Image: Courtesy of Howard Gardner
-
What a Plant Knows
How does a Venus flytrap know when to snap shut? Can it actually feel an insect’s tiny, spindly legs? And how do cherry blossoms know when to bloom? Can they...
Read More »
Howard Gardner is a professor of cognition and education at the Harvard Graduate School of Education. He’s also the author of over 20 books and several hundred scholarly articles. Gardner is probably best known in educational circles for his theory of multiple intelligences, which is a critique of the notion that there exists but a single human intelligence that can be assessed by standard psychometric instruments. His most recent book, Five Minds for the Future, offers some advice for policy-makers on how to do a better job of preparing students for the 21st century. Mind Matters editor Jonah Lehrer chats with Gardner about his new book, the possibility of teaching ethics and how his concept of multiple intelligences has changed over time.
LEHRER: Your most recent book argues that we need to dramatically re-think the way we think, especially when it comes to learning. What's the problem with our current models?
GARDNER: As many people have pointed out, our educational system basically prepared individuals for the 19th and 20th century. In Five Minds for the Future, I describe the kinds of minds that will be at the highest premium going forward. Although our existing models of learning are reasonably good for developing a disciplined mind, they have almost nothing to say about the synthesizing mind, though it is arguably the most important mind for the 21st century. I don’t think that any of us knows how best to cultivate the creative mind; but our current ways of thinking and teaching are excellent at quashing the creative mind.
As for the last two kinds of mind I identify in the book—respectful and ethical—these are generally considered beyond the purview of theories of learning. Respect should be inculcated from birth, and is best learned by example. As for the ethical mind, that has been my chief research concern for the past 15 years. Our current thinking about this vexing topic is best accessed via a visit to goodworkproject.org
LEHRER: Why are these five types of mind so important right now?
GARDNER: In writing this book, I was taking on the mantle of “czar.” If I were the czar of education and of the work place, these are the five minds that, I believe, would most be at a premium, the ones that I would train, if possible, or select for, if necessary.
To summarize, they push the mind in three ways: disciplined (depth), synthesizing (breadth) and creative (stretch). There may be some division of labor across individuals, but everyone should have at least some experience with each kind of mind, otherwise we wouldn’t be able to work productively with others.
Despite the financial meltdown, the world is getting smaller every day. Unless we are able to respect those who appear to be different from ourselves, we are not going to be able to work with them. And unless we behave ethically and responsibly, we will not be able to enter into trusting relationships with others and it will become a dog-eat-dog world. Although the current financial meltdown is due to many factors, the lack of an ethical compass in major corporations and financial institutions is a major cause.
I make no claim that these are the only five minds, nor that they were unimportant in the past. What I do claim is that these are the five minds that we need to keep front and center going forward, and I suggest how they work and how they cultivate them—but those details are in the book!
LEHRER: In your book, you note that some people fake these essential skills. For instance, although they might appear creative or ethical, they're actually not. How can we tell the difference between real achievers and the fake achievers?
GARDNER: A friend of mine once quipped: when hiring someone or deciding whether to work with them, you need at least 10 lunches." This is only a figure of speech, of course, but there are no short cuts toward making these assessments. People in business love tests for the minds, and they are disappointed when I talk about the limits of standardized tests. I think that two tacks are much more likely to be effective:
First, rely on the testimony of individuals who know the persons well, and don’t be afraid to probe or confront problems and inconsistencies. You can soon tell whether you are getting baloney or well sliced prime information.
Second, pose questions and challenges that reveal the ways in which the candidate approaches issues. For example, I do not find it credible when a person tells me that he or she has never faced an ethical dilemma. I probe for such dilemmas and if they are not forthcoming, I pose some dilemmas of my own and see how the candidate responds.
In general, however, I place greater weight on testimony from knowledgeable sources—as your question implies, one can often be fooled by a single interview.
LEHRER: Do you think the current economic downturn is attributable, in some way, to our failure to cultivate the right kind of minds?
GARDNER: Without question, the answer is yes. What came to govern decisions everywhere, including my own university was a reckless disregard for experience, due diligence, caution and contemplating the down side of decisions. If anything, “deciders” were selected and rewarded on the basis of whether they could cut corners and whether they could make it appear as if they were gaining ever greater profits.
I don’t want to claim that we were seers. But my colleagues and I began our GoodWork Project in 1994-’95, when we were skeptical of the claim that 'markets are self-adjusting and always lead to the best outcomes." In order for markets to work, one needs wise policies, wise policymakers, tough regulation and, above all, individuals who behave in an ethical way and demand ethical behavior from others.
Now 15 years later, people are approaching us from many sectors saying, "How do we secure good work? How can the young people, the future leaders of America, become good workers and citizens?" We certainly don’t have all the answers, but I'd like to think that we can prevent more damage and help orient individuals toward responsible behaviors—actions that in the long run serve the general welfare, and not primarily the pockets of the so-called “masters of the universe.”
See what we're tweeting about
12 Comments
Add CommentWe tend to regard thinking creatively as involving unorthodox solutions to problems. This article mentions the current economic crisis. I would suggest that creative thinking is also a response to crisis as such, when orthodox solutions might fail to provide a way out of social or economic unknown territory.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIn this sense, creativity (and its social emergence) is an indication that crisis is upon us. Since the 21st century already seems to be lining up crises both economic, social, and environmental that appear to be unprecedented, it would seem only prudent to re-evaluate models of thinking which applied to the previous century, but which still persist. And, yes: that does include stuffing the pockets of those who got us into this mess with bonuses originating from the wages of taxpayers.
