Types of Intelligence you are strongest in

[Iwantpeace]

What type(s) of intelligence are you the strongest in? Weakest in?

[Aylen]

You missed one.

I have often gotten linguistic and intrapersonal on most quizzes that didn't include all the types.

If I had to put in order:

Existential
Intrapersonal
Verbal/Linguistic
Interpersonal
Musical

Math and body are weakest. I still walk into walls so better put spatial lower too. That is probably covered under body though.

Existential Intelligence – What is it?

I would define existential intelligence as the ability to be sensitive to, or have the capacity for, conceptualizing or tackling deeper or larger questions about human existence. In my mind folks who have this intelligence are not afraid to tackle thinking about questions that revolve around such issues as the meaning of life, or contemplate questions like why are we born, why do we die, what is consciousness, or how did we get here?

There are many people who feel that there should be a ninth intelligence, existential intelligence (A.K.A.: “wondering smart, cosmic smart, spiritually smart, or metaphysical intelligence”). The possibility of this intelligence has been alluded to by Howard Gardner in several of his works. He has stated that existential intelligence might be manifest in someone who is concerned with fundamental questions about existence, or who questions the intricacies of existence. And while Professor Gardner has offered a preliminary definition as: “Individuals who exhibit the proclivity to pose and ponder questions about life, death, and ultimate realities,” he has not fully confirmed, endorsed, or described this intelligence.

Perhaps the difficulty is that Gardner wisely believes that if he offered an official definition it would open a can of worms best left out of the arena of education. Or, since a great deal of the importance and credibility of Gardner’s work rests on neurological evidence of site specific locations within the brain, it might be that it is a bit risky for any author or scientist to definitively pinpoint the exact biological seat of spiritual wonder or cosmic awareness without offending any number of people, or some cultural or religious groups. I think it is important to remember that part of the power of Gardner’s work depends upon careful examination of the available data and scientific evidence. So, at this point in time, it might be safer to say that existential intelligence is the “half” in 8-1/2 intelligences that comprise MI Theory.

Despite this avoidance on Gardner’s part to definitively commit to existential intelligence, there are many who have accepted the presence of this intelligence as fact and have attempted to clarify what it might look like if it were part of the MI array. For those who have met children who appear to have “old souls,” it is often easy to accept the existence of existential intelligence as something very real and important. These are the children who appear to have a sixth sense, they may be highly intuitive and insightful, even what some might describe as psychic, or they are the ones who pose, and sometimes even answer, life’s larger questions – like:

Why am I here? Why are we here?
Are there other dimensions and if so what are they like?
Can animals understand us, or do animals go to heaven?
Are there really ghosts?
Where do we go when we die?
Why are some people evil?
Is there life on other planets?
Where is heaven?
Where does God live?
These may be those children who can be described as “fully aware” of the cosmos — of its diversity, complexity, interconnected threads, its wonder. Frequently, these are the children who persist in asking those “big” questions that adults cannot or will not answer.

Gardner also addresses this issue more fully in his 1999 work. So I recommend you read this as it comes from the source himself – Intelligence Reframed: Multiple Intelligences for the 21st Century.

Notes: A number of folks have asked what existential intelligence might look like in the form of a human being — after all we can readily give examples of persons having other types of intelligence. I think one has to answer that question on a personal level as it would depend on one’s world, cultural, or religious views. Obvious figures that immediately come to mind when thinking about this type of intelligence might be Jesus, Mohammed, Buddha, Lao Tzu, Black Elk, etc. But they are historic figures. Today one might think of Pope Francis or the Dalai Lama (Tenzin Gyatso) or some other world religious figure. But I have met ordinary folks, and even some children, who I would say had this type of intelligence. For me they exude an inner peace, a deep sense of knowing, a wisdom that far exceeds that of everyone else. They make connections very easily as if they see far beyond us mortal beings. As I indicated earlier, they seem to have “old souls,” a knowing that transcends this time or place. In this era, in its tumult and chaos, my only wish is that there were more folks who fell into this categorization — I think the world really needs them!


http://thesecondprinciple.com/optima...smic-smarts-2/

Weird synch since I was discussing the ninth intelligence (existential) to someone a few days ago. I thought of making a thread then changed my mind. Now here it is.

