Editing Human intelligence (section)

=== Theory of multiple intelligences ===
{{Main|Theory of multiple intelligences}}

[[Howard Gardner]]'s [[theory of multiple intelligences]] is based on studies of normal children and adults, of gifted individuals (including so-called "[[Savant syndrome|savant]]s"), of persons who have suffered brain damage, of experts and [[virtuoso]]s, and of individuals from diverse cultures. Gardner breaks intelligence down into components. In the first edition of his book ''Frames of Mind'' (1983), he described seven distinct types of intelligence: logical-mathematical, [[Linguistic intelligence|linguistic]], [[Spatial intelligence (psychology)|spatial]], musical, [[kinesthetic]], [[interpersonal]], and [[intrapersonal]]. In a second edition, he added two more types of intelligence: naturalist and existential intelligences. He argues that [[psychometric]] (IQ) tests address only linguistic and logical plus some aspects of spatial intelligence.<ref name="APA1995">{{Cite journal|last1=Neisser|first1=U.|last2=Boodoo|first2=G.|last3=Bouchard|first3=T. J., J.|last4=Boykin|first4=A. W.|last5=Brody|first5=N.|last6=Ceci|first6=S. J.|last7=Halpern|first7=D. F.|last8=Loehlin|first8=J. C.|last9=Perloff|first9=R.|last10=Sternberg|first10=R. J.|last11=Urbina|first11=S.|year=1996|title=Intelligence: Knowns and unknowns|journal=American Psychologist|volume=51|issue=2|pages=77–101|doi=10.1037/0003-066X.51.2.77|s2cid=20957095|title-link=Intelligence: Knowns and Unknowns}}</ref> A criticism of Gardner's theory is that it has never been tested, or subjected to peer review, by Gardner or anyone else, and indeed that it is [[falsifiability|unfalsifiable]].<ref>{{Cite web|url=http://www.cortland.edu/psych/mi/critique.html|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20100113020206/http://www.cortland.edu/psych/mi/critique.html|url-status=dead|title=Critiques of Multiple Intelligence Theory|archive-date=January 13, 2010|website=SUNY Cortland}}</ref> Others (e.g. Locke, 2005<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Locke  |first1=Edwin A.  |date=2005 |title=Why emotional intelligence is an invalid concept |url= |journal= Journal of Organizational Behavior|volume=26 |issue=4 |pages=425–431 |doi=10.1002/job.318 |access-date=}}</ref>) suggest that recognizing many specific forms of intelligence (specific aptitude theory) implies a political—rather than scientific—agenda, intended to appreciate the uniqueness in all individuals, rather than recognizing potentially true and meaningful differences in individual capacities. Schmidt and Hunter<ref>{{Cite journal |last1=Schmidt |first1=Frank L. |last2=Hunter |first2=John |date=January 2004 |title=General mental ability in the world of work: occupational attainment and job performance |url=https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/14717634/ |journal=Journal of Personality and Social Psychology |volume=86 |issue=1 |pages=162–173 |doi=10.1037/0022-3514.86.1.162 |issn=0022-3514 |pmid=14717634}}</ref> suggest that the predictive validity of specific aptitudes over and above that of general mental ability, or [[g factor (psychometrics)|"g"]], has not received empirical support. On the other hand, [[Jerome Bruner]] agreed with Gardner that the intelligences were "useful fictions", and went on to state that "his approach is so far beyond the data-crunching of mental testers that it deserves to be cheered."<ref>{{Cite news|url=https://www.nybooks.com/articles/1983/10/27/state-of-the-child/|title=State of the Child|last=Bruner|first=Jerome S.|work=The New York Review of Books|access-date=2018-10-16|language=en-US}}</ref>