Intrapersonal Test Key: Fill & Download for Free

I love this question. Partially because I was recently reading about different types of intelligence, and how traditional education focuses on just a few. And the result can be that people are judged as ‘unintelligent’ because they don’t score well in what is tested and graded, which does not include all types of intelligence.Apparently there are seven types of intelligence.They are:1 Logical-Mathematical (Math, logic, organizing concepts)2 Verbal-Linguistic (Strong writing, explain clearly, humorous)3 Visual-Spatial (Artistic, detail-oriented, good with puzzles)4 Interpersonal {Emotional} - (Empathetic, Sociable, Kind, sensitive to injustice)5 Intrapersonal (deep thinkers, self-critical, good judge of character)6 Body-kinesthetic (sports, acting, dancing, coordinated)7. Musical (compose and read music almost naturally, strong memory for song melodies)The traditional education system really only focuses on items 1 and 2; Math and Verbal. People who have that type of intelligence do well in school, because that’s what is tested and graded.As relates to the royal family, you could argue that the types of intelligence that would put them in the best stead for their roles are numbers 2, 4 and 5.They need to be excellent conversationalists, and it certainly benefits if they do it with humor. So, there’s Verbal-Linguistic. There is the need to be empathetic, to put themselves in the shoes of people with very different backgrounds from themselves, and to be sensitive to injustice. So, that’s Interpersonal (Emotional) Intelligence. And they need to be self-reflective, and be good judges of character. So, that’s Intrapersonal.I’ll be liberal with the term and call ‘recent memory’ the time from Queen Victoria. And will give my two cents as to where each person may have had their strengths of intelligence.I haven’t read anything about Queen Victoria that suggests she had any significant intelligence other than perhaps Musical (she played the piano well). Her diaries were pretty self-focused, which may indicate an intrapersonal intelligence. But I’m not sure how helpful that is to a Queen if not paired with Interpersonal.I believe Prince Albert was incredibly intelligent in many categories. He was a strong speaker, had innate appreciation of art, was empathetic, sensitive to injustice, and a deep thinker. And I’m pretty sure he was also a quite a masterful piano player. He had what it takes to be all-rounder as a royal.I’ll skip Edward VII (short reign, a bit hedonistic) and Queen Alexandra (who?).Moving on to George V, he was probably among the least intelligent by any of these measures. From everything I’ve read, his main achievements were related to stamp-collecting, an obsession with keeping to a schedule, and a seemingly intentional destruction of his children’s self-worth.But, George V had Queen Mary, whose mother was a grand-daughter of George III, as was Queen Victoria, making Queen Mary a minor member of the royal family, and one NOT descended from Queen Victoria. I suspect she was intelligent in many ways. I think the intelligence that history would show her as exceling in is Intrapersonal. She knew what was needed of the monarchy, was dedicated to its survival, and kept things afloat despite her husband’s ineptitude. I believe a lot of what The Queen has done, and how she has conducted herself could be lessons out of her grandmother’s book.Edward VIII was profoundly selfish and I’m not sure was intelligent in any way.George VI was emotionally stunted, probably not very ‘book-smart’, but like his mother, had the intrapersonal intelligence to understand and do his duty.Queen Elizabeth the Queen Mother excelled at the Interpersonal (or at lease made a good show of it.Princess Margaret was largely untested given her lack of formal education, being spoilt by her father, and not coming to terms with a role that was satisfactory to her. But, she could play the piano and sing.The Queen, also without much formal education, is extremely intelligent in all the right areas; verbal-linguistic; interpersonal; intra-personal.Then we seem to skip a generation, with each of her 4 children lacking in one or more of those three key areas.Diana demonstrated strong emotional intelligence in her work as a royal. She had empathy, she was kind to strangers, including outcasts, she listened to people, and she was sociable. This was all very obvious, and, I believe, completely sincere. And, she seems to have imparted much of this on her sons. But she was also misguided and self-destructive in personal matters. In 1995, if she had asked someone, “What can I do that will ensure the messiest possible exit from this family, that will leave me in the worse possible position?” The answer would have been: “Do the Panorama Interview.” This was a profoundly unintelligent thing to do, which she did despite pleading objections from the very few people she had informed in advance.Of the new generation, William and Catherine seem to have it nailed in terms of intelligence for their roles. As well as book smarts. And they are the ones who matter most now.So, I guess my answer would be the most intelligent members of the royal family, from the time of Victoria onwards have been:Prince AlbertQueen MaryQueen Elizabeth the Queen MotherHM The QueenWilliam and Catherine.I think it’s hard to rank among them, because their intelligence was put to the test in such different ways and in different eras.

There are many types of IQ tests, IQ ranking and IQ scoring. Years ago, most used a form of the crystallized IQ test. However, that's changed as it was realized fluid IQ was more meaningful, accurate and encompassing way to measure IQ.Some various types of IQ tests: Crystallized, fluid, emotional, musical, spatial, interpersonal, intrapersonal, quantitative reasoning, processing and memory.As an example, I'd put Mozart, Charlie Parker, Prince among those having the highest musical IQ - in addition to being very high in other IQ categories such as fluid IQ.I consider these a few musical geniuses because their innate ability to envision, create, write, compose, perform and hear the many instruments and vocals - in various keys - and then orchestrate it with all of it's moving and emotional elements into masterful performances.

In his original Theory of multiple intelligences, Howard Gardner proposed the following 9 abilities, each of which had to meet 7 criteria:Musical - rhythmic and harmonicVisual - spatialVerbal - linguisticLogical - mathematicalKinestheticInterpersonalIntrapersonalNaturalisticExistentialGardner's argument was that these various abilities - or intelligences - show weak correlations between them. This was a marked contrast from the belief on which IQ tests (which test mainly linguistic and mathematical abilities) are founded which assumes a high correlation between these abilities.Gardner's use of "ability" to mean "intelligence" also didn't win him any fans. Although I think before interdisciplinarity became more mainstream, he was an early -- and perceived to be iconoclastic/ heretic in his approach -- interdisciplinary thinker.Gardner has recently (well, almost 8 years ago at the time of writing in 2014) proposed a framework of key competencies in his work Five Minds For The Future. These are as follows:Disciplined mind, which is about building mastery over at least one discipline's way of investigating ideas and inquiry.Synthesising mind, which is able to gather information from disparate sources (requires interdisciplinary understanding of issues) and synthesising them together; this would be vital in solving complex problems while leading teams of disciplinary specialistsCreative mind, which is a mind that asks questions, develops new ideas and breaks new ground. This has not traditionally been a focus in education and training (in a sign of the times, at the time of writing I am enrolled in a Stanford course on Creativity taught by the D:School's Professor Seelig).Respectful mind, that recognises -- and appreciates -- the differences between individuals, groups and cultures. Appreciating these differences fires up the imagination, encourages collaboration but also challenges power imbalances.The ethical mind that focuses on purposes beyond self interest.Although the thrust of his writing is mainly education and training centric, I think people like me, who work in business, teach and study, see the applicability of these "minds" in every sphere of life.How does his suggestion stand today?I speak as a person, who straddles the fields of business, teaching, studying and research. Regardless of what "academics" in the area think, his frameworks definitely gave people like me new ways to think about people we work with as collaborators, clients or students. I am especially appreciative of his Five Minds framework although I apply it differently when I teach versus when I work with my cofounders or clients.