[Simo]

Strongest: Visual, Logical, Intrapersonal
Weakest: Interpersonal, and maybe musical too

[FDG]

I know so many people who are bad at all of them, it's incredible

Anyway I think my weakest is interpersonal, my best spatial and logical mathematical i guess.

[Simo]

You missed one.

I think existential was added specially for you

I still walk into walls

like this?

[Simo]

I know so many people who are bad at all of them, it's incredible

you reminded me of Einstein's quote

The difference between stupidity and genius is that genius has its limits.

[The Reality Denialist]

• Logical/Mathematical
• Verbal/Linguistic (that serves logic or other way around)

Logic and math is highly verbal and visual.



Bad

• Visual/Spatial (I can spot things if try but placing my body in it... I can imagine stuff in abstract shapes)
• Bodily/Kinesthetic (see previous, good reflexes never hurt myself badly)
• Naturalistic (maybe through experimentation... so not)
• Musical Intelligence (Never got interested in it. Don't know. Instruments seem to be too tedious.)
• Interpersonal (what we mean by this? If I find motivation, I can generate something captivating out of it)
• Intrapersonal (If meant by inspecting myself through some logic? Maybe but not interested. I know what is uninteresting.)

[Number 9 large]

What type(s) of intelligence are you the strongest in? Weakest in?

I'm strongest in logical, but oddly suck at mathematics. I just hate numbers.
In linguistic only when writing, when talking I often cannot find the time to muster my full vocabulary to create elaborate sentences.

Weakest is intra- and interpersonal. Often don't know what I feel/want, because I often unconsciously repress my feelings in favour of logic.
Every time I act out of emotion it all goes wrong, because my emotions often deceive me. Therefore I don't trust them and repress them.

Am also mistrustful of people. Often accused of being blunt, impolite, even when I don't mean to. Especially after I've spent long bouts alone, it's like I have to ''relearn'' how to be social again.
But after that it usually goes well. I just need to tell myself that people mean well lol

The third one would be musical intelligence, according to the discription here; almost all of them fit me
https://mypersonality.info/multiple-...ences/musical/

The 3rd would be visual intelligence, am quite a visual thinker and can remember memories clearly. Can also rarely get lost due to how I have good spatial awareness. (awareness of how far and what direction I've walked/travelled in order to get back to where I was)

The fourth highest would probably be kinesthetic intelligence. I have reasonably good hand-eye coordination and have always been good at almost any sport, even without much practice, compared to most of my peers in high school.

Naturalistic intelligence - what is that exactly? I googled it but don't find any real answer but some description that looks like it's describing Si, which to me seems not really like a form of intelligence, but more of preferences.
https://mypersonality.info/multiple-...es/naturalist/

[Aylen]

I think existential was added specially for you

like this?

You know me so well.

[Olimpia]

You tell me.

[Olimpia]

My strongest ones are Linguistic and Intrapersonal.
My weakest ones are Naturalistic and Mathematical.

My Existential intelligence is not too bad, I was fairly good in Philosophy class and all that, but I am an Atheist, so...
It's difficult to find a description of Existential intelligence that doesn't involve some kind of belief in a "Higher Being" or "Higher Power".
I like to think of parallel universes, different time dimensions, and all that... Generally, existential thinking has never been difficult to me. I just don't like all the religious or spiritual stuff attached to it, because I personally believe most of it is made-up and doesn't hit the mark of truth, so I tend to avoid it.

There are upsides and downsides to my Kinesthetic, Musical, Interpersonal, and Visual intelligences. I can dance fine and I can be athletic, but I am generally rather bad at any sport involving a ball. I could learn to play certain musical pieces quite well, but otherwise I am fairly average. I can be charming, empathetic, observant of moods and so forth, or I can be unsympathetic and oblivious to how I am upsetting people (online). And I can be quite imaginative and "visual"; I like to create graphs and so forth (as you can tell by my blog stuff), but at the same time I have troubles with practical visual things like ... parking. Or imagining a rotating object and seeing it from all angles correctly. All those intelligences have their strong and weak sides in me.

