEYOND HUMANS: ANIMALS, LIVING ENTITIES... AND OTHER FORMS OF MATTER

While tests of intelligence were initially devised for administration to students (as well as soldiers and research subjects), there is no principled reasons why they should be restricted to Homo sapiens. And indeed, while it's scarcely feasible to administer standard tests of language or mathematics to other species, it's certainly possible to assess the maze-running ability of rats, or the navigational capacity of pigeons. Indeed, for some capacities, one or another species may well surpass human beings-if indeed, we knew how to assess the spatial abilities of octopi or the signaling acuity of dolphins.

Further: how convincingly can we execute comparisons within and across species? Perhaps rodents or birds can display as much spatial intelligence as humans...and many species (including our close primate relatives) may be proficient in bodily-kinesthetic intelligence. But how could we ascertain their personal intelligences-or, for that matter, their existential intelligences?

More recently, artists-as well as a few bolder scientists-have even raised the possibility of intellectual achievements beyond the animal kingdom. Perhaps, there is intelligence-or wisdom-among trees and plants. Or, indeed, perhaps the earth itself constitutes an intellectual gyroscope. For elaboration of these points, see my blog post (link here).

And of course, problem-solving-and perhaps even problem-finding-are no longer restricted to the natural world. Seventy years ago, computers were already capable of impressive computation-rapid calculation, logical proofs, game playing (such as chess), prediction of election results. And with every passing year-perhaps even week or day!-computers are able to best the most proficient human beings...and to do so even in games, contests, academic feats once thought the solitary purview of Homo sapiens. As for the retort that these machines (however constituted) have been designed, programmed, operated, read by human beings: we have to concede that we members of Homo sapiens no longer know, we no longer understand how computers are achieving these amazing feats... A trend that promises to continue and presumably accelerate indefinitely.

ON TO... ONTOLOGY

Shortly after I published Frames of Mind, my 1983 introduction to the theory of multiple intelligences, I arrived at an important realization.

Writing as a scholar and scientist-one reasonably well-versed in psychology and neuroscience-I had thought of the intelligences as properties of the human mind, the human brain. (A contemporary, data-grounded, criteria-based variant of phrenology, if you will). We are the species that possesses linguistic, logical-mathematical, musical, spatial, bodily-kinesthetic, interpersonal, and intrapersonal intelligences. (Later I added an eighth or naturalist intelligence; and I have also speculated about the possibilities of an existential intelligence (the intelligence which puts forth and tackles "big questions") and a pedagogical intelligence (the intelligence that enables us to convey our knowledge in appropriate ways to audiences with varying degrees of knowledge and sophistication). No candidate intelligence is confirmed unless it meets the criteria that I have laid out.

But as I began to work with educators, I soon realized that they did not think primarily in terms of the computational capacities of their students. Rather, (and appropriately) most educators think in terms of curriculum-what's appropriate for math class, physics class, English class, home economics, gym, the marching band, the art or dance studio, etc.)

Of course, there is a rough alignment between cognition and curriculum. Presumably, math class relies significantly on logical-mathematical intelligence, English class largely on linguistic intelligence, band and chorus on musical intelligence, etc.

But cognition and curricula are NOT equivalent. There are many ways to teach math; to construct and to assess mathematical assignments; to remember and draw on mathematical skills and reasoning. The same can be said with respect to almost any subject, any topic. And this realization led, in terms, to an important distinction between DOMAINSand INTELLIGENCES.

DOMAINS consist of the set of knowledge, procedures, insights that constitute a subject taught in school (or covered in a textbook or an online course); the INTELLIGENCES are the mind/brain toolkit on which learners can draw. Taking advantage of this toolkit, teachers can present materials and students can assimilate, apprehend, and display their knowledge of a specific topic. Accordingly: as an example, art history is a domain; but its mastery may call on linguistic intelligence, spatial intelligence, naturalist intelligences, and no doubt others as well. Or, to flip the example, our linguistic toolkit can be drawn on as we attempt to master domains as diverse as history, economics, or biology.

When communicating with educators, I convey this point with a simple assertion. Anything worth learning can be approached in more than one way. If you can teach a topic, or come to master a topic, in several ways, you have a well-rounded, well-textured understanding. Conversely, if you can only teach or understand a topic in one way, your grasp is limited, fragile.

This distinction also has important, indeed, crucial implications for students who exhibit learning deficits. If you teach such students in only a single conventional way, you are virtually bound to fail. The deft teacher of the dyslexic (or of the physically clumsy, or the tone deaf, or the color blind) is the teacher who is able to convey the DOMAIN'S key principles and ideas in novel but appropriate ways. As the innovative educational organization CAST maintains. It's not the student that is disabled; it is the curriculum! Hence CAST's call for Universal Design for Learning (UDL).

Then, there's the opposite side of the coin: In traditional computing, everything can be expressed in bits-in 0s and 1s. Does that mean that everything that a computer can spew forth-from creating a poem to solving a differential equation to writing a fugue-is identical? Obviously not-in any helpful sense. Only if you argue that since all life contains DNA, all living material is the same; or, to switch entities, since all materials, all matter are composed of atoms, all materials, all matter are the same!

To generalize: Be wary if you have a very thin and one-dimensional view of the world(s) in which we live.

ONTOLOGY CONTINUED

Let's start with the extremes, just introduced:

At one horn of the extreme: there is only one form of computation (as epitomized by 0s and 1s in computation); every capacity can and should be expressed and evaluated in light of this primitive (or primary) metric.

On the opposite horn of the extreme: every computation that is not identical is distinct; accordingly, there are infinite numbers of computations-01, 10, 001, 100, 1010 etc.)

Few would be content to endorse either of these extreme positions.

Now consider a very rough analogue in the study of intelligence: There is only one form of intelligence, only one form of computation; and we can align individuals, tasks, programs, computational systems in term of degree or amount of computational power.

One can actually locate a statement to this effect-indeed, two such utterances-in Cormac's McCarthy recently published novels. We encounter the claim that, for many individuals, physicist J. Robert Oppenheimer was "the smartest person man they'd ever met"-or, indeed, that the world had ever known. Roughly speaking, here's the assertion: Oppenheimer could compute better or faster or both than any other human being-known or even imaginable.

However, this remarkable claim leaves questions unanswered. Were the evaluators actually taking into account all of Oppenheimer's skills and capacities, disabilities, frailties, weaknesses as well as his clear prowess?

Consider the evidence. Let's concede that Oppenheimer was a brilliant physicist and an excellent leader of the Manhattan Project. But it is also known that Oppenheimer did an inadequate job defending himself at the 1954 hearings of the Atomic Energy Commission. He did not demonstrate his capacity to be entrusted with secrets, and hence lost his security clearance. (It was restored in 2022, 68 years later)! Also, his own family life was troubled; as a young adult, he sought to poison one of his preceptors; and he never recovered psychologically from his role in the Manhattan project and the carnage in its aftermath. Nor, reverting to Alison's hypothetical musical genius who was black, is there evidence that he was unusually gifted in music. Whatever it encompassed, Oppenheimer's genius was clearly limited.

Back to Alicia, as portrayed in McCarthy's books. On the one hand, she is willing to credit intelligence to the black musician-enough to undermine the usual psychometric assessments of intelligence, which tap logical-mathematical, linguistic, and perhaps spatial intelligence, but not the several remaining ones.