I totally agree that the greatest challenge for future mind is going to be the creativity stretch and synthesization of flood of information and knowledge and also the capacity to select and apply the mind in crisis and dynamic world. Living with a deep sense of responsibility will be the key to survivial in the future world.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThankfully, I am a Right-Brainer ... Will Right-Brainers rule the future as Dan Pink believes? I hope so!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI am strongly commited to the conviction that the creative mind mentioned by the professor is definitely and by no means crucial in the modern innovation and scientific and technological development.Nontheless,we should keep someting in serious perspective that some financial products and business such as the derivative financial products of options and future are also the financially creative product ,which once brought about affluent wealth and prosperity to the people or business globally in almost aspects ,also receive torrential criticism after the collapse of many financial systeams and companys of US.Consequently,we should not be so conclusive that the creative mind is always and forever the good one .Every coin has two sides.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this@peterzhang, creativity, such as derivative financial products, needs constraints, such as ethics, one of the 5 minds mentioned... Li
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe scientific findings related to consciousness and cognition have reported that dream state cognition and wakeful thought are unified in respect of brain architecture and contents,though the former is more imaginative and creative.The point is if you are synthesising more ,then you are less creative to that extent since the neural circuitry is consciously being devoted more there, causing less of creative thinking.Our self notions affect our creativity to such an extent that disciplining the mind or disciplined thinking ,actually counters the creative thinking mind.So at a time, based on neurophysiology, you are either at one place,being creative,or synthetic or disciplined,and not a little of all.May be you could be thinking you are free to combine a little of the three together in some proportion,simultaneously,but actually you are only being influenced by your unconscious mind even as you take a decision.Scientific studies discount the role of free will,so even as you synthesise or discipline, there is a lot of the unconscious involvement in manipulation of implicit images to a varying degree depending on the self notions,of the individual concerned.So you are either being a creative,or synthetic,or disciplined mental type, predominantly based on your mental images and self notions or cognitive make-up ,that you cannot switch among the three consciously.The possibility for a coexistence of the thrre minds in an individual is hence discounted based on current scientific findings or literature on brain sciences,neurophysiology,consciousness and cognition,psychology etc.Now,whether one type can be converted to the other by training is a moot point to be investigated,and I feel that processes may really help like pure consciousness techniques,combining particular breathing patterns with meditative mentation,coupled with creative intelligence techniques like buzz/mind maps,word/figure cues etc,provided first your mind is rendered creative,by training,as above.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSURESHKUMAR,SCIENTIST AND ADVISER,NIIST,CSIR,TRIVANDRUM
just a little narrower on the moustache ......
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNeed and greed. Figure out how to control these and you have the answer.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWe need a synthesis of minds - people prefer different styles of thinking, depending on their personality
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisLogic, detail analysis, pattern recognition and hypothetical thinking. The natural team takes one of each type of personality / style of thinking. The solutions produced by this group will express maximum diversity and maximum cohesion. Each member of the team has their own contribution to make and no one steps on someone elses toes.
There is a Higher Mind and there is a lower mind or carnal mind and never the twain shall meet. The mind in either case is not the brain. The brain is not the center of intelligence but merely a computer, a processor of information and a recording device. The heart has as many or more neurons than the brain and heart intelligence was by the ancients thought more highly of than was brain intelligence.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisQuantum physics is beginning to discover that everything is made of the same building blocks of waves, frequencies, vibrations, energy oscillating from spirit to matter with a return current from matter to spirit. In the beginning was the Word... We were created in the image and likeness of our Creator God and our God is a consuming fire. We are spirit sparks of the One Flame. Everything is composed of the same Light, Energy and Consciousness of God and has Innate Intelligence. There are Higher Octaves or frequencies and there are lower octaves. In these lower octaves the body of man is composed of four interpenetrating sheaths called the four lower bodies, each vibrating at a different frequency. These are the etheric (memory or fire) body, the mental (mind or air) body, the emotional (emotion, feeling, water) body, and the physical body. Just as the physical body has organs so does the etheric body and in Sanskrit they are called chakras. There are 7 major chakras along the spinal column and 144 minor chakras throughout the body. Chakras are like step down transformers, stepping down the higher frequency energy from spirit to nourish the four lower bodies and the soul. We do not live by bread alone. When the energy is raised from the base chakra to the crown chakra enlightenment occurs, the budding of the 1000 petaled lotus, and hence the buddhic consciousness. Within the heart is a sacred space, an interval known as the Secret Chamber of the Heart Chakra. St Therese of Avila described it as an interior castle. In the cathedral of the castle, on the high altar, burns an unfed 3-fold flame of Power, Wisdom and Love. That flame is our Seat of Authority and connection to Higher Realms first through the Higher Mind (known as the Christ Mind --- let that mind be in you which was also in Christ Jesus), and thence to the individualized presence of God (I Am That I Am) or I Am Presence. When we so re-connect ourselves, then the prophecy of Jesus is fulfilled, these things that I do ye shall also do and more, because I go unto the Father (to re-connect us through the agency of his Sacred Heart Flame).
The exact number of minds is the number of ways measurements are taken multiplied by the number of beliefs (assumptions of reality) available to the person making the measurement.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAll scientific theory is subject to testing of available information and the confirmation of predictable results. No theory is valid that accepts multiple answers for a result.
Gardner theories are beliefs at best.
"What came to govern decisions everywhere, including my own university was a reckless disregard for experience, due diligence, caution and contemplating the down side of decisions. If anything, deciders were selected and rewarded on the basis of whether they could cut corners and whether they could make it appear as if they were gaining ever greater profits."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHe nailed it. This attitude became pervasive in our society's organizations, role-modeled from the very top over the last eight years. It sickened me to see this infest even the county agency I worked in, and was a factor in my retiring at the earliest possible moment.