Skip to content
the Push-up Push-down techniquethe five mini-techniques to accompany Push-up Push-down (Checking Certainty, Casting Doubt, Asking for Clarification, Repetition (echoing), Asking for Justification)the Separating Out techniquethe Joyometer techniquethe High, Medium, Low techniquehow to refer to other MIs and MNs in determining a scorehow to use the 7-Way Test to ensure high scores are accurate
State the client’s score.Ask the client if she is comfortable with that score, or if she feels it should be higher or lower. If required, give definition.If higher, ask how much higher she feels it should be.Ask for justification.Ask again if the client feels that would be high enough or if it could be higher. Be sure to maintain a neutral posture.Observe when the client begins to appear hesitant to go any higher.If lower, ask how much lower she feels it should be.Ask for justification.Ask again if the client feels that would be low enough or if it could be lower. Be sure to maintain a neutral posture.Observe when the client begins to appear hesitant to go any lower.Cast doubt to see if they are confident.Check to see if the score is acceptable.
an ease in their facial expressionan openness in their body languagenoddingsmiling while ruminatingverbally expressing their support of the possibility
a tenseness in their facial expressiona closed body posture (folded arms, crossed legs)shaking of their headhesitation in the voiceintonation rising when they make a confirmation
Why do you say so?What makes you say that?Can you give me some examples?Can you be more specific?How can you tell?
How joyful do you feel when you do things such as [list activities that use the MI-MN here]?If you had a joyometer, and you were doing [activity that uses that MI or MN] what would the reading be like?
I get very energized when I do activities that use this ability.I do it naturally when doing activities that use this intelligence.I get absorbed in activities use this ability and lose track of time, hunger, thirst, etc.I am self-motivated to do activities related to this ability.I have always been this way--ever since I was young.I behave like this in every context (e.g., not just with my family or only in a few cases--rather, in every case).Other people say I am strong in this area (especially who are themselves high in this type of intelligence).
Module 4
Module 4: MN Validation (Part II)
Module 4 Objectives
In this module, we will continue to explore the key techniques used in performing an MN Validation. In the following lessons you will learn:
The Push-up Push-down technique
The Push-Up Push Down technique is the most common technique you will use in helping clients identify the strength of their MIs and MNs. To do it, you invite the client to consider a higher or lower score than the one they received from their test results. When inviting the client to consider a higher score, the practitioner must gauge a) the clients’ willingness or resistance to the proposition, and b) the degree of confidence they express when settling on a final score.
The process occurs in this manner:
Example
A typical exchange using the push-up push-down technique goes like this:
Practitioner: You gave yourself a score of 5.5 for Fine Bodily Intelligence. (state the client’s score) Do you feel that is accurate? (ask if client is comfortable)
Client: Can you remind me what that one means again?
Practitioner: Yes, Fine Bodily Intelligence relates to the use of your hands. To have excellent physical dexterity for activities such as cutting, drawing, using tools and instruments, and so on. (give definition)
Client: Oh, yes.
Practitioner: Do you feel a 5.5 is accurate? (ask if it’s accurate) Or should it be a little higher or lower? (ask if it’s higher or lower)
Client: Hmm, well I think it could be higher than that.
Practitioner: What would feel more appropriate?
Client: Maybe around a 6.5 or 7.
Practitioner: What makes you feel that way? (ask for justification)
Client: I pretty good at working with my hands. I enjoy fixing things and making things with wood.
Practitioner: So a 6.5 or 7? Or do you think it’s higher? (ask if it’s accurate, or higher)
Client: No not higher than that.
Practitioner: Then a 6.5 or a 7? (ask if it’s accurate)
Client: I think a 6.5 is OK.
Practitioner: Are you sure? (check to see if it’s acceptable)
Client: Yes.
Five mini-techniques to accompany Push-up Push-down
The following are five mini-techniques you will use during a validation while using the Push-up Push-down technique.
Checking certainty
When you ask clients if they feel that an MI or MN score should be higher or lower, watch for how certain they appear when they respond.
How to tell if a client is certain
The following are signs that indicate a clients' certainty in their score:
How to tell if a client is uncertain
The following are signs that clients are unsure of the score:
Keep in mind that just because clients indicate that they are certain doesn’t guarantee the score is accurate; their confidence could be misplaced. Therefore you need to use your sleuthing skills to ensure you are not leaving any stones unturned in getting to the most accurate score possible. (See the "Investigate like a detective" section at the end of this lesson.)
