What is Social Intelligence, and How Can You Successfully and Quickly Size-Up a Person - Research Paper Example

? What is social intelligence, and how can you successfully and quickly size-up a person? Intelligence is the ability of the human mind to make senseof the world around it (Guilford, 1967). This involves the ability to observe, understand and resolve problems; analyze information and derive ideas; and to ask questions and search for answers to those questions. Intelligence has been a core area of study for psychologists for over a century. The most often discussed type of intelligence is the fluid intelligence as described by Sternberg or the intelligences seen in academic areas like mathematical ability or language ability. But intelligence goes beyond the realm of academic ability and the definition of intelligence encompasses ability in the emotional and social spheres as well. Researchers like Goleman, Thorndike, Gardner, among others have postulated the existence of a distinct intelligence that governs behaviors and ability in the social sphere if life and have called in ‘social intelligence’. According the Thorndike (1920), who coined the term ‘social intelligence’, it is the ‘ability to understand and manage people and engage in constructive social interactions’. On the other hand, Cantor and Kihlstrom (1987) believe that the term social intelligence refers to the individual’s ability to ‘maintain a fund of knowledge about the social world’. Moss and Hunt (1927) believe that social intelligence is the "ability to get along with others"; while Gardner (1983, 1993) believes that it is an ‘individual's ability to notice and make distinctions among other individuals’. Given all these definitions, we may safely conclude that the concept of Social intelligence refers to our ability to keenly observe, perceive and record information of a social nature; make connections and draw inferences from the data made available to us; identify problems and find satisfactory solutions to the same. Thus, social intelligence is an ability to deal with situations that occur in our everyday lives. As with the traditional concept of intelligence, some people have a higher ability to deal with such situations. Thus, they are more able than others in resolving problems and responding to situations. An individual high on Social Intelligence does certain things better than those average or low on this ability (Throndike, 1920). These individuals typically have better social skills then the average individual. They are better at identifying and evaluating the information available and at sorting the valuable information from the irrelevant information. They make more accurate inferences about things and people and do not miss out on cues to what the other person is experiencing. They seem more honest and straight forward in their interactions with people and are true to their values –or at least seem to be. They are good communicators, and are able to express their thought and emotions better than most people, and have a greater impact on the minds of others. They convey higher levels of Empathy – the ability to identify with and respond to the emotional experiences of others. Those individuals who are high on Social intelligence are in touch with their own emotions, and typically also have higher Emotional intelligence. They understand their own thoughts and feelings, and thus are able to deliver on them in clear and effective ways. These individuals are also people oriented in their approach to problem solving; and have a higher need to engage with people and help them. Social intelligence is closely related to the common sense notion of intelligence. While people often associate genius with an inability to interact effectively with others; intelligence is otherwise associated with an ability to cope with social situations and the problems faced by the individual themselves and by others. This notion may have its roots in the ‘Social intelligence hypothesis’. This hypothesis was put forth by Professor Nicholas Humphrey (1976) and it states that the individual human’s brain only developed to its present form due to the need for and in response to socialization. Thus, according to this theory, the human brain has shown dramatic development simply due to the increased social interactions that occurred in the history of Homo sapiens as they started to form social groups for the sake of survival. The theory goes on to say that this expedited development provides us with the tools to effectively respond to the complex problem situations that we come across in our lives today. Social intelligence can both be measured and developed; similar to the more traditional types of intelligences. As early as 1927, tests of social intelligence were being designed and used. Moss, Hunt, Omwake, & Ronning, (1927) designed the George Washington Social Intelligence Test or GWSIT which was regularly revised and refined over the next couple of decades. The Goleman (2000; in Goleman, 2006) EQ scale and other such instruments have also been used to measure social intelligence. On the basis of these tests, the SQ or Social Quotient has been developed which is similar to the IQ or intelligence Quotient. Measurement of the SQ and of Social Intelligence directly helps us to compare individuals and groups; to assess the abilities of an individual when choosing him / her for a professional position; and for identifying deficits and the need for training. As with the traditional concept of Intelligence, it is possible to develop the individual’s ability in the area of Social intelligence. Training, self awareness and practice helps the individual to develop their abilities to respond effectively to social situations. A number of theorists and authors have approached this issue; and many are of the opinion that social intelligence is more