But there are less generous readings of Alicia's position-which, Cormac McCarthy implies, would be found in those who populate centers like the Santa Fe Institute, the Institute of Advanced Study in Princeton, or similar "think tanks" in Europe.

Consider her critique of standard intelligence testing:

1. "I've never met anyone in the (IQ test) business who had any grasp at all of mathematics. And intelligence is numbers, it is not words. Words are things we've made up. Mathematics is not. The math and logic questions on the IQ tests are a joke."

Or as she puts it elsewhere:

2. When you are talking about intelligence, you're talking about numbers. Verbal intelligence will take you only so far. There is a wall there... if you don't understand numbers, you won't even see the wall"

On reading 1, there may be other "lesser" intelligences-like musical or linguistic-but numerical, mathematical, or perhaps logical-mathematical stands indisputably at the top.

On reading 2, numerical intelligence-and, just possibly musical intelligence-may reflect the way that the universe is-indeed, the way that the universe has to be.

Let me put it in lay terms-the only ones that I (as a non-mathematician) can understand and articulate: Alicia is arguing: The universe is inherently numerical-it cannot be any other way-and mathematicians are the ones-for better or worse, the only ones-capable of decoding, understanding and explicating that reality.

Three apparent codicils:

1. Physics is secondary to math. More human beings can "do" physics than can "do" math. And mathematicians are the only human beings who can grasp-or can even attempt to grasp-the nature of the universe.

2. Just possibly, music is analogous, akin to math-perhaps there is only one music, and (as the philosopher Arthur Schopenhauer claimed), it is a privileged part of the mysterious nature of the universe.

3. Language is definitely secondary in importance and profundity. There are many languages, they have undergone-and continue to undergo-historical developments and unpredictable changes. They are influenced by culture; they are inherently imperfect; they lack the precision and the finality of mathematics, and, perhaps, of music.

BACK TO PSYCHOLOGY, SOCIOLOGY, BRAIN SCIENCE

With due respect to Alicia, and the author who created her, there's a quite different way of conceptualizing this space-an entirely distinct ontology, so to speak.

On this account, over millennia, the brains (and minds) of the hominid species have evolved in numerous ways. Our species has different neurological organization and psychological capacities, developed to ensure our survival on the planet-and, accordingly, different ways of knowing the world. At various times, and under various circumstances, certain "ways of knowing" and "ways of expressing" come to the fore. (Small but timely example: until the 20th century, linguistic capacities were particularly valued in higher education; but that has radically changed in the last century, when logical- mathematical capacities are now valued far more). And it's possible that in the 21st century, with machine computational capacities far outflanking those of human beings, that the personal intelligences (sometimes dubbed "soft skills") will be ever more valorized.

And of course, the brain and the mind might have evolved quite differently. That's an essential element of Darwinian evolutionary theory and the one that most disconcerts religious fundamentalists who adhere to a literal version of the account presented in Genesis.

A PEEK AT EPISTEMOLOGICAL ONTOLOGY

Based on my glancing knowledge of intellectual history, philosophers René Descartes and Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz were engaged in a deep effort to identify the most fundamental forms of thought-which they deemed as logical. Centuries later, Bertrand Russell and Alfred Whitehead concluded that the basics of mathematics, the realm of number, could be expressed in symbolic logic. Mathematician Kurt Gödel demonstrated the limitations-indeed the inherent incompleteness-of this mode of analysis. And pioneering computer scientists like Herbert Simon and Allan Newell used symbolic logic as the basis of their computing system; linguist Noam Chomsky (who aligned himself with the program of Cartesian Linguistics) was searching for universal principles of grammar or syntax that underlay superficial differences across spoken languages. Following in the footsteps of their physicist father, who had worked on the Manhattan Project, both Alicia Western and her brother Bobby Western valorized this strand of thinking; author Cormac McCarthy seems to endorse-or at least give voice to-that valorization.

However: In his penetrating (though positive) evaluation of the two McCarthy books, reviewer Graeme Wood points out that across his oeuvre, Cormac McCarthy actually wrestles with the most fundamental human issues-life, death, love, hatred, war, peace, choice, fate, destiny. These are not susceptible to conclusive mathematical analyses (as both Western children ultimately if regretfully came to acknowledge). However much one might wish it were the case, such vexing human concerns can't lead to a convincing, slam-dunk conclusion-the vicissitudes of life do not yield a neat quod erat demonstrandum. Rather they call for-indeed require-unending reflection, debate, uncertainty-all serving as a stimulus to yet further discussion reading, writing, philosophizing. And this endless dialog, dialectic, deconstruction-far more than strings of 0s and1a, or Compu-chat-may continue to dominate, indeed may constitute, human destiny.

CODA: TWO WAYS TO CONSTRUE THIS EPISTEMOLOGICAL PUZZLE-A PERSONAL APOLOGIA

By inclination, perhaps by nature, I am a synthesizer. I like to lay out a puzzle; reflect on its various dimensions (including promising pathways but also dead ends); and then assemble the pieces in ways that make sense to me-and, perhaps, to others. Here are two guiding principles:

1. The Philosophy of Symbolic Forms
As laid out by philosopher Susanne Langer, there are two basic forms of symbolization. One is rooted in math, logic, and ordinary language-these discursive forms have essentially the same meanings across usages and can be combined in various ways (as in this essay). The second is Presentational Symbols. Encountered in myth, religion, rituals-and especially in works of art-these symbols cannot be decomposed meaningfully. Change even one feature, one line, one beat, one note, and the work, the presentation as a whole is necessarily, if inexplicably, altered.
My teacher, Nelson Goodman, expressed this distinction in a more formal stricture. He contrasted notational with non-notational symbols. The arts are the playground of non-notational symbols. A forgery can never be conflated with the original because it is always possible in principle to find differences between two superficially identical symbolic representations.
Adopting this perspective, we can say that Cormac McCarthy (and other artists in other media) are mining the realm of non-notational symbolization, while the Western siblings valorize only the terrain of notational (or discursive) symbols.

2. The World of Organic Evolution
The universe has existed for perhaps 13 billion years; our solar system (and presumably our planet) for 4.5 billion years; the first living entities go back 3.7 billion years; animals perhaps 800 million years. The first hominids appeared perhaps 250 million years ago; Homo sapiens perhaps 50,000 to 100,000 years ago.

We can attribute certain capacities and potentials to each of these layers of existence: presumably the several intelligences that I have delineated only flowered in the last few hundreds of thousands of years. It does not make sense to apply "IQ" or "MI" ways of analyses to earlier strata of life.

But when it comes to our understanding of the universe, the tools are different. Perhaps the Western siblings are correct: mathematical thinking can illuminate the nature of the physical universe, with musical thought queued up somewhere close by; in contrast, natural language-whether discursive or presentational-is a recent arrival, so to speak. And just perhaps, music may occupy an intermediate spot-with its Platonic features suspended somewhere between word and number. But for that very reason, if we want to understand all of matter-and especially life, living, growing, declining, dying-we will need to draw on the very verbal features that Cormac McCarthy's characters may denigrate; -but that constitute sense making in its most capacious -Eastern as well as Western-sense.