Casting Doubt
When the client begins to settle on a score, you need to test them once again just to be certain they are confident. This can be done by “casting doubt”. For instance, once clients settle on a score, ask them to confirm their assuredness (e.g., “Are you sure?”). Be sure to pause for a moment or so. The reason this must be done is that clients often have a lingering doubt they are suppressing, and it’s only when you cast some doubt and give some space that they allow the point to be expressed.
Practitioner: You gave yourself a 4.5 in Healing Nature.
Client: Hmm.
Practitioner: Do you think that’s accurate? Or is it too high or too low?
Client: I think it could be lower.
Practitioner: Why do you say so?
Client: It’s not something I like to do.
Practitioner: So what do you think would be more accurate.
Client: Probably like a 2.5.
Practitioner: OK, are you certain? (casting doubt)
Client: Yes.
Practitioner: (pause)
Client: Well, actually, it’s just that I’ve been taking care of my mom who is not well for the past year, so I’ve overdone it quite a bit and I need a break. Actually it could actually be higher than that.
Notice how the doubt and the pause create a trigger that gets the client to open up, and to reveal something that is affecting the scoring—in this case an overutilized nature (refer to “overfed tigers”).
Asking for clarification
When clients express something that is not entirely clear, it is extremely valuable to ask for clarification. Doing so enables them to reveal their thought processes, which helps you to identify where issues and confusions exist, and which enables you to choose the right line of questioning to follow as well as the right questions to ask or comments to make.
Example:
A client Elisa is discussing her Administrative Nature which she scored as 8 out of 10.
Practitioner: So you seem confident about your Administrative Nature. An 8.
Client: Yes. Well mostly.
Practitioner: What do you mean by mostly. (clarification)
Client: Well, I think I do it naturally. But sometimes I feel frustrated in doing administrative tasks at work.
Practitioner: In what way? (clarification)
Using repetition (echoing)
Repeating clients’ statements is an effective way of getting them to open up further. You can do so by repeating what they’ve just said in a question format.
Example:
A client Elisa is discussing her Administrative Nature.
Practitioner: So you seem confident about your Administrative Nature score at 8.0.
Client: Yes. Well mostly.
Practitioner: Mostly? (repetition)
Client: Well, I think I do it naturally. But sometimes I feel frustrated in doing administrative tasks at work.
Practitioner: You feel frustrated? (repetition)
Asking for justification
Elicit examples from the client’s behavior and life experience that get them to demonstrate their claims that a score is in the range that they are expressing.
Examples:
When to use these practices
Keep in mind, you don't need to use all of these for each MI and MN that you check. Doing so would wind up making the validation process extremely long. Ultimately, you need to know which one to use when you feel it's necessary. In this sense, using these techniques is a bit more "art" than it is "science". One rule of thumb is to use your intuition--when you feel the client is providing you with accurate responses, save the time, and don't probe as deeply; however, when you feel the client could be misguided, take the time to question more critically.
At the same time, keep in mind that there is a fine line between being confident and being overconfident. One way to prevent yourself from making wrong assumptions is to probe one or two of the MIs or MNs even if the client appears confident in his or her answer. For instance, let's say a client expresses her belief that her Naturalistic Intelligence is indeed an 8 out of 10, just as the test has determined. You try to push up and down, however the client resists and confidently smiles that she's sure that's correct. You just may wish to ask for justification. The client then begins to give examples of how she has always been fond of nature and likes to go camping. In the process, her examples seem to indicate more of an "interest" rather than a deep, powerful connection. You find out that she only goes camping once a year for a weekend. It's an intense and enjoyable weekend, but it's not that she goes camping multiple times per year. She reveals she doesn't have any pets, and had to give up her gardening due to other priorities. You again ask, "Do you still think an 8 out of 10 is accurate?" She then starts to consider a friend of hers who goes camping every weekend, and a relative who is really into gardening. She quickly softens and rethinks her perspective, agreeing that the score could be a little lower--perhaps a 6.5 out of 10.
You'll get better with practice
The more validations you do, the better you will be able to detect accuracy and consistency in your clients' answers. Your intuition will get stronger, and you'll begin pulling out each of the techniques at the right time just like opening the required blade of a Swiss Army Knife when you need it.