So all in all... it is probably something like...

Linguistic/Intrapersonal
Existential
Visual (imaginative kind)

Bodily/Musical/Interpersonal
Naturalistic
Mathematical/Spatial (practical kind)

P.S: This is a random fact, but I've been the most attracted to guys who had higher Musical, Bodily, and/or Interpersonal intelligence than me. Guys who were weak in any of those areas (especially those with a lower Interpersonal intelligence than me) would generally be less attractive to me. I am wondering whether that is just a "me" (Imago) thing, or whether those three intelligences tend to be very attractive in general. A lot of women are into musicians and athletes and such, so... Could be a matter of both.

[The Reality Denialist]

Actually those are more preferences than intelligences.

verbal logic strikes again...

[ashlesha]

I think I'm strongest in intrapersonal (which is a weakness as much as a strength as far as I can tell) and verbal. Weakest in mathematical. Visual and existential are both pretty gratifying to use even though they're probably more towards the middle.

[huiheiwufhawriuhg]

1. Intrapersonal (I'm quite a lot drown in my own self, my own emotion, thoughts, psychology etc... Defying myself, my beliefs, my personality etc. is crucial for me)
2. Verbal/Linguistic (I can fluently speak 3 different languages and have basics of 2 more, I worked as an English teacher and I study Creative Writing.)
3. Musical (I'm a very good singer, I have a good ear for melody, but I can't play any instrument and my sense of rythm is quite weak as well)
4. Existential (Not sure what it means, if the means philosophy of existence, I excel at it, but I'm not the worst at handeling every-day life either)
5. Interpersonal (Even though I'm mostly introverted and stay silent, I know how to talk to people, when I have to, I know how to lead the conversation and how to behave in most of the social situations.)
6. Visual/Spatial (I'm actually not very good at it, but I'm even worse at the others.)
7. Naturalistic (I have zero relationship towards nature on both theoretical/educational and practical bases. I hated biology and a walk in a forest is a source of suffering for me.)
8. Logical/Mathematical (Well...I know what 1+1 equals...)
9. Bodily/Kinesthetic (Lol...)

[neproblems]

I'm strongest in logical, but oddly suck at mathematics.

From what I remember of school maths; it was all about rearranging stuff, and looking at things from different perspectives, which should be NE, so I wouldn't be surprised if NE is more useful for basic maths, than any other function

[The Reality Denialist]

existential intelligence

That's kind of interesting because I'm drawn to look at it from another perspective. Like what I can decipher. Philosophy was easy subject but not that gratifying. I could dance around others if I wanted to. I wrote nice essays just to turn those concepts backwards. Got full points. Heck, it is probably one of the strongest in me.

[Chae]

I like this thread @sorrows, good idea!


From strongest to weakest:

Visual/Spatial
Verbal
Existential
Interpersonal
Intrapersonal
Bodily/Kinesthetic
Musical
Naturalistic
Logical/Mathematical

[Raver]

Took a test here:

http://www.literacynet.org/mi/assess...strengths.html

Strong intelligences:

Self (Intrapersonal) - 4.29
Musical - 3.57
Language (Linguisitic) - 3.29

Mediocre Intelligences:

Nature (Naturalist) - 2.71
Social (Interpersonal) - 2.71
Body (Movement) - 2.57
Spatial - 2.57

Weak Intelligences:

Logic (Math) - 1.86

[Muddy]

According to this test: http://www.literacynet.org/mi/assess...strengths.html

Body Movement: 3.71
Nature: 3.57
Self: 3.14
Social: 3
Musical: 2.43
Spatial: 2.43
Language: 1.71
Logic/Math: 1.71

Edit: Ah @Raver just beat me to it lol.

[neproblems]

Self 3.57
Musical 3.43
Body movement 3.43
Spatial 3.43
Social 3.43
Logic Math 3.29
Language 2.71
Nature 1.86

[niffer]

^ Video footage of me when I came.

