IQ or multiple intelligences?

 Do you use your intelligence only to do math problems, solve geometry exercises, and write?

No, right?

You also use your intelligence in social/interpersonal relationships, in relation to yourself (intrapersonal/self-awareness), in relation to the environment, in creative or intuitive ways, to make moral judgments... or to play sports, right?

So, which of the two is more correct: IQ or multiple intelligences?

The theory of multiple intelligences is more comprehensive than the model proposed by the most orthodox proponents of IQ tests—not least because the capabilities "estimated" by those tests are already encompassed within it.

Tying one's shoelaces and reflecting on oneself are expressions of intelligence just as valid as writing essays or performing mathematical calculations.

However, this does not mean the theory is beyond criticism. In fact, the main criticism lies in the very name itself; we cannot consider every psycho-cognitive capacity as a distinct domain or "intelligence," as that would be akin to regarding each system of the human body as a separate organism ("multiple organisms").

That is why we should speak not of multiple intelligences, but of multiple *facets* of intelligence.

There you have it.

Human intelligence is multifaceted—or complex—rather than necessarily "multiple."

Cognitive tests have limited utility, yet they are efficient at what they set out to "measure" or estimate. It would be appropriate for their staunchest defenders to be more precise and humble in acknowledging their potential and strengths—but, above all, their limitations.

And what about the *g* factor?

Cognitive tests were originally designed to detect cognitive impairments rather than exceptional performance. Precisely for this reason, they generally "measure," estimate, and compare based on capacities or potential rather than skills—focusing on the baseline rather than the performance ceiling. IQ tests cannot predict whether an individual who scores highly on verbal tests will become a talented writer, because possessing a seemingly large or sophisticated vocabulary is not enough to achieve that goal. That is why, despite their strong correlative power—people with the highest test scores tend to be more intelligent, especially regarding the facets the tests evaluate—it does not seem possible to establish a perfect correspondence between test performance and real-world performance (for instance, regarding one of their major findings, the *g* factor). While it is true that most people who take IQ tests show little variation in their sub-test scores, this does not mean they will exhibit the same consistency of performance in the real world; human intelligence is far more than just what these tests "measure," given that we use it in every moment of our existence. For this reason, the multiple intelligences model—setting aside its basic semantic issues—seems better suited to representing it.

Once again: what is intelligence?

*A priori*, it is any act of recognizing (knowing) what is true or factual—whether to understand, identify, or predict elements, events, phenomena, or consequences; to categorize and distinguish them based on coherent criteria; or to successfully execute intended actions, adapt or remain flexible, and respond appropriately or logically.

Do not be surprised by my conclusion here: empathy is also a form of intelligence, provided it involves recognizing—or acknowledging—the emotional and cognitive or intentional states of others (which are, in themselves, "truths"). It is exactly like recognizing rain, distinguishing it from other phenomena, and reacting to it appropriately—in this case, perhaps by seeking self-protection.

If someone is crying in front of you, it is intelligent to recognize the reality of their emotional state—its cause, motive, reason, or circumstance—and to react appropriately; in that situation, an appropriate reaction would be one characterized by greater sensitivity. And this is not much different from feeling your hand burning and immediately trying to put out the fire. These are logical reactions based on the perception of facts or patterns.

Intelligence is not exclusively intellectual or reflective, as it can be channeled into physical action and also manifests at an instinctive level—especially in other species. In fact, the foundations of human intelligence are obviously instinctive. A bird’s flying prowess (and navigational skills) or a cat’s agility in jumping and performing acrobatic feats are not merely robotic expressions, despite their deeply ingrained nature. The main difference between us and these species, in this regard, may lie in the speed of reasoning applied to physical or practical tasks, and in the fact that their abilities are more limited compared to the diversity of tasks humans can learn. Engaging in any sport requires intelligence—whether to memorize the exercises, to concentrate during..their execution, as well as for quick thinking or improvisation in the event of unforeseen situations—factors that can be of utmost importance in protecting the athlete from injury.