My favorite quote from the article is:

"But I think that the science I present in the book does show that there is rigorous research backing this idea that if we're open to people's unique brand of intelligence, and we help inspire them to have a purpose in life, to pursue their unique brand, they can actually demonstrate extraordinary intellectual feats and creative accomplishments."

I really love the idea of viewing each one as unique.  It is tough to force some students to write a paper or pass a test when you see they think so differently and their skills are in such a different venue then the method with which we grade them.  I wish we could challenge them in regard to their unique style and see them excel at that which fits them best.

Kristan Farley

Interesting interview. Thank you for posting!

I like the idea Kaufman proposes, but I cannot help but think it is a problematic conceptual shift for intelligence whether in education or in business. Encouraging an "infinite number of intelligences" as he says, sounds great and I agree with his points that measuring intelligence is dynamic over time, not static, and that labeling can be dangerous because it becomes self-fullfilling. The observation that many creative thinkers had some type of handicap at one point and overcompensated in another area which may have allowed them to overachieve in that area is insightful as well.

There has to be some kind of pragmatism factored in though. Taking the stance that everyone has a unique intelligence that should not be compared to anybody else's and should not be measured to a standard, dismisses a qualitative aspect of intelligence all together. His view of quality seems to be firmly attached to individual development over time, but a totally individualized and subjective definition of quailty undermines the purpose of defining quality in the first place. It loses any meaning. As you suggest Eric, this perspective might lead teachers to be more oriented towards finding each student's individual abilties and talents, but this shifts teacher's objective from instruction to a sort of talent treasure hunt for each studen. At least at younger ages maybe. That could be a good thing. I don't know.

In the end I think Kaufman's concept of intelligence is a great ideal and probably one we should work towards, but in order for it to be effective in scale it needs to be grounded somehow with a more practical foundation that incorporates some kind of social standard even though he may oppose this. Maybe he addresses this in more detail in his book. I'll have to pick it up and find out!