Talk:Theory of multiple intelligences

The importance and application of MI for anyone who guides children and coaches adults.

The terms used in the text, such as 'pseudoscientific' and 'speculative', are presumptuous to say the least. Since 1983, teachers, counselors and coaches (psychologists/psychotherapists) worldwide have shown that the one-sided approach to IQ (math/language) is not sufficient to show children, adolescents and adults in their intelligence. The MI has now developed into an instrument that shows that intelligence is not only limited to mastering numbers and language. The MI as included in the MIDAS questionnaire offers an insight-enriching view of the intelligences of people. The many neuroscientific articles from research by B. Shearer Ph.D. underline the importance of a broader view of intelligence compared to the current one-sidedly formulated view as a single general ability. Frits Schoeren MA (psychotherapist and management consultant) 2A02:A46D:450E:1:58D5:D0E:5B48:D89D (talk) 19:03, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

This hit the Fringe Theory noticeboard recently and a few people who are science-minded and enjoy things like the ins and outs of proper citation (myself included) are on the case (albeit somewhat slowly.) There's a bunch of citation issues here and it looks possible that the case for a pseudoscience designation has been overstated. However some of those citation issues are specific to Gardner - and large sections of the article are in his POV - which should also be avoided. Remember there is no deadline - but this article is currently getting some neutral scrutiny. We'll see where that leads us. Simonm223 (talk) 19:06, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

"Deficits"

I have a big problem with the "deficits" paragraphs of each of the intelligences. The format seems to be:

"Deficits in X are described as Y1, Y2, Y3, etc."

The implication is, for example, that someone with a "deficit in interpersonal intelligence is described as Asperger's Syndrome." Not only is this rarely if ever true, it doesn't even make sense. You're pointing fingers willy-nilly at a number of spectrums and populations. The consequences range from intimidating to insulting to possibly downright dangerous acts (e.g., "She committed suicide because according to Wikipedia from her Asperger's diagnosis it followed that she had a deficit in interpersonal ability"). And where is the diagnostic support for this? DSM-V references, please?

If we can't have some solution soon, then I'd be up for removing these paragraphs entirely. Zelchenko (talk) 13:05, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

A bit too toned down?

I'm comparing the current version against last month. I understand toning down the language, for example dropping the word "pseudoscience" from the first sentence since the cited sources didn't use that word. But, it seems to me that some of the new language, in particular Template:Tqq, is not really WP:NPOV, rather it's leaning into Gardner's POV. I'm looking in comparison to this section: G_factor_(psychometrics)#Gardner's_theory_of_multiple_intelligences. It seems to me like there is certainly some truth to the idea that MI is a disagreement about Template:Tqq, in terms of what counts as intelligence (e.g. does musical talent count). The part that seems to go too far is the idea that that's all there is to the debate (Template:Tqq). When I read the section in G factor, it argues the findings of G factor (that essentially all cognitive tests are positively correlated with each other) do indeed contradict the principles of MI, which would suggest something more like "clusters" or "islands" of correlation (where each "kind" of intelligence correlates with itself more, and other "kinds" of intelligence less). That seems like an empirically testable theory, and it seems like G factor has been proven true, while MI never has. Therefore, it seems to me like the lead has been toned down a bit too far, in making it sound like MI is a matter of opinion / definition, rather than a theory that hasn't been proven. Leijurv (talk) 19:30, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

I definitely agree that that specific sentence is editorializing and should be removed.

While I overall prefer this version of the lead I also agree that it seems too toned down. But to know for sure we'd have to go through the article and check the cites like we did for the lead. Loki (talk) 19:39, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

Removed for now. With regard to the overall rewrite (comparing the versions I linked above), I don't think it should be reverted or anything, I just think there are some turns of phrase that overstate the case for MI. Leijurv (talk) 19:46, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

Some other phrases that I find to have dubious neutrality:

• Template:Tqq This is uncritical, it takes it as a given that MI's influence on educational practices does actually "cater" to different strengths. It creates a possibly unjustified implication that this approach helps students (by catering to their individual strengths).
• Template:Tqq Same issue as "crux" - it states that the "primary" debate is about terminology, which I think is somewhat true, but perhaps not "primary". I don't feel very strongly about this though, perhaps "primary" is justified.
• Template:Tqq Seems like WP:FALSEBALANCE between Gardner and his critics, but I'd have to look deeper into the sources to say with confidence.
• Template:Tqq Should we drop the word "often"?
• Template:Tqq This seems a bit of MOS:WEASEL / WP:UNDUE, because it seems to me like the sources don't quite support saying that the MI framework is valuable. I don't think it's wrong to say something along these lines - it's just perhaps misleading when taken in context with the rest of the lead that hedges about the validity of MI.
• Template:Tqq Same here.
• Template:Tqq This sentence seems to directly and uncritically repeat Gardner's perspective. Is this actually supported by WP:RS?