For very helpful comments on earlier versions of this essay, I thank Shinri Furuzawa, Mindy Kornhaber, Donald Richard, and Ellen Winner.

REFERENCES

Gardner, H. (1983). Frames of mind: The theory of multiple intelligences. New York: Basic Books.

Gardner, H. (2006). Multiple intelligences: New horizons. New York: Basic Books: New York.

Goleman, D. (1995). Emotional intelligence: Why it can matter more than IQ. New York: Bantam Books.

Goodman, N. (1968). Languages of art. Indianapolis: Hackett.

Langer, S. K. (1942). Philosophy in a new key. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

Salovey, P., & Mayer, J. D. (1990). Emotional intelligence. Imagination, cognition and

personality, 9(3), 185-211.

McCarthy, C. (2022). The passenger. New York: Alfred A. Knopf.

McCarthy, C. (2022). Stella Maris. New York: Alfred A. Knopf.

Sternberg, R. J. (1988). The triarchic mind. New York: Viking.

Wood, G. (2022). Cormac McCarthy has never been better. The Atlantic, (January-February), 78-81.

Wood, J. (2022). The numbers game. The New Yorker, (December 19), 60-65.

Photo by Stefan Cosma on Unsplash

Ⓒ Howard Gardner 2023

CORMAC MCCARTHY THROWS DOWN THE GAUNTLET

In Stella Maris, the second of Cormac McCarthy's recently published pair of novels, protagonist Alicia Western baldly asserts:

"The Stanford Binet (IQ test) is racist-no questions about music... For instance, music doesn't count. So here's a black guy with a measured IQ of 85 who is by any matrix you might care to choose a musical genius. Simply off the charts. But to the IQ folks he's little more than a half wit."

Whether or not he's aware of it (and we have known each other casually since the 1980s), author McCarthy is giving voice to the insight that led to MI theory- "the theory of multiple intelligences." Put simply, the human intellect cannot be adequately assessed by a single paper-and-pencil (or computer-administered) instrument. Rather, there are various forms of intelligence-linguistic, logical-mathematical, spatial, interpersonal, etc., each deserves to be assessed separately and in an "intelligence-fair" way. Strength-or weakness!-in one form of intelligence does not predict strength-or weakness-in other intellectual realms.

Alicia Western goes on to ridicule other forms of psychological testing-from the MMPI (Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory) to the Raven's Progressive Matrices. But by no means does she equate all intelligences. Indeed, as spelled out convincingly by reviewer James Wood, Alicia embraces a definite hierarchy or ranking system for intelligences. In her view, numerical gifts are the most important- the single index of intellect by which one should judge individuals. Like mathematics, music is also a gift from the gods-and therefore has a special status. Definitely of a lower rank is language-on Alicia's account invented far more recently, subject constantly and unpredictably to historical forces and cultural factors, lacking in precision, and inherently incapable of achieving the universality of mathematics.

Clearly, this literary creation is proposing an intellectual pecking order among humans: Mathematicians stand above all others; physicists are those who are not quite gifted enough to carry out "pure mathematics;" those restricted to ordinary language-like novelists and even poets-are not in the same league. Perhaps, as reviewer James Wood suggests, McCarthy is ranking himself well below the mathematicians and scientists with whom he has long engaged at the interdisciplinary Santa Fe Institute. But perhaps as Graeme Wood, another reviewer, points out, it is language itself which may be better equipped to attack and (unpack) the philosophical issues that undergird and motivate many of Cormac McCarthy's searching writings.

In what follows, I step back from the sheer ranking of importance, or priority, of various forms of intellect. I seek to identify and illuminate some of the various lenses with which one can consider intellect. And I put forth my own views.

THE BATTLE AMONG PSYCHOLOGISTS

Over a century ago, French psychologist Alfred Binet created the first test for intelligence that became widely used. Binet deliberately assembled a potpourri of questions which predicted, with some accuracy, who would succeed readily in (indeed, breeze through) French public schools- and who could be expected to encounter difficulties. Developed (and successfully so) for this limited purpose, these "IQ tests" soon swept much of the Western world. They were used not only in scholastic settings but as a tool for placing individuals in putatively appropriate niches in the military; or for determining whether a person accused of a crime might be treated differently, depending on whether considered a genius, of average intelligence, or-per the lingo of the day-an imbecile.

Psychometricians (along with other psychologists) being a contentious crowd, Binet's work (particularly as reformulated by American test-makers Louis Thurstone and Lewis Terman) has often been critiqued. As early as the 1940s, psychometrician David Wechsler articulated the need to assess "social intelligence." And then forty years later, both Robert Sternberg and I put forth more detailed dissections of intelligence-Sternberg introducing his triarchic theory, I putting forth the theory of multiple intelligences (MI); Sternberg created measures, I largely desisted from doing so. And once a pluralistic view of intellect had been proposed, psychologists as well as psychologically-oriented pundits readily proposed other forms of intelligence-ranging from financial to sexual to emotional (the latter put forth initially by psychologists Peter Salovey and John Mayer, and effectively communicated to the rest of the world by science journalist Daniel Goleman.)

INTELLIGENCES BEYOND HUMANS: ANIMALS, LIVING ENTITIES... AND OTHER FORMS OF MATTER

While tests of intelligence were initially devised for administration to students (as well as soldiers and research subjects), there is no principled reasons why they should be restricted to Homo sapiens. And indeed, while it's scarcely feasible to administer standard tests of language or mathematics to other species, it's certainly possible to assess the maze-running ability of rats, or the navigational capacity of pigeons. Indeed, for some capacities, one or another species may well surpass human beings-if indeed, we knew how to assess the spatial abilities of octopi or the signaling acuity of dolphins.

Further: how convincingly can we execute comparisons within and across species? Perhaps rodents or birds can display as much spatial intelligence as humans...and many species (including our close primate relatives) may be proficient in bodily-kinesthetic intelligence. But how could we ascertain their personal intelligences-or, for that matter, their existential intelligences?

More recently, artists-as well as a few bolder scientists-have even raised the possibility of intellectual achievements beyond the animal kingdom. Perhaps, there is intelligence-or wisdom-among trees and plants. Or, indeed, perhaps the earth itself constitutes an intellectual gyroscope. For elaboration of these points, see my blog post (link here).

And of course, problem-solving-and perhaps even problem-finding-are no longer restricted to the natural world. Seventy years ago, computers were already capable of impressive computation-rapid calculation, logical proofs, game playing (such as chess), prediction of election results. And with every passing year-perhaps even week or day!-computers are able to best the most proficient human beings...and to do so even in games, contests, academic feats once thought the solitary purview of Homo sapiens. As for the retort that these machines (however constituted) have been designed, programmed, operated, read by human beings: we have to concede that we members of Homo sapiens no longer know, we no longer understand how computers are achieving these amazing feats... A trend that promises to continue and presumably accelerate indefinitely.

ON TO... ONTOLOGY

Shortly after I published Frames of Mind, my 1983 introduction to the theory of multiple intelligences, I arrived at an important realization.