[wasp]

strong - naturalist, intrapersonal, verbal/linguistic, existential
average - interpersonal, visual/spatial, musical (i love music but i can't sing songs/play instruments/remember lyrics)
weak - logical/mathematical, bodily/kinesthetic

[Chae]

Intrapersonal: 4.86
Linguistic: 4.29
Naturalist: 3.86

Interpersonal: 3.00
Musical: 2.71
Spatial: 2.43
Kinesthetic: 1.57
Mathematics: 1.43

Wow nice Vesp you never disappoint! Did you assign these from 1-5 in a memely manner or is it from a test? That would be helpful thanks.

[Grendel]

Mediocre verbal, shitty everything else, zero existential. I do not need any test, questionnaire, or article to know this.

[wasp]

Wow nice Vesp you never disappoint! Did you assign these from 1-5 in a memely manner or is it from a test? That would be helpful thanks.

i think i've taken that test before. i'm 99% sure this is it: http://www.literacynet.org/mi/assess...strengths.html

[ashlesha]

Intrapersonal 3.57
Language 3.43
Social 3.29

Nature 3.14
Body movement 2.86
Spatial 2.57
Musical 1.86
Logic/math 1.57

[Chae]

i think i've taken that test before. i'm 99% sure this is it: http://www.literacynet.org/mi/assess...strengths.html

Thank you! Ah I see it recommended above also, cool.

[Hope]

According my own consideration/value:

1. Existential - Spatial/Visual
2. Self/Intrapersonal -Linguistic - Kinesthetic
3. Musical - Math - Naturalist
4. Social/Interpersonal


According first test:


Attachment 10820

Second test:

1.Spatial
2.Musical
3.Self/Intrapersonal
4.Naturalist
5.Social/Interpersonal
6.Linguistic
7.Math = Kinesthetic

Good test. But I don't consider at any rate that Linguistic is below Naturalist or Social in my case. Also I don't think my Kinesthetic intelligence is in the lowest, since I learn better when doing things with my own hands. I'm not really into sports, but the way I learn is always hands on.
I bet test have some limitations. Plus the questions seems more directed in most cases to detect interests than directed to the learning style of the person or the way of acquiring knowledge.

Also I don't entirely agree with descriptions on this link they are extremely limited and again, based more on preferences (what do you like to do or in what do you spend time) than in the mere ability of doing something (having certain intelligence). F.e. I love music, but I don't consider that I'm really good at it or that I've an special ability into that. Not at all, and it appears in 2nd place in both tests...why? Just because I like it. :S

 

Your top three intelligences:

Intelligence	Score (5.0 is highest)	Description
	4.29	Spatial: You remember things visually, including exact sizes and shapes of objects. You like posters, charts, and graphics. You like any kind of visual clues. You enjoy drawing. Effective techniques of enhancing your learning using your spatial intelligence include creating and/or using pictures, maps, diagrams, and graphs as you learn things. Other suggestions: Write a language experience story and then illustrate it. Color code words so each syllable is a different color. Write a word on the blackboard with a wet finger. Visualize the word as it disappears. See if you can spell it afterwards. Take a survey. Put the information in a chart. Write words vertically. Cut out words from a magazine and use them in a letter. Visualize spelling words. Use colorful newspapers like USA Today. Use crossword puzzles.
	3.86	Musical: You like the rhythm and sound of language. You like poems, songs, and jingles. You enjoy humming or singing along with music. You probably remember things well when they are associated with music or rhythm. Try to incorporate sounds into your lessons, such as using a familiar tune, song, or rap beat to teach spelling rules, or to remember words in a series for a test. Here are some other ways to use your musical intelligence: Create a poem with an emphasis on certain sounds for pronunciation. Clap out or walk out the sounds of syllables. Read together (choral reading) to work on fluency and intonation. Read a story with great emotion — sad, then happy, then angry. Talk about what changes — is it only tone? Work with words that sound like what they mean (onomatopoeia). For example: sizzle, cuckoo, smash. Read lyrics to music. Use music as background while reviewing and for helping to remember new material. Use rhymes to remember spelling rules, i.e., "I before E except after C."
	3.43	Self: You have a very good sense of self. You like to spend time by yourself and think things over. You will often take in information from another person, mull it over by yourself, and come back to that person later to discuss it. You like working on projects on your own. You often prefer to learn by trial and error. Effective techniques to enhance your learning include keeping a journal and giving yourself time to reflect on new ideas and information. More ideas: Go on "guided imagery" tours. Set aside time to reflect on new ideas and information. Encourage journal writing. Work on the computer. Practice breathing for relaxation. Use brainstorming methods before reading. Listen to and read "how to" tapes and books. Read cookbooks.

