I think, therefore IB

Ah, Howard Gardner’s theory of multiple intelligences. The idea that we possess a plethora of distinct types of intelligence sounds enticing, doesn’t it? Finally, a framework where everyone gets a gold star and nobody feels left out. It’s an egalitarian’s dream come true—except for one minor detail: there’s absolutely no empirical evidence to support it. Yes, Gardner’s theory remains as scientifically unsubstantiated as any claim spewed from the mouth of Donald Trump when he starts referencing statistics.

The theory’s appeal is obvious. It provides an easy way to flatter ourselves and our children, assuring us that even if little Johnny can’t solve a math problem, he’s still a genius at kinesthetic intelligence because he can kick a soccer ball. Or perhaps Sally’s tendency to sing off-key isn’t a lack of musical talent but a manifestation of her naturalistic intelligence, best appreciated when she’s talking to plants.

However, let’s not kid ourselves. Gardner’s theory, while entertaining and popular in educational circles, stands on shaky ground. It lacks the rigorous testing and validation that real science demands. The multiple intelligences framework has been scrutinized by psychologists and education experts alike, only to reveal a glaring absence of empirical support. The data just doesn’t back it up.

In reality, clinging to such an untested hypothesis does little more than propagate the myth that everyone can be an expert in their own special way without putting in the hard work and critical thinking required by true intellectual pursuits. Gardner’s theory might make us feel good, but without solid evidence, it’s just another comforting illusion—no more credible than a fantastical claim from a former reality TV star turned politician.