Multiple Intelligence Tests

Is it not true, that we—us students, were subject to these mindless

atrocities, when we inhabited junior high, and possibly, even high
school? These multiple ‘intelligence’ tests have been so widespread in
the past few years that the general public has been mindlessly
beguiled into believing this nonsense.

Before this topic is argued more, a brief background on these MI tests

shall be given. A man named Howard Gardner developed multiple
intelligence tests. He is a professor at Harvard University. Impressive,
you say? This is probably one of the reasons that this entire notion has
been so disseminated. What MI tests are supposed to do, is define a
person’s area of expertise (or ‘intelligence’ as he puts it).

Before he came along, scientists believed that any brain could be

molded to do anything (of course, this would be dependent on the
situations of which it was sewn). However, he shook this idea from its
foundations, by saying that not every brain can learn what it is fed.
This idea is agreeable. However, what he proposed later, was no less
than fallacious. He proposed different types of intelligences, and
essentially said, everyone was good at something (in fact, that is
pretty much how the test is worded).

After some time, no longer did the schools remain divergent from his
ideas, but rather, much like a love struck adolescent, conformed to
what was proposed. So much for what they teach us about being
original, and challenging what other scientists tell us, eh? Even they
were so easily enthralled by such an eloquent idea. What were schools
aiming for, when they gave into this idea? Did they even give it a
thought, or were they just so shocked by how it could make students
feel better?

Analogous to elementary teachers telling their kids, “You can do

anything if you put your mind to it”, MI tests reinforce the idea that
everyone is good at something. By all the blatant and trite ideas that
are presented in the modern world, this is amongst the worst.
Obviously, not everyone—only a small amount of people can achieve
what they want. Do you know why? Not everyone is good at
something!

Actually, before presenting my next argument, I’ll present an argument

made on scientific basis. A man by the name of Arthur R. Jensen
actually disproved the entire idea of MI, scientifically. I’ve heard stories
(from reliable sources) that there used to be some mathematical basis
on the MI tests, and later, the mathematics basing the theory was
disproved. Despite all this, schools—teachers still try to reinforce the
idea of MI. What is the point in destroying conventional education?
Introducing MI only has one long-term effect: Giving students a reason
—excuse being bad at something. So, likewise to the test, schools are
now saying, “It’s okay to fail.” Oh, wonder.

Recently, I took another look at a MI test. One of the options was,

“People call me a born leader.” The test taker had the option to either
check the box, or not to mark on it. Now, this question is for testing
interpersonal ‘intelligence’. Just look at that statement again, and think
what could be wrong, in asking this question. Could it be, that
depending on what types of people you are with, you’ll receive a
different response? If you were conventional ‘nerd’ (no, not the green
creature Doctor Sues created) amidst a group of conventional ‘jocks’,
no matter how intelligent your ideas were, they would conventionally,
beat you up. In the converse of that situation, if you were a
conventional ‘jock’ and proposed ideas of egging a house to a group of
conventional ‘nerds’, they’d think you were a moron. Even if that point
is not included, what defines a good leader? A group of idiots can call
an idiot a good leader, but every decision he/she makes, could land the
whole group in jail. Is that a natural born leader? The converse is also
true.

Another option was, “I enjoy the challenge of teaching other people

what I know.” Take a moment to laugh, if you will. I know I did. If all
you know how to do, is say, smoke a joint of marijuana. Err, for those
of you that don’t know the real name for what you’re smoking, I’ve
heard it referred to as, “the shit” (though I don’t know why anyone
would want to pretend he/she is smoking shit). There’s an example of
how detrimental the vocabulary of students these days, has become.
So, teaching somebody a medial task, is an example of intelligence,
especially when you find it “challenging”? Oh great. I suppose I’m
giving my brain a workout every time I turn on the television.

Now, let's profane the actual thought behind the MI tests. Actually,
recently someone proposed to be the argument, “Not everyone can
make music, like Beethoven did!” While I concede to that, an argument
can be drawn out of that statement. Just because a when a ‘bit’
doesn’t have a value of 1, it will render 0, does not mean a quantum
bit will. While the previous analogy was confusing, it makes an
interesting point. I’ll give a personal example: Just because I do not
choose to read, those not mean I am bad at it.

To look at the above a bit more, let’s consider the following scenario:
All the famous physicists were capable of making music that would
surpass that of Beethoven. However, they didn’t enjoy music. Thus,
they did nothing with music. The MI test proposes that this makes
them stupid—lack intelligence in the musical area. Now, that’s just a
thought I must deride. Ha…ha…ha.

I’ve recently been debating with some others about the subject, and
seemingly whenever I argue, I come up with points that support my
ideas. One of these points is the following: We must agree that at any
given instance in time (essentially), in someone’s mind, someone is the
best at a given thing. If you agree with the previous statement, there’s
no reason to contest with the idea, that someone will be the worst at
all of these things. Of course, that is all an idea of probabilistic chance,
but the odds of it are so great, completely spurning it would be trite,
and illogical.

If you should find the above a bit hard to swallow, here’s a more
feasible idea: If we define “good”, and “bad” as the top and bottom
50% of the population (which is pretty much the most credibility that
can be given to “good”), then we must conclude that there are lots of
people in this world, that has to rank everything in the bottom 50%.
Much like having three boxes that can fit one ball each, and having
four balls, not everyone can fit into a “box”.

There’s much more that can be said about the MI tests, but I’ll leave it
for now. I encourage you to think about what I wrote, because,
otherwise, I’d be no better than Howard Gardner.