Howard Gardner is a prominent American neuroscientist, psychologist, Harvard professor and author of the theory of multiple intelligences. He has received numerous awards for his work including the Prince of Asturias Award. He interviewed the newspaper La Vanguardia of Spain on their theories and approaches conclusive thought-provoking
“Learning is the only antidote to old age and I take every day with my students at Harvard. It is foolish to classify humans in clever and stupid, because each of us is unique and unclassifiable “he says.
Why questions that intelligence is what tests measure?
Because I am a scientist and do experiments, and when I measure the intelligence of the people, I find that some are very good solving problems but explaining them bad. And other happens otherwise.
And if there are several people it is because it also has to be diverse talents?
That is why I have devoted 400 pages to describe seven types of intelligence: linguistic, logical-mathematical, musical, spatial, bodily-kinesthetic, interpersonal and intrapersonal.
And why not many more: the culinary or mystical or theater or organic?
They do not meet the requirements do meet those. And I hope to finish demonstrating that there is also a naturalist intelligence, other educational and other existential questions to ask transcendent. But no more.
Today schools and raise their programs according to these multiple intelligences.
And I did not direct me to the teachers, but they were the first to adopt my theories.
Types of intelligence
There are seven types of intelligence: linguistic, logical-mathematical, musical, spatial, bodily-kinesthetic, interpersonal and intrapersonal.
For they checked every day in the classroom that the categories of silly or clever not cover the diversity of human talent. And, therefore, that intelligence tests do not really measure our capabilities, but only to resolve them.
His theory also comfortable to comfort children with poor grades and their parents.
He abused her at first because it was not understood well. In Australia, the administration manipulated to explain that there were ethnic groups had different minds of others.
What a danger!
At that point, I also began to wonder about the ethics of intelligence and why people considered winners and great in politics, finance, science, medicine or other fields did bad things for everyone and often, not even good for themselves.
That already is a philosophical question.
But I’m a scientist and started an experiment at Harvard, Goodwork Project, for which I interviewed more than 1,200 individuals.
Why are excellent professionals who are bad people?
We found that there are none. In fact, poor people can not be excellent professionals. They fail to ever be. They may have technical expertise, but not excellent.
To me I some exceptions occur …
What we have found is that the best professionals are always E EC: excellent, committed and ethical.
You can not be excellent as a professional but a bad bug as a person?
No, because you do not achieve excellence if you do not go beyond satisfying your ego, your ambition or your greed. If you do not commit yourself, therefore, with goals that go beyond your needs to serve everyone. And it requires ethics.
To get rich, often clutters.
But without ethical principles you can become rich, yes, or technically good, but not great.
It is reassuring to know.
Today not so much because we also found that young people accept the need for ethics, but not to start the race, because they believe that without elbowing not succeed. See ethics as the luxury of those who have already achieved success.
“Lord, make me chaste, but not now.”
As St. Augustine, indeed. Another close look leads to students and professionals easygoing what we consider to be inertial, ie, to be swayed by social inertia and go to college, because it is what touches after high school; and to work, because it is what touches after college … but without giving everything ever.
Without illusion, life stays on duty.
And others are transaction is in class meet the minimum and only study for the title; and then they meet him at work just salary, but not really interested limit their interest and dedication. And they are mediocre at everything.
Do not discover any day of his life something that really interests them?
Some do not, and is one of the reasons for the great crises of maturity, when they realize that there is a second youth. Another cause is the lack of humanistic studies: Philosophy, Literature, History of Thought …
What joy! Somebody believes necessary …
You can live without philosophy, but worse. In an experiment with MIT engineers we discovered that those who had not studied humanities, when they reached 40 and 50, were more likely to suffer crises and depressions.
For engineering and technological studies they end up giving you a sense of control over your life in the unreal background: you focus only on what is the solution and answer questions. And for years Hallas. But when the maturity you discover that it is actually impossible to control everything, you disoriented.
What country most influenced his theory of multiple intelligences?
In China they released hundreds of titles on intelligence, but understood in their own way: they wanted their only son was the best in all.
Well it is not exactly that.
Each society and person understands what you understand. The higher you get, the harder it is to adapt your life to a discovery and easier to adapt the discovery to what you already thought that was life. So I go to class to unlearn me and learn from young people.