Writing as a scholar and scientist-one reasonably well-versed in psychology and neuroscience-I had thought of the intelligences as properties of the human mind, the human brain. (A contemporary, data-grounded, criteria-based variant of phrenology, if you will). We are the species that possesses linguistic, logical-mathematical, musical, spatial, bodily-kinesthetic, interpersonal, and intrapersonal intelligences. (Later I added an eighth or naturalist intelligence; and I have also speculated about the possibilities of an existential intelligence (the intelligence which puts forth and tackles "big questions") and a pedagogical intelligence (the intelligence that enables us to convey our knowledge in appropriate ways to audiences with varying degrees of knowledge and sophistication). No candidate intelligence is confirmed unless it meets the criteria that I have laid out.

But as I began to work with educators, I soon realized that they did not think primarily in terms of the computational capacities of their students. Rather, (and appropriately) most educators think in terms of curriculum-what's appropriate for math class, physics class, English class, home economics, gym, the marching band, the art or dance studio, etc.)

Of course, there is a rough alignment between cognition and curriculum. Presumably, math class relies significantly on logical-mathematical intelligence, English class largely on linguistic intelligence, band and chorus on musical intelligence, etc.

But cognition and curricula are NOT equivalent. There are many ways to teach math; to construct and to assess mathematical assignments; to remember and draw on mathematical skills and reasoning. The same can be said with respect to almost any subject, any topic. And this realization led, in terms, to an important distinction between DOMAINSand INTELLIGENCES.

DOMAINS consist of the set of knowledge, procedures, insights that constitute a subject taught in school (or covered in a textbook or an online course); the INTELLIGENCES are the mind/brain toolkit on which learners can draw. Taking advantage of this toolkit, teachers can present materials and students can assimilate, apprehend, and display their knowledge of a specific topic. Accordingly: as an example, art history is a domain; but its mastery may call on linguistic intelligence, spatial intelligence, naturalist intelligences, and no doubt others as well. Or, to flip the example, our linguistic toolkit can be drawn on as we attempt to master domains as diverse as history, economics, or biology.

When communicating with educators, I convey this point with a simple assertion. Anything worth learning can be approached in more than one way. If you can teach a topic, or come to master a topic, in several ways, you have a well-rounded, well-textured understanding. Conversely, if you can only teach or understand a topic in one way, your grasp is limited, fragile.

This distinction also has important, indeed, crucial implications for students who exhibit learning deficits. If you teach such students in only a single conventional way, you are virtually bound to fail. The deft teacher of the dyslexic (or of the physically clumsy, or the tone deaf, or the color blind) is the teacher who is able to convey the DOMAIN'S key principles and ideas in novel but appropriate ways. As the innovative educational organization CAST maintains. It's not the student that is disabled; it is the curriculum! Hence CAST's call for Universal Design for Learning (UDL).

Then, there's the opposite side of the coin: In traditional computing, everything can be expressed in bits-in 0s and 1s. Does that mean that everything that a computer can spew forth-from creating a poem to solving a differential equation to writing a fugue-is identical? Obviously not-in any helpful sense. Only if you argue that since all life contains DNA, all living material is the same; or, to switch entities, since all materials, all matter are composed of atoms, all materials, all matter are the same!

To generalize: Be wary if you have a very thin and one-dimensional view of the world(s) in which we live.

ONTOLOGY CONTINUED

Let's start with the extremes, just introduced:

At one horn of the extreme: there is only one form of computation (as epitomized by 0s and 1s in computation); every capacity can and should be expressed and evaluated in light of this primitive (or primary) metric.

On the opposite horn of the extreme: every computation that is not identical is distinct; accordingly, there are infinite numbers of computations-01, 10, 001, 100, 1010 etc.)

Few would be content to endorse either of these extreme positions.

Now consider a very rough analogue in the study of intelligence: There is only one form of intelligence, only one form of computation; and we can align individuals, tasks, programs, computational systems in term of degree or amount of computational power.

One can actually locate a statement to this effect-indeed, two such utterances-in Cormac's McCarthy recently published novels. We encounter the claim that, for many individuals, physicist J. Robert Oppenheimer was "the smartest person man they'd ever met"-or, indeed, that the world had ever known. Roughly speaking, here's the assertion: Oppenheimer could compute better or faster or both than any other human being-known or even imaginable.

However, this remarkable claim leaves questions unanswered. Were the evaluators actually taking into account all of Oppenheimer's skills and capacities, disabilities, frailties, weaknesses as well as his clear prowess?

Consider the evidence. Let's concede that Oppenheimer was a brilliant physicist and an excellent leader of the Manhattan Project. But it is also known that Oppenheimer did an inadequate job defending himself at the 1954 hearings of the Atomic Energy Commission. He did not demonstrate his capacity to be entrusted with secrets, and hence lost his security clearance. (It was restored in 2022, 68 years later)! Also, his own family life was troubled; as a young adult, he sought to poison one of his preceptors; and he never recovered psychologically from his role in the Manhattan project and the carnage in its aftermath. Nor, reverting to Alison's hypothetical musical genius who was black, is there evidence that he was unusually gifted in music. Whatever it encompassed, Oppenheimer's genius was clearly limited.

Back to Alicia, as portrayed in McCarthy's books. On the one hand, she is willing to credit intelligence to the black musician-enough to undermine the usual psychometric assessments of intelligence, which tap logical-mathematical, linguistic, and perhaps spatial intelligence, but not the several remaining ones.

But there are less generous readings of Alicia's position-which, Cormac McCarthy implies, would be found in those who populate centers like the Santa Fe Institute, the Institute of Advanced Study in Princeton, or similar "think tanks" in Europe.

Consider her critique of standard intelligence testing:

1. "I've never met anyone in the (IQ test) business who had any grasp at all of mathematics. And intelligence is numbers, it is not words. Words are things we've made up. Mathematics is not. The math and logic questions on the IQ tests are a joke."

Or as she puts it elsewhere:

2. When you are talking about intelligence, you're talking about numbers. Verbal intelligence will take you only so far. There is a wall there... if you don't understand numbers, you won't even see the wall"

On reading 1, there may be other "lesser" intelligences-like musical or linguistic-but numerical, mathematical, or perhaps logical-mathematical stands indisputably at the top.

On reading 2, numerical intelligence-and, just possibly musical intelligence-may reflect the way that the universe is-indeed, the way that the universe has to be.

Let me put it in lay terms-the only ones that I (as a non-mathematician) can understand and articulate: Alicia is arguing: The universe is inherently numerical-it cannot be any other way-and mathematicians are the ones-for better or worse, the only ones-capable of decoding, understanding and explicating that reality.

Three apparent codicils:

1. Physics is secondary to math. More human beings can "do" physics than can "do" math. And mathematicians are the only human beings who can grasp-or can even attempt to grasp-the nature of the universe.

2. Just possibly, music is analogous, akin to math-perhaps there is only one music, and (as the philosopher Arthur Schopenhauer claimed), it is a privileged part of the mysterious nature of the universe.

3. Language is definitely secondary in importance and profundity. There are many languages, they have undergone-and continue to undergo-historical developments and unpredictable changes. They are influenced by culture; they are inherently imperfect; they lack the precision and the finality of mathematics, and, perhaps, of music.

BACK TO PSYCHOLOGY, SOCIOLOGY, BRAIN SCIENCE

With due respect to Alicia, and the author who created her, there's a quite different way of conceptualizing this space-an entirely distinct ontology, so to speak.