I think this can be fixed up with a handful of words that more appropriately describe the uncertainty about Gardner's POV versus what has been seen empirically. Leijurv (talk) 20:00, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

I've looked into it more and I don't think that the last paragraph of the current lead is supported by the article, and I do not believe its cited source is reliable. The author, David A Sousa, is an author, teacher, and consultant, but I don't believe he is a subject matter expert in psychometrics. To be completely clear, I don't doubt that many educators assume the theory of multiple intelligences. That claim is straightforward and I do believe David A Sousa's book could probably support that, among others. My doubt is on the outcomes, such as the claim that it will Template:Tqq. I do not believe David A Sousa's book should be considered a reliable source for that specific point, because at that point it's become an empirical claim that MI theory results in more effective learning, and that claim is not supported by the sources. And earlier in the lead, the citation to Thomas Armstrong is similar in vein to David A Sousa. He is similarly a teacher, and poking around google books it seems like he's best known for his book claiming ADHD is a myth (see his website here). Both of these are books written by educators, they're not peer-reviewed research. And on top of all this, the body of the article, under "Use in education" and "Criticism" does not support this. There is research from Gardner himself, but every other source finds no effect. Overall, I am souring on last week's bold lead rewrite, since it is introducing new sources that I don't believe to be reliable, and not really summarizing what the body of the article says. Leijurv (talk) 23:36, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

The issue is that the old lead was also bad, since many of its primary claims were also unsourced or poorly sourced. And in fact the criticism parts of this current version are still not well sourced. If we're going to be discarding sources based on other WP:FRINGE opinions (which to be clear I think is reasonable), the main critical source that's still present in the lead is from Linda Gottfredson, who is mainly known for this open letter defending The Bell Curve, and who receives significant funding from The Pioneer Fund, whose short description is Template:Tq.

One specific change you made that I disagree with is dropping "often" from "empirical research often supports a general intelligence factor". You yourself linked to the page on g factor, which has a long criticism section and tons of explanation for why some researchers doubt a general intelligence factor exists. Loki (talk) 00:15, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

I didn't (mean to) say anything in support of any of those people, sources, letters, or funds. No problem discarding WP:FRINGE sources. (I believe you're drawing a comparison to how I linked to Armstrong's claim that ADHD is a myth?)

That is a fair point. In my mind, what I was thinking was about G in comparison to MI. When the sentence said that G was "often" supported, in my mind, that created an implication that MI was sometimes supported, because the sentence is comparing G to MI in this manner. That's why I wanted to remove the "often" - not because I think G is unassailably objectively verified to be true or anything like that, but because I didn't like the implication that MI is sometimes favored by empirical research, which doesn't seem to be the case. Probably that whole sentence is WP:SYNTH because the phrasing pits "G has (more) empirical validation" against "but MI is more nuanced".

In my view, last week's lead rewrite was WP:BOLD therefore I think I was justified in editing it as WP:BRD. What do you think of the other parts of my last edit? For instance, might I reinstate the removal of the last paragraph? It seems to me like it's uncritically repeating Gardner's POV. Leijurv (talk) 00:38, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

Yes, that wasn't accusing you of anything (except maybe not being as skeptical of the critical sources as you were of the supporting ones).

I think if we can find reliable sources saying "it's valuable in education" we should say that, and we should make an earnest effort to find those, but if we can't find them we shouldn't say that. Loki (talk) 01:06, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

Right, that's reasonable. But, would you agree with my skepticism of the reliability of sources claiming as such? In my view, I have no problem repeating that MI theory is popular and well-liked etc by educators, based on any old source, I wouldn't be picky. I just have a hangup at claiming that it's effective. In my view, that would require something quite high quality, like a peer reviewed study or similarly strong metastudy or tertiary source (excluding Gardner himself). The article body doesn't make such a claim at all, and it was only added to the lead last week. Therefore, assuming you and I can't find such a source (and I will look for one), I really feel as though the default course of action should be to remove the unsupported claim. Leijurv (talk) 01:20, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

I've looked at some sources, with two questions, the first being from an educational perspective whether the claims in the current lead are supported, and the secondary question being whether MI or G is a better summary/explanation of psychometric correlations (as in my original post). First, I looked at the sources posted by InformationToKnowledge here.

