by Howard Gardner and Shinri Furuzawa
The advent of increasingly competent—one could easily say “increasingly intelligent”—computer algorithms raises this question: Which roles and occupations that have long been the prerogative—one could even say, the “exclusive prerogative” —of human beings could be handled as well as, or perhaps better, by AI? ChatGPT is the current angst-inspiring algorithm, though it will certainly not be the only authoring program available; beyond question, it threatens the future of many educational pathways and many careers as we have come to know them.
In the previous blog “AI, Personal Intelligences, and Diplomacy,” Shinri Furuzawa specified the intelligences that are presumably entailed in the practice of diplomacy. When it comes to linguistic and/or logical mathematical intelligence, ChatGPT (and kindred programs) are increasingly similar to, and often better than, human beings. In contrast, several intelligences—spatial, musical, bodily-kinesthetic, naturalist—appear unnecessary for tackling diplomatic challenges. That leaves for consideration the intelligences concerned with personhood: interpersonal intelligence (understanding of others) and intrapersonal intelligence (understanding of self).
What of “emotional intelligence”?
Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Civil rights march, Washington DC, 1963
Those with a casual interest in these matters will immediately ask “What about emotional intelligence?” It’s fine to use that term if you prefer, but Howard distinguishes his concepts from those of Daniel Goleman and his associates. In a word, that’s because “emotional intelligence” conflates an understanding of the world of persons and knowing how best to use that skill for benevolent purposes. By that understanding, Martin Luther King or Florence Nightingale might appear no different than a scam artist. Howard prefers not to connect computation with a specific value system. Emotional intelligence can be used to ingratiate or to manipulate.
Interpersonal intelligence
Back to the realm of the personal intelligences—these refer to abilities without assuming or presuming how those intelligences will be used. Without question, interpersonal intelligence (understanding of other persons and how to deal effectively with them) is crucial in diplomacy—and, indeed, in any interaction with other persons. This is a skill which begins early in life and can clearly be enhanced through practice and training. Most neurotypical individuals have little trouble in picking up cues about the emotions and perhaps even the motivations of those with whom they are in regular contact. In contrast, individuals who are on the autistic spectrum are defined as having difficulty in this form of understanding. That does not mean, however, that they are incapable of picking up such cues—they just need to do it in other ways.
How to train interpersonal intelligence
In his book Life Animated, journalist Ron Suskind describes how his son Owen who has ASD, learned social connection through the medium of Disney movies. Owen had memorized and could reenact entire scenes from these movies, using them to interpret emotions, behavior, and moral lessons which could be transferred to human interaction. Owen was able to train his personal intelligences by seeing appropriate emotional responses modeled in the movies. The movie dialogues provided the words and phrases to express the emotions which may also have helped him develop linguistic intelligence. This may provide the model for AI to develop personal intelligences.
At the other end of the spectrum, there are rare individuals who can pick up and remember the most minute details in the faces, bodily posture, and tone of voice of other persons. Skilled theater actors might be one example, skilled politicians another. In the case of actors, they not only observe acutely but can also mimic or impersonate. By careful study of such talented individuals, we may learn about the personal intelligences—how these intelligences are used and developed. This knowledge and understanding in turn can be drawn on by computer scientists or algorithm developers—for positive or negative purposes.
May 2002: Vladimir Putin presents George W. Bush with a letter from Catherine the Great to George III in which she denies his request to send Cossacks to aid British forces in the American Revolution (Source: US Dept. of State Archive)
In short, the better we understand how human beings handle cues from others, especially in face-to-face interactions, the more likely it is that we can program algorithms to do the same. If, for example, Vladimir Putin could understand how to gain insights into the best ways to negotiate with political leaders across the political spectrum, a contemporary Russian version of ChatGPT could be trained to gain the same insights.
At the same time, if each encounter could produce an update, so could a computational diplomat—what we call learning from experience. As an example, George W, Bush might certainly update his initial evaluation of Putin since the time when Bush commented,
"I looked the man in the eye. I found him to be very straightforward and trustworthy. We had a very good dialogue. I was able to get a sense of his soul.”
Intrapersonal intelligence
The issue of intrapersonal intelligence proves far more vexed. In modern Western society, we generally value an individual’s insights into his/her personality. And it is just possible that different computer algorithms can also come to impersonate different reflective capacities.