On this account, over millennia, the brains (and minds) of the hominid species have evolved in numerous ways. Our species has different neurological organization and psychological capacities, developed to ensure our survival on the planet-and, accordingly, different ways of knowing the world. At various times, and under various circumstances, certain "ways of knowing" and "ways of expressing" come to the fore. (Small but timely example: until the 20th century, linguistic capacities were particularly valued in higher education; but that has radically changed in the last century, when logical- mathematical capacities are now valued far more). And it's possible that in the 21st century, with machine computational capacities far outflanking those of human beings, that the personal intelligences (sometimes dubbed "soft skills") will be ever more valorized.

And of course, the brain and the mind might have evolved quite differently. That's an essential element of Darwinian evolutionary theory and the one that most disconcerts religious fundamentalists who adhere to a literal version of the account presented in Genesis.

A PEEK AT EPISTEMOLOGICAL ONTOLOGY

Based on my glancing knowledge of intellectual history, philosophers René Descartes and Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz were engaged in a deep effort to identify the most fundamental forms of thought-which they deemed as logical. Centuries later, Bertrand Russell and Alfred Whitehead concluded that the basics of mathematics, the realm of number, could be expressed in symbolic logic. Mathematician Kurt Gödel demonstrated the limitations-indeed the inherent incompleteness-of this mode of analysis. And pioneering computer scientists like Herbert Simon and Allan Newell used symbolic logic as the basis of their computing system; linguist Noam Chomsky (who aligned himself with the program of Cartesian Linguistics) was searching for universal principles of grammar or syntax that underlay superficial differences across spoken languages. Following in the footsteps of their physicist father, who had worked on the Manhattan Project, both Alicia Western and her brother Bobby Western valorized this strand of thinking; author Cormac McCarthy seems to endorse-or at least give voice to-that valorization.

However: In his penetrating (though positive) evaluation of the two McCarthy books, reviewer Graeme Wood points out that across his oeuvre, Cormac McCarthy actually wrestles with the most fundamental human issues-life, death, love, hatred, war, peace, choice, fate, destiny. These are not susceptible to conclusive mathematical analyses (as both Western children ultimately if regretfully came to acknowledge). However much one might wish it were the case, such vexing human concerns can't lead to a convincing, slam-dunk conclusion-the vicissitudes of life do not yield a neat quod erat demonstrandum. Rather they call for-indeed require-unending reflection, debate, uncertainty-all serving as a stimulus to yet further discussion reading, writing, philosophizing. And this endless dialog, dialectic, deconstruction-far more than strings of 0s and1a, or Compu-chat-may continue to dominate, indeed may constitute, human destiny.

CODA: TWO WAYS TO CONSTRUE THIS EPISTEMOLOGICAL PUZZLE-A PERSONAL APOLOGIA

By inclination, perhaps by nature, I am a synthesizer. I like to lay out a puzzle; reflect on its various dimensions (including promising pathways but also dead ends); and then assemble the pieces in ways that make sense to me-and, perhaps, to others. Here are two guiding principles:

1. The Philosophy of Symbolic Forms
As laid out by philosopher Susanne Langer, there are two basic forms of symbolization. One is rooted in math, logic, and ordinary language-these discursive forms have essentially the same meanings across usages and can be combined in various ways (as in this essay). The second is Presentational Symbols. Encountered in myth, religion, rituals-and especially in works of art-these symbols cannot be decomposed meaningfully. Change even one feature, one line, one beat, one note, and the work, the presentation as a whole is necessarily, if inexplicably, altered.
My teacher, Nelson Goodman, expressed this distinction in a more formal stricture. He contrasted notational with non-notational symbols. The arts are the playground of non-notational symbols. A forgery can never be conflated with the original because it is always possible in principle to find differences between two superficially identical symbolic representations.
Adopting this perspective, we can say that Cormac McCarthy (and other artists in other media) are mining the realm of non-notational symbolization, while the Western siblings valorize only the terrain of notational (or discursive) symbols.

2. The World of Organic Evolution
The universe has existed for perhaps 13 billion years; our solar system (and presumably our planet) for 4.5 billion years; the first living entities go back 3.7 billion years; animals perhaps 800 million years. The first hominids appeared perhaps 250 million years ago; Homo sapiens perhaps 50,000 to 100,000 years ago.

We can attribute certain capacities and potentials to each of these layers of existence: presumably the several intelligences that I have delineated only flowered in the last few hundreds of thousands of years. It does not make sense to apply "IQ" or "MI" ways of analyses to earlier strata of life.

But when it comes to our understanding of the universe, the tools are different. Perhaps the Western siblings are correct: mathematical thinking can illuminate the nature of the physical universe, with musical thought queued up somewhere close by; in contrast, natural language-whether discursive or presentational-is a recent arrival, so to speak. And just perhaps, music may occupy an intermediate spot-with its Platonic features suspended somewhere between word and number. But for that very reason, if we want to understand all of matter-and especially life, living, growing, declining, dying-we will need to draw on the very verbal features that Cormac McCarthy's characters may denigrate; -but that constitute sense making in its most capacious -Eastern as well as Western-sense.

For very helpful comments on earlier versions of this essay, I thank Shinri Furuzawa, Mindy Kornhaber, Donald Richard, and Ellen Winner.

REFERENCES

Gardner, H. (1983). Frames of mind: The theory of multiple intelligences. New York: Basic Books.

Gardner, H. (2006). Multiple intelligences: New horizons. New York: Basic Books: New York.

Goleman, D. (1995). Emotional intelligence: Why it can matter more than IQ. New York: Bantam Books.

Goodman, N. (1968). Languages of art. Indianapolis: Hackett.

Langer, S. K. (1942). Philosophy in a new key. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

Salovey, P., & Mayer, J. D. (1990). Emotional intelligence. Imagination, cognition and

personality, 9(3), 185-211.

McCarthy, C. (2022). The passenger. New York: Alfred A. Knopf.

McCarthy, C. (2022). Stella Maris. New York: Alfred A. Knopf.

Sternberg, R. J. (1988). The triarchic mind. New York: Viking.

Wood, G. (2022). Cormac McCarthy has never been better. The Atlantic, (January-February), 78-81.

Wood, J. (2022). The numbers game. The New Yorker, (December 19), 60-65.

Photo by Stefan Cosma on Unsplash

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Are all Intelligences Equal? An Issue Raised by Cormac McCarthy's Recent Novels - Howard Gardner

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Ⓒ Howard Gardner 2023 CORMAC MCCARTHY THROWS DOWN THE GAUNTLET In Stella Maris , the second of Cormac McCarthy's recently published pair of novels, protagonist Alicia Western baldly asserts: "The Stanford Binet (IQ test) is racist-no questions about music... For instance, music doesn'

# data[].attributes.attachment_caption
Inteligência Múltiplas - Descubra Qual Dos 9 Tipos é Predominante Em Você * Terapia Com Psico.Online | Psicólogos Online

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.provider_name
Terapia com Psico.Online | Psicólogos Online

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Inteligência Múltiplas é o nome dado ao estudo produzido em 1983 pela equipe do psicólogo do desenvolvimento Howard Gardner que descreveu nove tipos de inteligência onde afirmava que o conceito de inteligência, como tradicionalmente definido em psicometria ( testes de QI) não era suficiente para descrever a grande variedade de habilidades cognitivas humanas.

