For a scholar, a fate worse than being criticized is being ignored. Waterhouse (2006) has done Howard Gardner the courtesy of reading much of the primary and secondary literature on multiple intelligences (MI) theory. Although the authors disagree with several of her interpretations and conclusions, we appreciate her efforts as well as the opportunity to respond. We have 2 main criticisms: (a) Waterhouse misunderstands and oversimplifies MI theory and (b) Waterhouse's own line of argument undermines her claim that MI theory is not supported by the literature. This response reorients and clarifies for the reader the usefulness and implications of MI theory with the goal of demonstrating why Waterhouse's critique misses the mark in a number of respects.