• Shearer (2017) Here. This paper is specifically about Template:Tqq and it found Template:Tqq. This is interesting but I don't think it really pertains to either of my questions. Not surprising at all that things like musical ability can be identified in the brain, but it doesn't make that "intelligence". And the paper really isn't about education, it only mentions it a handful of times as backround, it's not the focus of the paper at all. Here are some quotes Template:Tqq and Template:Tqq and Template:Tqq. And it also doesn't really try to contradict or oppose G factor; here's the conclusion: Template:Tqq
• Shearer (2020) Here. This article focuses on applying MI theory to gifted education using neuroscience evidence. It's written by the same author as the previous paper and builds on that work. While it does discuss educational applications, it's primarily advancing the author's own interpretation of neuroscience evidence rather than reviewing the educational efficacy of MI theory. The author acknowledges that MI theory Template:Tqq and that Template:Tqq. The paper attempts to demonstrate neural foundations for what the author calls "Cognitive Qualities" (Creative Cognition, Esthetic Judgement, and Insight/Intuition) that he proposes complement traditional intelligence. The educational recommendations are broad principles rather than evidence-based practices, such as Template:Tqq and Template:Tqq These principles may be reasonable but aren't derived from empirical studies of educational outcomes. The author acknowledges the contentious relationship between MI theory and gifted education: Template:Tqq and notes that critics Template:Tqq and Template:Tqq. I suspect the paper represents the author's view rather than consensus: Template:Tqq. This paper doesn't provide evidence that MI theory has been widely adopted in educational contexts or that it has influenced educational practice. Instead, it's arguing for how MI theory might be used, acknowledging that Template:Tqq but that Template:Tqq. In summary, it doesn't really provide evidence that favors MI for either of my questions.

Also I note that Shearer sources have been recently removed per WP:CITESELF by MrOllie such as in these diffs here and here. As InformationToKnowledge also says, the author promotes this technique, for example the 2020 one says: Template:Tqq.

• "In the Know: Debunking 35 Myths about Human Intelligence" (Warne 2020). This was suggested by InformationToKnowledge. It has a chapter focusing on multiple intelligence, this is the second paragraph of that chapter: Template:Tqq The rest of the chapter is very very negative about MI, I can provide more quotes but wow it's very negative. Template:Tqq Template:Tqq Template:Tqq At the end of the chapter, it does talk about education: Template:Tqq
• The Cambridge Handbook of Intelligence here. This is the last source suggested by InformationToKnowledge. It talks a lot about MI in education. Here's an example from page 672: Template:Tqq It also says Template:Tqq, but on the other hand it defends SUMIT: Template:Tqq It's overall pretty mixed, here's the conclusion which doesn't really say anything with much certainty: Template:Tqq

Okay, that's the end of InformationToKnowledge's sources. My perspective is that they do not support the part of the current lead that I dispute (that MI theory is effective at improving educational outcomes).

Now I'll look at the four sources that were initially cited, and evaluated by Loki here.

• Waterhouse (2006). Available here. The summary at the top: Template:Tqq This source is clearly also negative about MI but I won't paste more of it because it's immediately accessible on the internet archive.
• New York Review. Here. This is a book review and I didn't try that hard to find a copy.
• Geake (2008). Here. Negative on MI, calls it a myth. Template:Tqq

The next original source was Frontiers in Psychology, and it also said neuromyth but that journal doesn't appear to be reliable.

I also did a quick search myself. I found some general ideas on how MI could be used in education, here's one example of that. One that I'll highlight is this meta-study, here's an interesting figure from it, the most damning part is probably columns 11, 12, and 17 (no control, insufficient description of what the intervention actually was, no data). It doesn't quite conclude that MI doesn't work, rather that the studies so far have significant issues. It was published in Intelligence, whose summary on Wiki is strange, calling it respected, except those times when it talked about race? I also found this article, it's written by Shearer again and it's essentially more of the same (no actual evidence of effectiveness in education). This article is mostly conceptual and suggestive, it relies on Shearer (2020).

