Expertise/credibility is important to me. So is “doing your homework.” Darren, if there is so much overlap with Gardner’s ideas, and Gardner’s theories are valid/reliable, then I think Robinson would have an obligation to give more credit to Gardner.

I’ve read Robinson’s The Element and have one fairly substantial concern about the book. While Robinson spends the entire book discussing the idea that people learn, behave, and perform best under certain circumstances (i.e., when they’re in their “element”) – he makes little mention of Howard Gardner’s Multiple Intelligence theory. In fact, he only discusses Gardner in passing with one or two measly paragraphs.

Why not give credit where credit is due?

Or perhaps I’ve missed something in the book? It just seemed to me that if you’d seen Robinson’s TED talk and read Howard Gardner’s work, then you’d already heard the overall message of The Element.

Regardless, great series of posts, Jon. I also really enjoyed your reflections on NECC (with Bri) and your summary of EBC.

There were similar stories of going a bridge to far a few years back when neuroscience was all the rage in education circles. John T. Bruer’s piece, Education and the Brain: A Bridge to Far, makes a good critique.

The plural of anecdote are data, but adding up unconnected stories does not even express a pattern which might lead to induction.

I think the concept of looking at outliers is really interesting. But because they are, indeed, outliers it is essential to do the real observational work to start to theorize what might connect these disparate stories. Gladwell doesn’t seem to do that work, yet he clearly makes causal claims.

I had issues with some of the topics in his keynote, too, but I’ll wait to see what you post in part deux.