Esse conceito, precedia uma análise antecedente para classificação das habilidades que todo ser humano pode ter. Esses critérios eram:

Potencial prejuízo com dano cerebral, a exemplo das capacidades linguísticas no Acidente Vascular Cerebral;

Existência de gênios, ou indivíduos eminentes com habilidades especiais onde se pode observar tal capacidade isolada ou prejudicada;

Um conjunto de operações identificável. A música, por exemplo, consiste da sensibilidade de uma pessoa para a melodia, a harmonia, o ritmo, o timbre e a estrutura musical;

Uma história de desenvolvimento distintiva para cada indivíduo, junto com uma natureza definível de desempenho especialista;

Ser possível identificar os passos para atingir tais perícias, uma história evolutiva e plausibilidade evolutiva, a exemplo das formas de inteligência espacial em mamíferos ou inteligência musical em pássaros;

Testabilidade, a exemplo dos testes psicológicos, distinções psicométricas susceptíveis de confirmação e re-testagem com múltiplos instrumentos;

Suscetibilidade para ser codificada em um sistema de símbolos. Códigos como idioma, aritmética, mapas e expressão lógica, entre outros.

Mesmo se tratando de um assunto bastante sério, dada a facilidade de entendimento e de classificação, o teste passou a ser utilizado no mundo todo como uma forma de balancear as teorias e demonstrar que todos tem qualidades e que podem ser melhores em determinadas ações.

Confira abaixo uma explicação resumida das inteligências múltiplas e um teste para mapear a predominância dos tipos em você.

Inteligência Múltiplas, qual é a sua?

Naturalista (inteligência de natureza);

Photo by cottonbro on Pexels.com

Há a Inteligência Múltiplas chamada naturalista designa a capacidade de diferenciar os seres vivos e possuir a sensibilidade para outras características do mundo natural (nuvens, formações rochosas). Esta capacidade foi claramente valorosa na evolução humana como características de caçadores, coletores e agricultores, e continua sendo importante em profissões como botânica ou para chefes de cozinha. Também é percebida em grande parte da nossa sociedade de consumo, quando exploramos as inteligências naturalistas, que podem ser direcionadas na distinção e escolhas entre carros, tênis, tipos de maquiagem e afins.

Musical (inteligência de som)

Photo by Charles Parker on Pexels.com

A Inteligência Múltiplas musical é a capacidade de perceber ritmo, timbres e tons. Permite que as pessoas reconheçam, criem, reproduzam e reflitam sobre música, como demonstrado por vezes nas capacidades inatas de compositores, maestros, músicos, vocalistas e ouvintes sensíveis. Curiosamente, muitas vezes há uma ligação afetiva entre música e emoções. Além disso, inteligências matemáticas e musicais compartilham processos de pensamento comuns. Adultos jovens com esse tipo de inteligência são geralmente muito conscientes de sons que outros podem não notar.

Lógico-matemática (inteligência de números e raciocínio);

Photo by Andrea Piacquadio on Pexels.com

Das inteligência Múltiplas, temos a lógico-matemática que é a capacidade de calcular, quantificar, considerar proposições e hipóteses e realizar operações matemáticas completas e complexas. Ela permite perceber relações e conexões e usar pensamento abstrato e simbólico; ter habilidades de raciocínio sequencial; e padrões de pensamento indutivos e dedutivos. A inteligência lógico-matemática é bem desenvolvida em matemáticos, cientistas e investigadores. Adultos jovens com muita inteligência lógica são interessados geralmente em padrões, categorias e relacionamentos. São atraídos por problemas de aritmética, jogos de estratégia e experimentos.

Existencial (inteligência de vida);

A inteligência existencial é a sensibilidade e capacidade de abordar questões profundas sobre a existência humana, tais como o sentido da vida, por que morremos, e como chegamos aqui. Muito utilizada em filósofos e pensadores.

Interpessoal (inteligência de pessoas);

Photo by Belle Co on Pexels.com

A inteligência interpessoal é a capacidade de compreender e interagir eficazmente com os outros. Trata-se de uma comunicação eficaz verbal e não verbal, a capacidade de notar as distinções entre outros, a sensibilidade aos humores e temperamentos dos outros, e a capacidade de ter múltiplas perspectivas. Geralmente, professores, assistentes sociais, atores e políticos exibem inteligência interpessoal. Adultos jovens com esse tipo de inteligência são normalmente líderes, bons em se comunicar e parecem compreender sentimentos e motivações dos outros.

Corporal cinestésica (inteligência corporal);

A inteligência corporal-cinestésica é a capacidade de manipular objetos e usar uma variedade de habilidades físicas. Essa inteligência também envolve um senso de tempo certo e perfeição de habilidades através da união mente-corpo. Atletas, dançarinos, cirurgiões e artesãos exibem essa inteligência bem desenvolvida.

Linguística (inteligência de palavras);

A inteligência linguística é a capacidade de pensar em palavras e usar a linguagem para expressar e apreciar significados complexos. Nos permite compreender a ordem e significado das palavras e aplicar habilidades metalinguísticas para refletir sobre nosso uso da linguagem. Essa inteligência é a competência humana mais amplamente compartilhada e é evidente em poetas, romancistas, jornalistas e oradores públicos. Adultos jovens com esse tipo de inteligência gostam de escrever, ler, contar histórias ou fazer palavras cruzadas.

Intrapessoal (auto inteligência);

A inteligência intrapessoal é a capacidade de compreender a si mesmo e seus pensamentos e sentimentos, e usar esse conhecimento no planejamento e direcionamento da vida. Essa inteligência envolve não só a valorização do eu, mas também da condição humana. É evidente em psicólogos, líderes espirituais e filósofos. Estes jovens adultos podem ser tímidos. São muito conscientes de seus próprios sentimentos e são automotivados.

Espacial (inteligência de imagens).

A inteligência espacial é a capacidade de pensar em três dimensões. Habilidades básicas incluem raciocínio espacial, manipulação de imagem, habilidades gráficas e artísticas e imaginação ativa. Marinheiros, pilotos, escultores, pintores e arquitetos exibem inteligência espacial. Adultos jovens com esse tipo de inteligência podem ser fascinados com labirintos ou quebra-cabeças, ou gostar de desenhar e sonhar acordado.

Faça o teste e descubra qual deles predomina em você.

Três instruções para o teste de Inteligência Múltiplas:

1. Responda todas as perguntas escolhendo entre Concordo Totalmente ou Discordo Totalmente.

2. No começo do teste, escolha a exibição do Gráfico em Barra ou Pizza para identificar qual a Inteligência é mais destacada segundo suas respostas.

3. Clique em explicações e veja os critérios relacionados a sua inteligência predominante. 🙂

4. Graças a algumas mudanças do Google a página aparecerá como Insegura, clique em avançar e exibir o teste. 😉

Não consegue ver? Abra em uma nova janela. (vai aparecer a mensagem de "não seguro", mas funciona).

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Inteligência Múltiplas - Descubra Qual Dos 9 Tipos é Predominante Em Você * Terapia Com Psico.Online | Psicólogos Online

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Inteligência Múltiplas é o nome dado ao estudo produzido em 1983 pela equipe do psicólogo do desenvolvimento Howard Gardner que descreveu nove tipos de inteligência onde afirmava que o conceito de inteligência, como tradicionalmente definido em psicometria ( testes de QI) não era suficiente para descrever a grande variedade de habilidades cognitivas humanas.