Investigate like a detective
Keep in mind, you are very much like a detective trying to "crack the case". You need to be looking for clues in clients' words, facial expressions, body language, intonation, examples, etc. There's often something strange you'll detect--a tone in their voice, or a single word in their sentence that holds some deeper significance. When you start to scope it out, you'll find things begin to unravel--and an accurate MI or MN score begins to reveal itself. Just stay focused, and don't let anything slip past you innocently. Every syllable and wince are possible clues to be investigated.
The "Separating Out" technique
One of the challenges of scoring a particular MI or MN is isolating it—viewing it discretely, in isolation of other qualities. While this is fine as an ideal, it’s difficult in to do so in practice because in our real world (and in our brains), our MIs and MNs are inextricably intertwined. As a result, while trying to identify the score of an MI or MN, clients can be influenced by other qualities. The challenge to the practitioner is to tease out the other qualities and isolate the MI or MN as best you can. Consider the following example:
Example
Practitioner: You scored yourself 7.5 on Adventurous Nature.
Client: Yes.
Practitioner: Do you think that’s accurate, too high or too low?
Client: I think it’s accurate.
Practitioner: Why do you think so?
Client: I love to do things like going trekking and hiking.
(Practitioner senses an influence of Naturalistic and Bodily Intelligence)
Practitioner: Apart from activities in Nature, do you observe your Adventurous Nature elsewhere?
Client: I’m not sure. I need to think about that.
Practitioner: For example, do you tend to push yourself to extremes or try to discover the unknown? Perhaps with ideas, music, traveling places?
Client: Mmm. Not really so much.
The Joyometer technique
If clients find it difficult to judge how strong an MI or an MN is, you can make use of a fun, fictional device called the “joyometer”. To do so, tell clients to imagine there were an instrument similar to a thermometer called a joyometer, and that instead of measuring temperature, it measured the level of joy they experienced when they used a particular MI or MN.
Begin by using a referent (by identifying an MI or MN they are certain about), where they experience a lot of joy. Then when they return to considering the MI or MN in question, ask them to what degree they feel joy when the perform activities
Questions could be phrased in the following way:
Example:
A client David is not clear about his Naturalistic Intelligence, which shows a 3. However, he is clear that his Interpersonal Intelligence is 9 out of 10.
Practitioner: You scored yourself as a 3 out of 10 on Naturalistic Intelligence.
Client: That kind of surprised me. I thought it would be higher.
Practitioner: How so?
Client: I don’t know. It just feels sort of low.
Practitioner: Let’s use a kind of conceptual tool to help us. I call it a joyometer. It’s like a thermometer except it measures your level of joy.
Client: OK.
Practitioner: You said you were sure about your Gross Bodily Intelligence being 7.5 out of 10.
Client: Yes, that’s right.
Practitioner: Imagine yourself doing something with your body such as exercising or playing sports. Think about how much joy you experience while doing that.
Client: Yeah, it’s pretty high. I get a lot of pleasure from that.
Practitioner: You also said you were confident about your Interpersonal Intelligence which was a 9 out of 10.
Client: Yes, my joyometer is jumping really high there (laughs).
Practitioner: Let’s come back to Naturalistic now. Imagine you are doing something like gardening, or spending a day on a farm or with an animal. What would your joyometer indicate.
Client: OK, I got you. Yeah, it’s nowhere near the others. I mean I could get a little pleasure out of it. But probably not for a long time. Yeah, I think it would be around a 4 or 4.5 at the most.
The "High, Medium, Low" technique
While performing a validation, if the client begins to have a high degree of difficulty (e.g., expresses extreme uncertainty or despair), it is sometimes easier to switch from a 10-point scale to a 3-point scale of high, medium, or low. Doing so puts the client at ease, and quickly brings back perspective.
Example
Consider a practitioner working with a client, Laura, who is trying to validate the score of her Providing Nature, which the test indicated was a 7:
Client: I’m not sure if it should be a 6 or a 7. Or maybe much lower. Actually, I’m really getting confused. I don’t event know any more.
Practitioner: Well, let’s forget about the numbers for a moment. Let’s think in terms of high, medium, and low. Would you say your Providing Nature is really high?
Client: No, definitely not.
Practitioner: Would you say it is very low.
