Zacharias 🐝 Voulgaris in Lifestyle, beBee in English, Psychology Mentor • Manatee Nov 29, 2020 · 3 min read · +500

Revising the Novel Threefold Intelligence Framework

Revising the Novel Threefold Intelligence Framework

Introduction and Recap

In a previous article, we saw the threefold intelligence framework I developed recently. However, this was more of scaffolding since it's unfeasible to do this topic justice in a single or even a couple of articles. After all, tackling the questions "why?", "how?", and "what?" are but the foundations of the whole problem-solving and learning processes that constitute the scope of intelligence. For those who didn't have a chance to read the previous article, the questions mentioned previously have a 1-1 relationship with the philosophical, mechanical, and mathematical intelligence, respectively.

In this article, we'll attempt to iron out some of its wrinkles and expand the framework to include a couple of other intelligences that are equally essential, even if they don't correspond to any particular questions.


Enter Communicative Intelligence

The omnipresence intelligence that permeates and connects the philosophical, mechanical, and mathematical ones is no other than communicative intelligence. This kind of intelligence (which is more of an umbrella term rather than something very specific) is the conductor allowing the outputs of any one of the aforementioned intelligences to flow towards the other intelligences. Although communication at our current state of evolution as a species is verbal at its core (i.e., related to language), this is just one aspect of it. Communication can take roots in any system that's complete enough to express logic and reasoning, e.g., Mathematics and any system of symbols that's elaborate enough to constitute what experts call a language. However, communication entails additional factors, such as empathy and the ability to shift perspectives, going so far as to entertain seemingly divergent ideas (a phenomenon often seen as a psychological paradox termed "cognitive dissonance"). This latter factor, when handled properly, can lead to an expansion of perception, which gradually leads to the development of a better understanding of others and the ability to connect to them on a mental level.

Communication is also an internal process. Just like the various modules of a computer (or any machine developed enough to exhibit some form of cognitive prowess) communicate with each other, regardless of the computer’s connectivity to other machines, we have an internal communication process too. The latter is responsible for the process of thinking, reasoning, and even intuition to some extent, depending on how we use our mental faculties. A quite influential Russian philosopher once wrote that "high intelligence is indistinguishable to intuition," something that many people still struggle to comprehend. Yet, in this framework, the idea of intelligence and intuition being inherently linked makes sense, though it's challenging to express this mathematically.

If we were to draw communicative intelligence in a way that’s congruent to the 3-fold intelligence framework, we’d draw circle arcs connecting the various intelligences. Mathematically, this would take the form of bidirectional arcs in a graph comprising of the three intelligences as its nodes.


The Meta-Intelligence Factor

What about other people though? Surely there must be a way to combine forces effectively and aggregate our strengths. Enter collaborative intelligence or the meta-intelligence factor. This kind of intelligence is another umbrella term that refers to all the cognitive faculties that enable collaboration among different individuals (all the stuff that's under the term inter-personal intelligence could fit there, along with the ability to co-organize one's work in a congruent way that's conducive to collaboration). If we were to draw this, it would be a line perpendicular to the plane of the previous four-fold intelligence model. You can imagine other similar discs, each representing an individual that’s part of that collaboration chain. I haven’t figured out an analytical representation yet.

The collaborative factor is, in a way, analogous to the harmonic mean of the different intelligence levels if we were to measure the latter on the same scale. The harmonic mean would be a more appropriate method as it's closer to the smallest element than other measures of centrality are (e.g., the arithmetic mean or the geometric one). However, since there is no way of measuring any of these intelligences yet, it's unfeasible to prove this argument experimentally.


The Role of Ethics and Morality

As we saw in the previous article, Ethics and Morality are linked to philosophical intelligence. However, they are also found in the two newly introduced intelligences. Communicative intelligence, for example, is closely related to morality since the latter often expresses itself as integrity, which is an expression of an individual functioning as an integral unit, rather than a swarm of instincts as psychology often views us. Also, morality can be a force that fosters all other intelligences, as it facilitates the flow of energy among them.

Regarding Ethics, this is more closely linked to collaborative intelligence, since it involves how we behave in relation to other people. The ethical person may or may not be moral, but she is at least courteous. Nevertheless, it's usually individuals of advanced morality that exhibit stronger ethical stature. This ethical prowess translates into better collaboration with others and a more reliable contributor in a team or an organization in general.


Final Thoughts

This article, along with its predecessor, merely scratches the surface of the subject. However, it's worth noting that the latter extends to more tech-related matters, particularly artificial intelligence (AI). This relationship between the intelligence framework and AI, however, deserves its own article. In the meantime, feel free to check out my thoughts on AI-related topics (as well as other data-related matters) by visiting my blog. Cheers!



Zacharias 🐝 Voulgaris Dec 4, 2020 · #6

#5 I guess compromises need to be made, from both parties. What I find problematic though (and this could be just me though I doubt it) is that we are willing to tolerate the lack of transparency most AI systems exhibit today. Once this is resolved, I'm confident that the gap of understanding will be mitigated. Cheers

0
Harvey Lloyd Nov 29, 2020 · #5

"Yet, in this framework, the idea of intelligence and intuition being inherently linked makes sense, though it's challenging to express this mathematically."

This statement along with Empathy and Cognitive Dissonance, get to the disconnect between man and machine. Communication is a nuanced dance between two humans that over time we begin to stop stepping on each others feet. I am not a machine language person. But venture to guess that the seek first to understand then be understood, human axiom would need to be coded into a machine.

The question for me is how much do we adapt to machine or they to us? I have found in simple search terms the language of what you are looking for is me adapting to the search engines specific words. With each search term i replace words in the search that bring better hits. Eventually learning what the search engine wants in terms of specific language.

I am enjoying your open ended thinking in presenting the AI fundamentals.

+1 +1

OOOO--I went to your website and learned a few things. Great website here, folks:

http://www.foxydatascience.com/

When my children were quite young I had an Apple IIE. I bought code-books for games and my youngsters would feed hexadecimal in for hours to replicate the games.

I didn't know what JSON means, but now I do.

+1 +1
Zacharias 🐝 Voulgaris Nov 29, 2020 · #1

Big thanks to all of you who contributed to this effort, through your comments on the previous article on this subject! Your feedback has been priceless!

0