# data[].attributes.attachment_caption
Neurodiversidade: escola precisa entender a função do cérebro

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Todo ser humano possui suas próprias particularidades. Telma Pantano, fonoaudióloga e psicóloga do Instituto de Psiquiatria da Faculdade de Medicina da USP, explicou sobre a neurodiversidade e a importância de o gestor conhecer sobre o assunto para lidar com seus alunos durante um o painel oferecido pela Santillana Educação hoje, 13, na Bett Brasil.

Segundo ela, o indivíduo não evolui somente por querer, o cérebro humano tem que ser alimentado e, de uma certa forma, treinado para armazenar o conhecimento. "Antes de uma ação eu tenho pensamentos e emoções, se eu não ensinar uma criança a reconhecer que pensamentos ela tem e que emoções ela sente, ela não vai saber o que fazer com aquilo que aprendeu e sentiu", explicou.
Leia: "Bem-estar do professor atinge cerca de 80% do aluno"
Levando para o campo da educação, se o aluno não estiver recebendo as informações de uma forma que ele absorva aquele conhecimento, o ensino não está funcionando, com isso é preciso reconhecer que o cérebro é flexível e todos somos diferentes. Telma citou um caso em que dois irmãos com o mesmo convívio se comunicam e funcionam de forma diferente. Isso é um exemplo que evidencia o quanto o educador precisa entender sobre a neurodiversidade.

"Esse é o grande ponto do cérebro, eu nunca vou ter uma resposta ou solução igual à do outro, porque não só minhas memórias são diferentes, mas porque eu aprendi a ativar o meu cérebro de forma diferente" comentou.

Ela ressaltou que apesar do psicólogo - profissional formado e treinado para lidar com o socioemocional dos jovens -, o educador também pode e deve saber identificar e conversar com os alunos, familiares ou seus companheiros para lidar com os problemas no ambiente escolar.

"Quem pode trabalhar com as habilidades socioemocionais? Não é o psicológico que é uma pessoa treinada para isso. Dentro da escola a gente tem que começar a identificar quem são as pessoas que têm condição de conversar com determinados alunos, quem são as pessoas que têm condição de conversar com determinadas famílias, quem têm condição de dar suporte para os professores quando eles estão desestabilizados" finalizou Telma.

A Bett Brasil é o maior evento de educação e tecnologia na América Latina. Acontece de 10 a 13 de maio no Transamerica Expo Center, São Paulo. E nós, da Educação, estamos fazendo uma cobertura especial. Continue nos acompanhando. para ver nossa cobertura.

Leia também:
Armadilhas da personalidade perfeccionista

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Neurodiversidade: escola precisa entender a função do cérebro

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Todo ser humano possui suas próprias particularidades. Telma Pantano, fonoaudióloga e psicóloga do Instituto de Psiquiatria da Faculdade de Medicina da USP, explicou sobre a neurodiversidade e a importância de o gestor conhecer sobre o assunto para lidar com seus alunos durante um o painel oferecido pela Santillana Educação hoje, 13, na Bett Brasil.

# data[].attributes.attachment_caption
Múltiplas Inteligências - Saiba mais sobre esse tema!

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Quem nunca sentiu-se sem inteligência alguma por não conseguir resolver uma expressão numérica durante o ensino fundamental? Se envolvesse letras então... Vixi...

Mas ao mesmo tempo que ia mal em matemática, possuía uma facilidade enorme com textos ou fazia aqueles desenhos super elaborados incríveis! Conhece alguém assim?

Ou vice-versa, o aluno poderia recitar a tabuada toda de cór, porém não conseguia comunicar-se de jeito nenhum, se tivesse apresentação de trabalho era um suor frio, mal estar e tudo.

Geralmente é assim: a pessoa possui muita facilidade em uma determinada disciplina e encontrar maior dificuldade em outra área.

Pois é! E você sabia que isso tem uma explicação? Esta explicação pode ser encontrada na teoria das múltiplas inteligências do psicólogo Howard Gardner, cuja discussão principal é de que existem vários tipos de inteligência.

Leia mais em:
Vamos falar sobre didática? Dicas e citações de educadores que fizeram a diferença no âmbito educacional | Uniandrade Língua Portuguesa: Oralidade versus Escrita - Confira algumas dicas úteis da nossa língua! | Uniandrade Dicas de livros que vão te levar para além dessa realidade! | Uniandrade
Vamos por partes, primeiro vamos conhecer quem é Howard Gardner, o responsável pela teoria das múltiplas inteligências.

Quem é Howard Gardner?

Gardner é estadunidense, formado no campo da Psicologia e da Neurologia. Atua como professor de Psicologia na Universidade Harvard, localizada em Cambridge nos Estados Unidos.

O cientista é autor de mais de trinta livros e artigos. Ficou conhecido no meio educacional e na área psicológica, pela sua teoria sobre as inteligências múltiplas, ampliando muito a visão dos pedagogos, professores e psicólogos acerca do conceito de inteligência.

Como surgiu a teoria das múltiplas inteligências?

A teoria das múltiplas inteligências surgiu no final do século XX, como tema da tese de Gardner. O interesse pela inteligência nasceu durante a pós-graduação do psicólogo que, entre outras leituras, debruçava-se sobre as teorias de Jean Piaget.

Howard Gardner começou a questionar se o tão aclamado teste de QI era o suficiente para medir a inteligência das pessoas. A partir desse questionamento surgiu a ideia de que cada indivíduo é diferente um do outro, possuindo um número de faculdades mentais que são relativas. Assim nasce a teoria das inteligências múltiplas.

O que é a teoria das múltiplas inteligências?

A teoria das múltiplas inteligências defende que o cérebro humano possui 8 tipos de inteligência.

Porém cada indivíduo, na maioria dos casos, possui apenas uma ou duas inteligências desenvolvidas.

Isso explica o fato de uma pessoa ser muito boa em cálculos e possuir dificuldades em dança, por exemplo. Ou ter facilidade para escrever texto mas não ter jeito nenhum com desenho.

Nenhuma pessoa chega a possuir as oito inteligências juntas?

Segundo Gardner, são raros os casos de uma única pessoa possuir todas as oito inteligências desenvolvidas, mas não é impossível.

Uma personalidade conhecida que pode ser exemplo desses casos raros é Leonardo Da Vinci, que além de pintor (famoso pela Monalisa), foi também botânico, matemático, anatomista e inventor.

Por outro lado, também é raro alguém não possuir nenhuma inteligência das oito citadas por Gardner.

Gardner diz que as pessoas já nascem com as inteligências e estas inteligências precisam de estímulos para serem desenvolvidas.

As inteligências atuam sozinhas nos indivíduos?

As inteligências são independentes, manifestando-se com mais ênfase conforme o estímulo que recebem. Porém, todas as oito inteligências estão interligadas.

O que leva a crer que todas as pessoas possuem capacidade de desenvolver todas as inteligências.

bannerpublicidade1

Agora vamos conhecer as oito inteligências apresentadas por Howard Gardner em sua teoria:

Essa inteligência é voltada para números, cálculos e toda atividade que precisa do exercício da razão.