Psychotherapists are trained (and their profession was initiated) to help individual patients understand themselves better, thereby enhancing their intrapersonal intelligence. Indeed, such self-understanding has been a major goal of most forms of psychotherapy—to increase self- knowledge. I can give a personal example. When, at a time of difficulty, Howard saw a psychoanalyst periodically over a few months, he suggested that consider having a full-scale psychoanalysis. Howard asked, “Will I be any happier?” The therapist replied, “Not necessarily, but you’ll understand yourself better.” A terse definition of intrapersonal intelligence.
Only a Western ideal?
Consider that knowledge of oneself may be a Western ideal, one that began in classical times and was rejuvenated in the modern era, which one can date anytime from 1550 onward.
Evidence, admittedly controversial, comes from the writings of psychologist Julian Jaynes. Jaynes dates interest in and insights into one’s own personhood to the Greek era. In fact, he dates the origins to the works attributed to the oral bard, Homer. In the Iliad, characters are inevitably types—warriors, heroes, villains, protectors—one gets no sense of Achilles or Agamemnon as distinct personalities. In intriguing contrast, in the Odyssey (presumably inscribed a few centuries later) we get insights into Ulysses as a specific person, a distinct personality. And as we consider individuals from the classical era—ranging from Socrates to Marcus Aurelius—we get clear senses of their own personalities, and, if we allow ourselves to squint a bit, their understandings of themselves as individuals.
We should not go overboard—at least no more overboard than we have already ventured! Yet, many cultural anthropologists would agree that a focus on the self qua does not characterize many traditional societies. Even today, Japan is much less of a psychological, and much more of a sociological, society than most other modern nations. And as our recent study of colleges underscores (link here), American college students are much more concerned with “I” than with “we.” Lest one dismiss the students as still developing, their parents, alumni, and trustees show even more of a concern with “I” than with “we.”
Intrapersonal intelligence in diplomats
George Kennan (1904-2005) American diplomat and historian
We have wandered quite far away from the toolkit of the diplomat. And in fact, for certain diplomats under certain situations, an understanding of self may be an important asset. Though, we would add, that the understanding need not—and perhaps should not—be particularly deep. Howard has written previously (link here) about the overly introspective nature of George Kennan, an American diplomat and later historian.
Going out on a limb, we suggest that heightened intrapersonal intelligence is not an important requirement for a diplomat—whether animate or mechanical. Robert Blackwill suggested in his list of ideal qualities for successful diplomats (link here), that they should have an understanding of their own ideology and values, and their level of tolerance for policies which do not align with their own beliefs. Some foreign policy job offers might seem flattering or enticing, but if the offering institution’s ideology is not compatible, then diplomats have to know themselves well enough to be aware that accepting such positions would mean a professional life full of “pain and torment.” Though such self-knowledge would be useful, we doubt that this should be high on a list of essential skills.
Ronald Reagan—US President 1981-9
To use an example from recent history, Ronald Reagan might have been well served if he had known when he was having a bad day or was suffering cognitive decline—or when he should have consulted with his wife, Nancy, or his Chief of Staff, James Baker. However, it was hardly necessary for Reagan to have insights into how his parents affected him, or even what kind of a parent he was to his own five children. As Lou Cannon, his excellent biographer, has expressed it, Reagan’s strength was not in logical-mathematical intelligence—it was in storytelling. I would add that Reagan had a good sense of which stories to tell to which audiences, and that reflected heightened interpersonal intelligence.
In sharp contrast to Ronald Reagan, who we suggest had relatively little insight into himself—he did not know or care about the depth or breadth of his psyche, Barack Obama had considerable insight into himself, as befits a 21st century intellectual (see his memoir, Dreams From my Father). And yet, while critical of Reagan and admiring Obama, we would hesitate to rank order their diplomatic skills. In fact, Reagan may have been more successful in negotiating with the Soviet Union than Obama was with China. Going further out on a limb, we wonder to what extent intrapersonal intelligence has been as important in human history as the other forms of intelligence.
Stepping back, we may tentatively conclude that, in addition to linguistic and logical intelligences, a computer-as-diplomat needs to possess, or develop, a powerful sense of the individuals or groups with which it is negotiating. But sense of self—whatever that might mean to AI—can be saved for another day, or another world.
References
Cannon, L. (2000). President Reagan: The Role of a Lifetime. Public Affairs.
Jaynes, J. (2000). The origin of consciousness in the breakdown of the bicameral mind. Mariner books.
Suskind, R. (2016). Life animated: Sidekicks, Heroes and autisms. Kingsolver.