Multiple intelligences and a re-definition of meritocracy?

SINGAPORE – After I finished my “O” levels and was deciding which stream to go into, my parents exhorted me to enroll into the science stream of my junior college. Like any other pragmatic parents, they too harbored the notion that one does not have any future if he sticks to the arts stream. Their advice didn’t fall on deaf ears and I went on to earn a science degree, and am currently working in a science-related field. However, what I found most disconcerting is the apparent biasedness towards math and sciences, perhaps influenced by the belief that the pursuit of further studies within the related fields will lead to a professional degree (read medical and engineering degrees) or higher qualifications which is a job guarantee. We know that is generally not true nowadays in the case of engineering.

To digress, the theory of multiple intelligences was proposed by Howard Gardner in 1983. This theory proposes that people possess different types of intelligences, and one may be stronger in certain types of intelligences as compared with his peers, but weaker in other types. Thus, a child exhibiting superior speaking and writing skills may not be necessarily more intelligent than a child who is not proficient in those aspects. In the same vein, a child who displays superior multiplication skills may not be necessarily more intelligent than one who is apparently lacking in that area. It could be that the latter is more superior in terms of other intelligence types or is looking at the multiplication process at a deeper level than the one who could easily memorize his multiplication tables. There are eight types of intelligences: 1)Bodily-kinesthetic 2)Interpersonal 3)Verbal-linguistic 4)Logical-mathematical 5)Naturalistic 6)Intrapersonal 7)Visual-spatial 8)Musical

Those who are strong in the bodily-kinesthetic component should learn better in activities involving muscular movement. They are generally good at physical activities and are potential athletes, dancers, actors, surgeons and builders. Those who are good in the interpersonal component have the ability to empathize with others, and they make good leaders. No one will doubt that such a component is a necessary ingredient for success. Those who are good in the verbal-linguistic component have excellent speaking and writing skills, which make them potential journalists, poets or orators. Those who are strong in the logical-mathematical component are adept at logical reasoning, abstract thinking and numbers. This area correlates strongly with the traditional measurs of intelligence (IQ). Those who are strong in the naturalistic component are said to be sensitive to nature and have the ability to nurture, grow and interact with living things. Those who are strong in the intrapersonal component are good at self-reflection and have a clear idea of their goals, motivations and emotions. They have a tendency for thoughts-based pursuits, and have the potential to be philosophers, theologians or scientists. Those who are strong in the musical component have great sensitivity to sounds, rhythm, tones and music. They have a potential for a career in music either as instrumentalists or singers.

In Singapore, much of the focus is on the logical-mathematical component, which correlates strongly with traditional IQ. It is not uncommon for parents concerned with their kids’ development to invest in educational resources to ensure improvement in the area of math and sciences. And there is a multitude of tuition centres out there providing classes in those areas, some even boasting testimonials of grade improvements by a wide margin. If one observes our leadership, specifically the current cabinet using the basis of degrees obtained in a discipline as a yardstick, this will lead to an interesting observation that our cabinet is filled with members who are strong in the logical-mathematical component, judging by the science, medical, engineering, mathematics and economics degrees in their resumes. Does it surprise you that our leadership shows a predominance of individuals who are strong in the logical-mathematical component?

The pertinent question is will Singaporeans or Singapore embrace multiple intelligences, and appreciate that a child who is not as proficient in the logical-mathematical component is not necessarily less intelligent than his more proficient peers? If Singapore does embrace multiple intelligences, it will perhaps lead to a re-definition of meritocracy. Michael Young, a British sociologist, coined the term “meritocracy” in 1958 to denote a society that organizes itself according to IQ-test scores. 25 years later, the theory of multiple intelligence was born and the latter argues that the traditional intelligence tests do not sufficiently take into account the wide ranging abilities that humans display. Thus, in a way, multiple intelligences can be seen as one that addresses the weakness of traditional IQ tests.

It will be a good thing if Singaporeans were to embrace multiple intelligences. Multiple intelligences is in a way a wholesome view of our abilities, and encourages educators and parents not to view children according to a narrowly defined subset of “meritocratic abilities”. And this will be good for a child’s development as he will not feel necessarily put down if shown to be lacking in certain components of multiple intelligences as compared with his peers. In a way, it teaches us to embrace different people for their strengths and talents. As a child going into my teens, I struggled with multiplication and division, especially with numbers pertaining to zeros. If I divide a number by 0, I was told that I will get infinity. But I was taught that if one multiplies a number by zero, the answer would still be zero. Thus, if I multiply a very, very big number by zero, will I get zero? For example, if 10/0 = infinity, then I figured that conversely, infinity x 0 = 10, but I was taught that wasn’t the case because multiplying something by 0 will get 0! At that time, I thought I was very poor in maths, but after reading Gardner’s multiple intelligence theory, perhaps I was just thinking deeper into the subject, and that is a comforting fact.