As pessoas cuja inteligência predominante seja a lógico - matemática possuem facilidade em explicar as coisas utilizando fórmula e números.

Essa inteligência favorece a utilização da língua para comunicação e expressão.

Os sujeitos que possuem esta inteligência são ótimos oradores e comunicadores, bem como possuem uma facilidade para aprender outras línguas.

A pessoa com essa inteligência predominante possui facilidade na hora de transmitir ideias, ensinar, convencer, negociar e motivar.

A inteligência corporal proporciona uma grande capacidade de expressão em atividades artísticas ou esportivas.

Adeptos de ginástica olímpica, dançarinos, artistas de circo são exemplos de profissionais que possuem esta inteligência desenvolvida.

4 - Inteligência Naturalista

Esta inteligência é voltada para a análise e compreensão dos fenômenos da natureza.

Quem possui a inteligência tem mais facilidade em identificar os animais, as plantas e seus benefícios.

A inteligência intrapessoal consiste na capacidade de se autoconhecer.

Esta inteligência deveria ser estimulada e desenvolvida em todas as pessoas, pois quando uma pessoa conhece a si mesma, sua capacidade de saber o que quer e tratar bem do próximo é muito maior.

Ter a inteligência intrapessoal facilita a convivência harmoniosa com as pessoas com quem tem contato.

A inteligência interpessoal está relacionada à habilidade em desenvolve r relacionamentos com outras pessoas.

Indivíduos com esta inteligência possuem facilidade em identificar a personalidade das outras pessoas, o que favorece o desenvolvimento do espírito de .

Essa inteligência favorece a habilidade na interpretação e reconhecimento de fenômenos que envolvem posicionamentos, movimentos e disposição de objetos.

As pessoas que possuem esta inteligência são aquelas com capacidade de elaborar espaços complexos, bem como manipular perspectivas.

Essa inteligência é perceptível profissionais das áreas de design, artes plásticas e arquitetura.

Essa inteligência está ligada à interpretação e produção de sons com a utilização de instrumentos musicais.

Como você já pode deduzir, os músicos fazem parte do grupo que possui esta inteligência.

Que incrível essa teoria de Gardner sobre as múltiplas inteligências, não é mesmo?

Agora você nunca mais vai se sentir inferior por não saber algo ou não possuir facilidade em determinada área! Como vimos, todas as pessoas são capazes, basta apenas o estímulo certo para desenvolver determinada inteligência.

Após conhecer as oito inteligências, você conseguiu identificar qual ou quais você possui?

E se você curtiu esse conteúdo, vai gostar de navegar pelo nosso Blog | Uniandrade para ficar ligadinho em mais conteúdos como esse!

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Múltiplas Inteligências - Saiba mais sobre esse tema!

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Quem nunca sentiu-se sem inteligência alguma por não conseguir resolver uma expressão numérica durante o ensino fundamental? Se envolvesse letras então... Vixi... Mas ao mesmo tempo que ia mal em matemática, possuía uma facilidade enorme com textos ou fazia aqueles desenhos super elaborados incríveis! Conhece alguém assim?

# data[].attributes.headline
Sobre a teoria das múltiplas inteligências de Howard Gardner que irei usar na minha pesquisa

# data[].attributes.subject
Sobre a teoria das múltiplas inteligências de Howard Gardner que irei usar na minha pesquisa

# data[].attributes.body
Para quem visitar este mural e tiver interesse em saber o quais são as múltiplas inteligências e descobrir qual a sua, deixarei aqui algumas reportagens e teste. Onde você poderá, se assim desejar, tirar um print do seu resultado e compartilhar nos comentários falando sobre, a fim de compartilhar com os colegas sobre a importância da identificação delas para nortear um indivíduo em sua jornada pessoal.

Obs: testes e questionários online gratuitos são apenas as primeiras tomadas e não podem fornecer avaliações precisas de sua inteligência potencial. Portanto, os testes devem ser usado apenas para fins educacionais. A avaliação definitiva da inteligência só pode ser feita por profissional qualificado.

# data[].attributes.body
Metodologia: como será feita a pesquisa, onde irei fazer, com quem

Elaboração do cronograma

# data[].attributes.body
O que a literatura trata sobre meu tema de pesquisa?
(resenha oriunda sobre minha pesquisa bibliográfica)

Minha: O que Piaget fala sobre os dons naturais

ATUALIZAÇÃO: Procurar qual ou quais autores da atualidade dizem sobre esse tema.

Minha: Howard Gardner e a teoria das multiplas inteliências

Obs: A escolha dos meus autores partiu da minha observação de que Piaget já tinha uma noção da existência das multiplas inteligências, porém, não era algo desenvolvido para ele; ele as entendia como dons divinos dados a cada ser humano. Já Howard, com suporte de tantos estudos avançados sobre o funcionamento do sistema neurológico pôde chegar a essa conclusão de forma realista e fundamentada.

# data[].attributes.body
- Tema
- A questão -> hipótese (Ponto de vista, minha opinião, suposição)
- Objetivos
- Justificativa

A hipótese é uma suposição que será o guia para o desenvolvimento da pesquisa.

"Eu tenho uma suposição e irei fazer a pesquisa para ver se isso se comprova"

"Buscar respostas"

# data[].attributes.headline
Justificar o porquê da escolha da temática da pesquisa

# data[].attributes.subject
Justificar o porquê da escolha da temática da pesquisa

# data[].attributes.body
Por quê e como cheguei a esse tema. A relevancia dessa pesquisa.
PRIMEIRA PARTE DO TRABALHO A SER ENVIADA
email: jotapam@unifesspa.edu.br
Título: LP1-Seu nome aqui

# data[].attributes.headline
Trazer na próxima aula um problema de pesquisa

# data[].attributes.subject
Trazer na próxima aula um problema de pesquisa

# data[].attributes.headline
O que é pesquisa e a importância de referenciais teóricos?

# data[].attributes.subject
O que é pesquisa e a importância de referenciais teóricos?

# data[].attributes.body
Pode-se definir pesquisa como o procedimento racional e sistemático que tem como objetivo proporcionar respostas aos problemas que são propostos.  A pesquisa se e requerida quando não se dispõe de informação suficiente para responder ao problema, ou então quando a informação disponível se encontra em tal estado de desordem que não possa ser adequadamente relacionada ao problema.

# data[].attributes.body
A dinâmica da natureza está clasificada em dois grandes grupos; dinâmica da natureza e dinâmica da humanidade.
A dinâmica da natureza é apresentada pela temática ciência; ciências naturais.

A problemática levantada pelo professor é sobre ser chamada de Ciência apenas a dinâmica da natureza, excluindo a dinâmica  humanidade como se o homem não fizesse parte da natureza ou o existir e o pensamento humano não fosse cietífico.

# data[].attributes.body
A primeira coisa que um pesquisador deve se livrar são das receitas, podendo sim usá-las como base para início de sua pesquisa. Mas nunca esquecendo de adicionar o próprio tempero; sempre atento em usar ao máximo a racionalidade.

# data[].attributes.headline
Livro: Como Elaborar Um Projeto de Pesquisa

# data[].attributes.subject
Livro: Como Elaborar Um Projeto de Pesquisa