Intelligent, You Are!!

Phyllis Farias
4 min readSep 20, 2020

--

I decided to revisit the Theory of Multiple Intelligences due to some of the responses I got to my last blog: Dear Teachers — One with you!!

Here is one, ‘I don’t have any of the intelligences you mentioned, maybe the musical intelligence to a very small extent.’

Implied in this response is an element of comparison by creating a benchmark in one’s mind. Then keeping the benchmark in mind, one tends to ask: Do I have this to the extent of the self created benchmark? Then tick off, Yes or No to decide whether one is intelligent or not.

How did one create this benchmark? Generally when I conduct a session on Multiple Intelligences, I start by saying, ‘Hands up all the intelligent people in this room.’ I am not surprised when no hands go up, or a straggling of hands goes up — just here and there. There is also a lot of nervous laughter.

And when I ask why? The response is, ‘It is not for me to say, others should.’

We are very modest you see!! Or could it be something else?

What about all the comments and labels that you and I have heard from childhood or all our academic and non-academic ‘Report Cards’ that flash before our eyes?

Apart from all the other implications of this theory, whether as an inventory for activities in my classroom, or a determiner for my career choice, personally I see it as something that brings HOPE into one’s life — an empowering life changer.

Let’s get started with a small activity. Please complete the following 2 statements in writing or thought before reading any further.

Don’t think too deeply — be spontaneous!

  1. As a student I felt intelligent when I ……. ……………
  2. As a student I did not feel intelligent when I …….. …………..

Now compare what you have written / thought to the Multiple Intelligences. Since I touched on it in my last blog — I will only list them. Also notice that when listing, I have not numbered them.

  • Linguistic
  • Interpersonal relations
  • Naturalist
  • Math-logical
  • Musical
  • Body-Kinaesthetic
  • Spatial

All that you wrote down will fall into these intelligences one way or the other. You may not have used the technical terms but if you look carefully, you will be able to categorize them. For e.g. if you said, you felt intelligent when you painted, or when you enjoyed being with friends or I could not sing. Do you recognize the intelligence under which it will fall? We always knew it, unfortunately marks and percentages took centre stage and became the standard.

In this context I would like to talk about our driver “R”, who can only sign his name. When he joined us about 18 years ago, he could not read the road signs. He had to be taught. He definitely got his licence because he is an excellent driver.

Let’s look at “R” from the point of view of the Multiple Intelligences.

  • Linguistic — He can speak and understand Hindi, Urdu, Kannada, Tamil and Telugu.
  • Spatial — When he first joined us, he did not know the names of roads or the schools I visited. So we created associations for him to connect. So it would be, before the lake, or near the big blue wall. Believe me — he never forgets a route even after 10 years, once he gets the association.
  • Interpersonal relationships — While driving down our street , so many of our neighbours wave out to him ( whether it be other drivers, security guards or residents ), and he receives more phone calls than we do. Need any work to be done around the house, some bachpan ka dost (childhood friend) is called.
  • Intrapersonal relationships — He does think and introspect and asks questions about the purpose of life. Many a time I am not able to give him an answer.
  • Naturalist — He has green fingers. Everything he plants, grows.

And don’t you think driving a vehicle well, needs the Body-Kinaesthetic intelligence along with many others. We have always felt comfortable with him in the driver’s seat.

What do you think, Is he intelligent? Remember he has never received a report card with a grade or marks! I rest my case!!

The tragedy is that we have thousands and thousands of highly intelligent people in our country who lack opportunities for development and growth — and many who go to school, get educated, get academic ranks that do not necessarily speak to their innate intelligences.

The answer to this dilemma of our schooling lies in this quote by Howard Gardner, ‘Know as much as you can about the kids rather than make them pass through the same eye of the needle’. That is the issue; we make them pass through the same eye of the needle.

Let me share this heart-warming incident. I was observing a 2nd standard Math lesson. The basics of subtraction had been completed over the month, including borrowing and a few story problems. The class was working on their own story problem.

Out of the many statements given by the children, the class and the teacher decided on this as the first statement.

There are 43 peacocks in a forest.

For the second statement they chose, And 26 peacocks died.

Let me ask you to guess the third statement. Was it, how many peacocks are left? No, the statement given by a student was — How many peacocks are sad?

My eyes filled with tears, and I would have danced with joy if only my knees were not locked by sitting in a 2nd standard child’s chair.

Just look at the 3 statements. Can you recognize the different intelligences? Linguistic, math-logical, naturalist, spatial, Intra and Interpersonal relationships.

What a validation of what we were attempting to achieve! And so to conclude, a little anecdote. I once explained the theory to a group of teachers. At the end of the session, one of them burst into joyous laughter and then said, ‘Today when I go home, I am going to tell my husband that I am intelligent.’

I have wondered …. if we teachers are unable to see ourselves as intelligent, how then do we see our children?

--

--

Phyllis Farias
Phyllis Farias

Written by Phyllis Farias

Educational Consultant with 2 passions in life: the Child — from toddler to adolescent, and Education — education philosophy and psychology

Responses (1)