In summary, I do not find support for the idea that MI theory creates a more effective learning environment. I am not too surprised by this, given that the lead was rewritten from a long-standing description as "pseudoscience" to "effective" - that's a complete 180° swing in perspective. I'll now reinstate my edit where I remove the paragraph describing it as Template:Tqq. I'm not sure what a good overall description could be - perhaps "false theory" like here, given this new information that the InformationToKnowledge sources aren't actually that supportive? Leijurv (talk) 04:58, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

Like I said there, the Shearer sources especially make me think it should actually be something more like "controversial theory" or "disputed theory" or something like that. It doesn't seem clear that it's false because there is some mainstream supporting evidence. I don't have a problem with saying there's no evidence it actually helps educational outcomes, though, because it doesn't seem to. Loki (talk) 06:08, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

I'm not sure about the Shearer sources. We agree it doesn't support MI outcome in education, but I don't really think it supports much of anything in this article. Yes, Shearer (2017) has a bunch of pages of interesting brain scans, but what does that mean for this article? It could be added to the article as an interesting fact, but I really don't see what it could be cited to support. The relevant summary in the abstract is Template:Tqq Leijurv (talk) 06:29, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

The big dispute in this article is whether multiple intelligences is scientifically supported. Shearer, at least, sure thinks his brain scans support MI.

That's a separate issue from whether it's actually effective in education, for which the answer seems to be somewhere between "no" and "it's unclear". Loki (talk) 17:04, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

Hmm, I feel as though my question still stands: which claim in this article (lead or body) could we cite Shearer (2017) to support? Something like Template:Tqq - absolutely, that would be well supported. My perspective is that that does not constitute evidence that MI is "true".

Evidence that the eight intelligences are 1. "intelligences" and 2. uncorrelated (or nearly uncorrelated) would be the closest / purest claim to MI being "true" (and G being "false"), in my view, and I don't see any evidence for that. As you say, effectiveness as an educational intervention is its own thing - it's WP:DUE to discuss in this article because of how MI is popular as "pop psychology" especially among teachers, but it doesn't constitute evidence that MI is true. I also claim that activating different identifiable areas of the brain is similarly its own thing. For example: I don't doubt that "linguistic-verbal" tasks activate different areas of the brain from "visual-spatial" tasks. The claim of "G" versus "MI" is something else - it's about whether aptitude at these tasks is more of correlated between persons in one big blob (G) or more of uncorrelated, producing identifiable clusters or areas of distinct "intelligences" (MI). Leijurv (talk) 18:55, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

1 sounds like a semantic argument to me.

2 is closer but IMO proponents of g saying "correlations between skills = g = one intelligence only" kinda misses the point; g can be not "real" in the sense of an actual thing that exists in the brain and the positive manifold can still exist as a statistical artifact.

Which is to say I kinda think that neurological studies like what Shearer is doing are the best scientific way to get at whether g is real, because other ways tend to break down into semantics like what intelligence means or whether g is a modeling convenience vs a real thing in the brain. Which is kind of what the removed parts were saying, so I'm sort of wondering about whether we should add some part of them back. Loki (talk) 19:50, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

I agree that there does exist a terminology argument here, I said so in my original post. I think the current wording is reasonable and I didn't touch it: Template:Tqq. I only removed the POV claim that this was the "crux" of the debate. Nevertheless, it is part of the debate. I would agree with this criticism (pasted from g factor): Template:Tqq Seems clear enough to me. Those things are only barely/tangentially "intelligence", so if they don't correlate that much, it doesn't make me think G is false, rather it makes me think MI is a list of aptitudes where not all of them are intelligence. For example if he included how well you can paint, I'm sure there is some nonzero amount of intelligence involved, but most people would call that "having an artistic eye" or something, rather than being "smart", and it wouldn't disprove G in any way if "artistic eye" was not particularly correlated with other subjects.

Could you say more? I'm not really familiar with this nuance of G to be honest. I have a very lay understanding, I thought the basic construct was that just about every kind of cognitive test you could imagine (even grades in school) has a positive correlation, so one can make a statistical construct ("G") that takes the most reliable of these and outputs an overall score, and this single variable captures a large portion of the variance of all these original tests. Why would it matter if these tests activate different areas of the brain? That wouldn't disprove the correlation, right? What would be evidence against G would be if, for example, you found some cognitive tests that the G theory would claim ought to be correlated, say two vocab tests V1 V2 and two math tests M1 M2, if you found V1<->V2 and M1<->M2 correlated MUCH stronger that V1<->M1 and V2<->M2, that would be evidence against G / evidence in favor of MI.