trainable than academic intelligence (Tieger, Barbara Barron-Tieger, 1998; in Goleman, 2006). This idea is based on the premise that social skills are learnt by the individual through the interactions with parents and peers as a child; and the same process may be applied to adults. Often, adults suffer from lower Social intelligence because they stopped growing and developing their Social abilities at some point; and thus, are unable to perform as well as some others. Thus, if provided with the appropriate and adequate training, an individual can enhance their social intelligence, and become better at understanding people, at responding to people and social situations and at addressing problems that occur in a social setting. A number of authors have written about the ways in which an individual may improve their social intelligence and learn to understand people in a better manner. One such book which enjoyed a huge popular success is Blink: The Power of Thinking Without Thinking which was written in 2005 by Malcolm Gladwell. Gladwell based his book on the premise that there is a vast amount of data that is picked up and processed by our minds at an unconscious level and this data influences our whims, feelings and opinions without being consciously accessible or articulatable. According to him, the opinions and perceptions that are based on such ‘indefinable feelings’ are often more accurate than those which are based on deeper investigation and thought. Through examples and metaphors, he guides the individual through the process of assessing this data from the adaptive unconscious – the unconscious processing unit that helps us adapt our behavior to suit the situation. He believes that with the right training and practice, an individual can learn to understand others by using the process of ‘thin – slicing. Thin slicing is the ability to form accurate estimates from very narrow periods of experiences by focusing on the right cues and filtering information appropriately. This concept of Gladwell is deeply influenced by seminal studies on impression formation - especially those conducted by Asch (1946, etc). Asch had found that first impressions are formed on the basis of quite limited information; but these impressions are quite resistant to change unless there is some significant factor that comes to light. These studies have also shown that the individual is often unaware of the impression being formed; but is able to produce it promptly when asked to do so. A number of factors were found to have affected the process of impression formation – the order in which the stimuli were presented, the differential valance of central versus peripheral traits and the extent of attention consciously directed towards the individual or object. Gladwell borrows from this understanding and suggests that with the right training; it is possible to train the mind to focus on the most central cues and to disregard information that is not necessary. He provides evidence that the first impressions thus formed are exceedingly accurate; and very often more accurate that those opinions formed on the basis of in depth information. Gladwell postulates that intuitive judgment formed on the basis of the central but frugal information is only verified by further data; and rarely is the first impression significantly challenged. On the whole, more information is likely to cause confusion, hesitation and second guessing. Albrecht (2006) is another theorist who discusses the possibility of training as a means of enhancing the abilities of an individual’s Social intelligence. He states that it is possible to train an individual and help them develop their abilities to understand and respond to people. According to him, it is possible to make decisions of the fly and act on these decisions in a social context; and that training in the use of heuristics and being aware of pitfalls will help an individual interact more effectively in social situations. When it comes to understanding people rapidly; there are certain skills that have been mentioned by almost all writers in this area. Thompson and Jenkins (2004; in Albrecht, 2006) have summarized the different elements that go into understanding the experiences and emotions of another individual in their book Verbal Judo: The Gentle Art of Persuasion. According to them, the process of understanding another individual is based in the ability to experience empathy for that person. Empathy can be developed by practicing a set of five skills. These skills are Listening, empathizing, asking, paraphrasing and summarizing. Actively listening to someone involves not only paying attention to the words spoken, but also to the body language, tone of voice, inflection, gestures and sounds. All these behaviors and elements carry cues to what the person is thinking and what he / she means.  Albert Mehrabian’s work during the 1960’s provides us with valuable information about how an individual often speaks more with their bodies then they do with their words. Unconscious gestures and micro expressions (Paul Ekman, 1992, 1999) often give away thought and emotions that the person may be hiding or may not even be fully aware of. Active listening also involves responding with language and body language in such a manner that the person feels able to reveal more information. Empathizing involves letting the individual realize that they are understood and that their feelings will not be belittled or ridiculed. Asking questions does not mean asking questions that simply lead from the previous answer or asking questions that satisfies curiosity; but being able to identify key elements and extracting information about these key elements by asking the right questions. Paraphrasing and summarizing are skills that help the individual realize that they are understood, and help to clarify ambiguity and affirm