Client: No, it’s not so low.
Practitioner: Would you say it’s more in the middle?
Client: Yes, it’s probably in the middle somewhere.
You can then show a range of numbers and how they correlate with the 3-point scale:
High
8/10/2019
Medium
4/7/2019
Low
1/3/2019
There are no rows in this table
At this point, it will most likely become easier to fine tune the ratings.
Referring to other MIs and MNs
If a client is finding it difficult to identify the strength of an MI or MN, it is helpful to make a reference to an MI or MN that they have a clear feeling for.
Example:
A client, Sandrine, is not clear about her Protective Nature (which shows an 8, but she is clear that her Adventurous Nature is a 9 out of 10.
Practitioner: So you’re not sure about your Protective Nature. How about your Adventurous Nature. You said you were sure about that--that it’s a 9 out of 10.
Client: Yes.
Practitioner: Let’s compare your Protective Nature with your Adventurous Nature. Is it almost as strong?
Client: Oh, no, not really.
Practitioner: How strong would you consider it comparatively?
Client: Probably 5 or 6.
Practitioner: Which seems right?
Client: I’d settle on a 5.5.
Note: Avoid comparing a Multiple Intelligence with a Multiple Nature. If you are identifying the strength of an MI, use another MI as a referent. If you are identifying the strength of an MN, use another MN as a referent.
The 7-Way Test
I developed the following technique--the 7-Way Test--as a means of keeping clients' who tend to overrate themselves in check. I found that a percentage of those I worked with (roughly 15%) tended to overrate themselves. This had nothing to do with their age, level of education, or any other distinguishing criteria. They were simply people who had a high sense of self-worth or self-confidence.
When clients indicate they are confident in a score that is very high and you have a sense of doubt, you can refer to these questions as a way of keeping the dialogue open on that point--enough that it will bring greater clarity to the exploration of the particular point.
Example - How to launch into the 7-Way Test
Practitioner: You have scored yourself 9.5 out of 10 in Entertaining Nature.
Client: Yes, that is correct.
Practitioner: OK. That is a high score. I would just like to crosscheck it with you by asking a few additional questions. I’m going to read some statements. These would indicate a high level of this Nature. Tell me to what degree they accurately describe you and your use of this quality.
The 7-Way Test
The following are the seven tests:
Note: You need not use all of these each time. A few of them just might be enough.
Using the 7-Way Test with clients who are unclear about the strenght of an MI or MN
It is not necessary for you to use the 7-Way Test only when you suspect clients are overrating themselves. The technique can also be useful when someone is not sure or not clear whether or not they are strong in a particular MI or MN. You can read some of the tests to them, explaining that these statements would be true for someone strong in a particular nature or intelligence. Upon hearing these descriptions, clients who are, until then, unclear often gain instant clarity.
More about the 7-Way Test
While performing a validation, I would notice that such individuals attributed high scores to themselves on many MIs and MNs (lots of 9s and 10s out of 10), rarely giving themselves a mark below a 6. While there are surely chances of people genuinely having scores like that, the odds are far less likely to be so, and much more likely that a number of people in this category are overrating themselves.
The challenge is challenging them on their ratings. As a practitioner, you cannot (or should not) give an opinion; as far as possible you need to help the client come to the conclusion themselves. So when a client rates herself a 10 on Administrative Nature, and you know that she is likely off (perhaps you notice that she missed an appointment with you, isn't taking notes, and seems otherwise disorganized--or that you know something about her from colleagues she works with), you can't tell her that. And when you ask, "Are you sure about a 10 out of 10" and she nods confidently--and even gives some vague justification--it's just no possible to say, "Well, I'm hear what you're saying, but somehow, I think this isn't accurate." Apart from breaching the ethic of a practitioner, it signals a sense of distrust, and could cause the client to feel embarrassed or to become defensive. This could further lead to the client becoming more closed during the validation.
Keep in mind--when you perform a validation, a clients open up to you and become vulnerable in the process. This vulnerability is precious and needs to be protected at all costs as it is the lifeline to their authenticity. While some might open up more readily, one thing is for sure: once trust is shaken or broken, it becomes hard to regain that bond.
Want to print your doc?
This is not the way.
This is not the way.
Try clicking the ··· in the right corner or using a keyboard shortcut (
CtrlP
) instead.