---

The scores for your other five intelligences:

2.71	2.57	2.43	2.14	2.14

Just because these five are not in your top three doesn’t mean you’re not strong in them. If your average score for any intelligence is above three, you’re probably using that intelligence quite often to help you learn. Take a look at the Practice section to see how to engage all your intelligences.

Third test:

Attachment 10822

[Olimpia]

According first test:


Attachment 10820

Link?

[Olimpia]

Linguistic 3.71
Interpersonal 3.29
Intrapersonal 3.14

Musical 2.71
Kinesthetic 2.29
Spatial 2
Naturalist 1.86
Logic/Math 1.57

Getting Interpersonal second is rather surprising. I probably just got that because I am So/Sx. I certainly don't think it is my second best intelligence...
In comparison to some other people I know, my social skills are rather subpar and I prefer not talking much IRL. And this test gives me the impression I have dumbed down over the years. Makes me feel a bit bad about myself. 4w5 problems.

P.S: A lot of the questions for "Spatial" were rather ST.

[Olimpia]

@Adam Strange

[suedehead]

1) Logic/Math - consistently scored 30+ above the class average on exams in both of my econ classes (micro and a relatively math-intensive macro course) without doing much review
2) Visual spatial
3) Verbal

8) Interpersonal

I'm objectively below-average when it comes to all of them though, at least for a Westerner

[niffer]

Lol you're not stupid @suedehead . There's nothing that proves that. You just have unconscious weak Te. So I guess that might make it harder for you to access, and then you believe that stuff about being dumb, for some reason, but you're not. You're just weird.

And keep in mind I often call people stupid. And I'm also not biased at all just because I think you're hot (ok, I'm aware it could be there lol, but I don't think it's making an impact... but actually by the way intelligence has been correlated with physical attractiveness).

[Olimpia]

Lol you're not stupid @suedehead . There's nothing that proves that. You just have unconscious weak Te. So I guess that might make it harder for you to access, and then you believe that stuff about being dumb, for some reason, but you're not. You're just weird.

And keep in mind I often call people stupid. And I'm also not biased at all just because I think you're hot (ok, I'm aware it could be there lol, but I don't think it's making an impact... but actually by the way intelligence has been correlated with physical attractiveness).

Mostly agree, besides the idea that intelligence and physical attractiveness are correlated.

There are a lot of hot women who are stupid and a lot of super intelligent guys who are not physically appealing at all, so I find it hard to believe that the two are truly correlated.

I think it is mostly a matter of bias; people subconsciously assume someone is more intelligent, more sweet, more sociable, etc etc. just because they look better. (There have been studies showing that...) But that doesn't mean it is true.

[niffer]

I think out of that list my strongest might be naturalistic and existential but that could also just be what I like focusing on the most. Not taking the test that was linked because it likewise just asks questions that reveal what your ego/self-image is based on, what you like and like focusing on the most rather than revealing anything about actual ability as Slugabed already put aptly. Objectively speaking they're probably all about equal for me with interpersonal being lower.

[niffer]

Mostly agree, besides the idea that intelligence and physical attractiveness are correlated.

There are a lot of hot women who are stupid and a lot of super intelligent guys who are not physically appealing at all, so I find it hard to believe that the two are truly correlated.

More symmetrical faces are also more intelligent apparently. It's a well-known idea touted by the scientific community. You can look it up.

And it's also science, so not just drawn from people and their stereotypes about humans.