Anyway, sorry that last paragraph was verging on WP:NOTFORUM. Back to the article. I don't agree with Template:Tqq, because what I removed didn't relate to semantics, nor brain modeling. I did remove the "crux" claim but kept the "primary" claim for terminology, mostly I just toned down the educational effectiveness claims.

So, for brain modeling, would you want to add it to the article? I don't think I'd be opposed. At the very end of the article, it goes into Template:Tqq, after that quote we could have something like Template:Tqq? Leijurv (talk) 22:13, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

Template:Tq

Yes, and that's what I meant above by "g as a modelling convenience". You can say that "g" is just an observation of positive correlation between tests and has no physical meaning, and by this definition obviously g exists.

However, most proponents of g will call it stuff like "general intelligence" and believe it is some sort of cognitive ability underlying all other mental skills, which is a more specific theory and which you can't prove from just the correlations. Like you can see on the page for g factor there's lots of explanations for the positive correlations that do not require this sort of general intelligence.

Template:Tq

That sounds good. Loki (talk) 03:43, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

Interesting! It's wild that there's no real explanation or agreement on why this positive manifold exists, yet at the same time, there are results like Template:Tqq (!!!)

For the purposes of this article, maybe we should try to draw a distinction between the general idea of subgroups / strata of correlation, versus Gardner's specific choices of intelligences? Because the former seems to be accepted (e.g. Template:Tqq), while the latter isn't?

Added the Shearer reference here. Leijurv (talk) 04:34, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

Hi All-  First, I want to say that I appreciate this careful and thoughtful discussion of MI and its relationship to IQ. There is much to say . . . let me pick just a few things to clarify. It seems that everyone has their own favorite definition and theory of intelligence that criticizes MI and that the conversation wanders away from MI itself. Too often critics only have a superficial understanding of MI.

1.    MI definition of intelligence

The criticism that MI extends intelligence beyond “tradition” is tautological reasoning. Of course, MI is an innovative reimagining of what constitutes intelligent behavior in the world and not merely on decontextualized tests conducted in small quiet rooms on standard problem solving tasks. Gardner contends that such tests reveal some things about intelligence but not EVERYTHING in the real world. Second, I believe that the real crux of the debate is that IQists do not accept the definition of intelligence (if indeed they know it) as employed in MI that includes divergent and practical thinking as well as logical-problem solving. If you deny this 3-part definition then MI theory makes no sense and you will fail to see the higher level thinking (ala Bloom) in the 8 intelligences. It is like failing to appreciate contemporary art (a child could do these scribbles) through a 19^th century sensibility expecting realism as the only legitimate form of ‘art’. Also, remember that the French traditionalists HATED impressionist art, at first.  Similarly, IQists fail to appreciate the full picture for how MI “reframes” / redefines what it means to function intelligently. This applies also to how followers of behaviorism had to give way to cognitive psychology, etc. etc. MI is part of an evolution of our understanding of human behavior.

2.    IQ integrated with MI

So… MI has never denied that IQ exists. Research evidence indicates that (as the theory predicts) IQ is most strongly correlated with a combination of the Logical-mathematical and Linguistic intelligences. Second, there is a logical problem-solving behavioral component to the expression of all 8 intelligences so.. this explains why some tests are moderately correlated.  BUT, and this is important, logical tests fail to capture the creative expressions of each intelligence in the real world – improvisational jazz, hip-hop, poetic expression, visual art, etc. This is why “tests” for MI need to be more “real world demonstrations” of the various skills for each intelligence.

3.    Neuroscience evidence supporting MI combine with Bloom’s taxonomy

Extensive neuroscience evidence reveals how each of the 8 intelligences are supported by coherent neural networks as well as the logical relationships among the various intelligences in ways that MI theory predicts (Intra & Inter; Music and Language; Spatial & Naturalist, etc.). Second, Bloom’s hierarchy of cognition can be used as a model for each intelligence to account for higher level thinking ‘Synthesis” and Analysis arising from the lower levels of Knowledge. Most critics fail to take this model into account.

4.    Cross-cultural Factor analysis supporting construct validity and criterion validity

I have conducted both exploratory and confirmatory analyses of MI using 20,000 cases from multiple cultures in various languages. These results have then been compared to numerous matched ability groups and psychometric tests to differentiate each theorized construct and its relationship to demonstrated ability groups. This has also been done with the neuroscience mixed ability groups for each intelligence. These data indicate that MI is more than ‘interests’ or personality but instead describe skills and abilities.