the key elements. This way, the information that is necessary is processed as it is extracted from the individual; and it is possible to form conclusions with less effort and in less time (Thompson and Jenkins, 2004; in Albrecht, 2006). Human information processing uses heuristics and rules of thumb quite often in the process of analyzing information and coming to conclusions. This the way the human brain attempts to deal with the vast amounts of information that keep coming in at every point (Brog, 2010). These heuristics are used because they have a high accuracy rate and help in making sense of things faster and with reasonable accuracy. An individual may develop heuristics and rules of thumb from experience; or may assimilate them from the experiences of others. For the large part, these rules are quite useful; and the process of thin – slicing (Gladwell, 2005) is based on using these heuristics to one’s advantage in decision making and impression formation. Understanding people quickly is very advantageous for any one, as this reduces the time taken to respond to their needs and to identify cues to other, more deep-seated problems. Professionals in the para-medical and psychological fields will verify the need to identify persons with issues and to respond to unsaid needs. Professionals from the educational and social service setups also interact with a large number of individuals on a regular basis, and need the skill to extract the right information with the least possible questioning, as they often do not have the time or resources to have long winded sessions with an individual. Training that helps them understand people and their needs quickly is not only useful, but also essential at times. While it is difficult to undermine the value of making quick evaluations and decisions about situations and people; the use of limited information and heuristics has its dangers. Simon and Schuster, (2006; in Brog, 2010 ) have argued that while thin – slicing has it’s utility, it cannot be a substitute for critical thinking; and many times; there may be critical information that only surfaces at a later stage of the analysis. Gladwell (2005) himself has admitted that the process if thin – slicing is very different for experts and non experts in any field. It is important to note that an expert makes choices of what to focus on with a large knowledge base behind him / her; and is more likely to make the right decisions about what should be focused on. Also, first impressions and quick evaluations that use heuristics are open to corruption by emotions, prejudices and stereotypes. Often, an individual may not be aware of the stereotypes and prejudices they harbor; and these may contaminate the analysis that occurs on the basis of minimal data. Asch (1960) has also found that the appearance of the respondent can trigger stereotypes and Baron and Bryne (1997; in Brog, 2010) have discussed the different ways in which the attractiveness and then meaning derived from elements of appearance (features, body type, clothes, accessories, speech style) tend to influence evaluations and opinions as well as first impressions. Thus, while the value of quick decisions making processes and impression formation techniques is very high to people in the social occupations; and the use of social intelligence in critical situations and under limited circumstances is a real need for many of these professionals as well as lay individuals; these techniques should nevertheless be treated with care. It is possible to be led by stereotypes and prejudice that may be as unconscious as the adaptive unconscious that makes the decisions about the person / situation; and thus, wherever possible, the process of quick evaluations should be cross verified with information that is gathered and critically analyzed at leisure. References Albrecht, K. (2006). Social intelligence: the new science of success. NY: John Wiley and Sons. Asch, S.E. (1946). Forming impressions of personality. Journal of Abnormal & Social Psychology, vol. 41, 258-290. Borg, J. (2010). Body Language: 7 Easy Lessons to Master the Silent Language. FT Press. Ekman, P. (1999). Basic Emotions. In T. Dalgleish and M. Power (Eds.). Handbook of Cognition and Emotion. Sussex, U.K.: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Ekman, P. (1920). Facial Expressions of Emotion: an Old Controversy and New Findings, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society, London, B335:63--69, 1992 Ford, M.E., & Tisak, M.S. (1983). A further search for social intelligence. Journal of Educational Psychology, 75, 196-206. Gardner, H. (1983). Frames of mind: The theory of multiple intelligences. New York: Basic Books. Gardner, H. (1993). Multiple intelligences: The theory in practice. New York: Basic Books. Gladwell, Malcolm (2007). Blink: The Power of Thinking Without Thinking. Back Bay Books.  Goleman, D. (2006). Social Intelligence: The New Science of Human Relationships. Bantam Books. Guilford, J.P. (1967). The nature of intelligence. New York: McGraw-Hill. Humphrey, N. (1976). The Social Function of Intellect.’, in Bateson, P. P. G. and Hinde, R.A., Eds. Growing Points in Ethology , chapter 9, 303-317. Cambridge University Press Kihlstrom, J.F. (1996). Unconscious processes in social interaction. In S. Hameroff, A.W. Kaszniak, & A.C. Scott (Eds.),Toward a science of consciousness: The 1st Tucson discussions and debates (pp. 93-104). Cambridge, Ma.: MIT Press. Kihlstrom, , J. and  Cantor, N. (1987). Social Intelligence., in R.J. Sternberg (Ed.), Handbook of intelligence, (2nd ed). Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press. Moss, F.A., Hunt, T., Omwake, K.T., & Ronning, M.M. (1927). Social Intelligence Test. Washington, D.C.: Center for Psychological Service. Thorndike, E.L. (1920). Intelligence and its use. Harper's Magazine, vol.140, 227-235. Read More