I think it is mostly a matter of bias; people subconsciously assume someone is more intelligent, more sweet, more sociable, etc etc. just because they look better. (There have been studies showing that...) But that doesn't mean it is true.

This definitely plays a part. There's something called a self-fulfilling prophecy and the 'halo effect' you described where people attribute more good qualities to one good quality, or well people adapting to the expectations of others and all the extra attention as well. But then at the end of the day, the results come out as being "more attractive = more intelligent", with the specific causes being left up for further investigation and interpretation.

[Olimpia]

More symmetrical faces are also more intelligent apparently. It's a well-known idea touted by the scientific community. You can look it up.

And it's also science, so not just drawn from people and their stereotypes about humans.

As I said earlier, my experience and observations don't confirm those findings, that's why I doubt their findings.

Just look back at the most intelligent people in human history (e.g Einstein, Stephen Hawking,...)
Now how many of them looked like models? Exactly.

I might very well just have a Te PoLR moment here, but just because some scientists claim something doesn't mean it must be true.
Studies can be biased, just like researchers can be biased.

Having said that, there might be a correlation between Interpersonal and/or Kinesthetic intelligence and good-looks.
Besides that, I cannot see it.

[niffer]

I might very well just have a Te PoLR moment here

You are.

Just look back at the most intelligent people in human history (e.g Einstein, Stephen Hawking,...)
Now how many of them looked like models? Exactly.

What if the selection of those people as "famous" was skewed or filtered by people's stereotypes of people being smart having to be ugly?

By the way, I am not sure I agree with you that those people are supposedly ugly or unattractive... it's just that they're mostly pictured as dusty old men in their 70s/80s from a b&w past era in portraits of them. IMO from that 'pool', Isaac Newton was attractive, for e.g. The rest might have been very 'attractive' or at least 'symmetrical' in this meaningful relevant way if not conventionally stereotypically attractive in a masculine or trendy way.

As I said earlier, my experience and observations don't confirm those findings, that's why I doubt their findings.

...just because some scientists claim something doesn't mean it must be true.
Studies can be biased, just like researchers can be biased.

Researchers can be biased (everybody always has their own biases and human fallibility), but institutionalized science takes great measures methodologically and using technology often even to remove that bias. It's highly regulated. That's what gives the institution of science the reputability that it is supposed to have. Regular people on the other hand can't do that; they don't even have access to those resources to be able to do that a lot of the time.

I'm not saying that science is infallible as an institution (there have been many cases where previously held notions have been proven wrong, and there can be loopholes in testing methods and also bureaucratic loopholes in the way that information is accepted in the community). I'm also not saying that you should go against your own intuition and experiences and stop being critical of ideas. However, currently science generally speaking does try to ensure that all of the bases for biased and erroneous thinking have been covered... more than you (or me, or anyone else working alone). So just because something seems off to you at first, doesn't mean you should write it off as BS especially if you haven't even looked it up or truly researched into it yourself.

[Simo]

You know me so well.

you know when I read strengthsfinder's 34 themes to decide which are my top five, I was sure you have connectedness as your number one more than my number one (maybe I should delete intrapersonal from my list )

 

Things happen for a reason. You are sure of it. You are sure of it because in your soul you know that we are all connected. Yes, we are individuals, responsible for our own judgments and in possession of our own free will, but nonetheless we are part of something larger. Some may call it the collective unconscious. Others may label it spirit or life force. But whatever your word of choice, you gain confidence from knowing that we are not isolated from one another or from the earth and the life on it. This feeling of Connectedness implies certain responsibilities. If we are all part of a larger picture, then we must not harm others because we will be harming ourselves. We must not exploit because we will be exploiting ourselves. Your awareness of these responsibilities creates your value system. You are considerate, caring, and accepting. Certain of the unity of humankind, you are a bridge builder for people of different cultures. Sensitive to the invisible hand, you can give others comfort that there is a purpose beyond our humdrum lives. The exact articles of your faith will depend on your upbringing and your culture, but your faith is strong. It sustains you and your close friends in the face of life's mysteries.

[Simo]

^ Video footage of me when I came.

thanks god I wasn't behind the wall you walked through