I tried to explain many of these studies in my original – rather lengthy – MI Wikipedia page and then cut it down but now understand that it was too much as “argument” for MI rather than a “descriptive summary”. I guess I was reacting to the existing very strong argument in the MI page that argues with much negativity that MI is not a legitimate psychological theory.  This is the crux of what's wrong with much of the current MI page. It end with negative evaluations, not merely a 'summary' of existing evidence. I appreciate your valued contributions to this discussion and have renewed confidence that we can produce a fair and accurate page that describes MI as a well researched psychological theory. Branton Shearer BrantonShearer (talk) 14:16, 8 March 2025 (UTC)

This is an improved text that presents the arguments in a fair and accurate way. The text is more neutral and reasonable. The addition of evidence from published sources enhances our understanding of the controversy regarding MI theory. 46.100.87.209 (talk) 10:23, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

Hi All,

After rereading the lead paragraphs to the MUltiple Intelligences page, I am again dismayed at its bias. This is not appropriate for a Wikipedia page. I have drafted two paragraphs that provide essential information about MI theory without bias- either positive or negative. I believe these paragraphs to be better aligned with the Wikipedia value of objectivity. Of course, negative criticism is then described in subsequent sections as a statement of facts. Questions about the essential validity of MI theory can also be addressed along with empirical data published in respectable journals.

Here are the two paragraphs that I am proposing. Comments are requested.

The theory of multiple intelligences proposes a differentiation of human intelligence into specific distinguishable separate intelligences, rather than defining it as a single general ability. Since 1983, multiple intelligences (MI) theory has been popular among educators around the world. In the influential book Frames of Mind: The Theory of Multiple Intelligences (1983) and its sequels, Howard Gardner identifies at least eight distinct intelligences that humans use to survive, thrive and build civilization. Gardner describes intelligence as being more than academic ability. Intelligence is also displayed in everyday life in activities such as creating products, providing services, and practical problem solving. MI theory describes intelligence as the "brain's toolkit" for creating symbolic thought that is mobilized within one’s specific culture (Gardner, 2024). All people have all the intelligences and each person has their own unique cognitive profile of strengths and limitations. The eight intelligences identified are: (1) linguistic, (2) logical-mathematical (these two are generally associated with I.Q.), (3) visual-spatial, (4) musical, (5) kinesthetic, (6) naturalistic, (7) intrapersonal and (8) interpersonal.

While the concept of a unitary or general intelligence (I.Q.) has been controversial since its introduction in the early 1900s (Herrnstein & Murray, 1994), no other multi-intelligence theory has endured to challenge its dominance to the same degree as Gardner’s MI theory (Schaler, 2006). Introduced as a revolutionary psychological construct, MI was enthusiastically received by educators while severely criticized by psychologists because it expands the concept of intelligence and is not based on the psychometric tradition as used for I.Q. 69.247.236.128 (talk) 17:27, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

Per WP:NPOV it would not be an improvement to the article. It tilts far too much toward the promotional, and what mentions of criticism there are seem to be a bare nod toward WP:FALSEBALANCE, a concept specifically rejected by the Wikipedia community. MrOllie (talk) 18:11, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

So… the existing lead that includes 4 instances of negative criticism with only a brief and incomplete description of MI theory and veers off to discuss general intelligence is more consistent with the Wikipedia policy of “neutral” than my proposed brief, objective and purely descriptive summary?

You want Wikipedia readers to accept that your argument is logical and free of bias? 2601:58C:4301:3410:E0E2:58EB:A5C9:E211 (talk) 20:32, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

You have misunderstood Wikipedia's policies on this. Policy requires that Wikipedia be reflective of the independent sources. We do not aim to be 'free of bias', we aim to have the same bias as the mainstream. That is what it means to reject false balance. If we didn't, articles like Homeopathy would be very, very different. We have discussed this before. If you have follow up questions you can ask them at WP:TEAHOUSE, but please stop coming back to this page with this WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT stuff. No one is here to explain the same things to you over and over. MrOllie (talk) 01:59, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

I generally agree with MrOllie. In your lead, the first paragraph is uncritically repeating Gardner's POV. The second paragraph is more of the same, plus speaks negatively about g factor. I don't think anything you wrote in your lead is strictly wrong, to be clear. It's about WP:DUE weight. It spends a lot of words on Gardner's POV which is not neutral. You can see above in this section why, for example, I edited the lead to remove the claims that MI theory helps students, because the sources do not support that claim. See WP:NPOV, e.g. the quiz. Leijurv (talk) 02:08, 27 April 2025 (UTC)