The Human Intelligence Map
Understanding the Interchange of Thinking and Reality in a Complex World
In the previous two articles, we discussed the importance of understanding the workings of human intelligence in the attempt to build a highly evolved artificial intelligence (AI) technology. We explained how human intelligence operates within the context of two different modes of thinking and navigates two divergent realities.
The two thinking modes, as identified in the groundbreaking work of Daniel Khaneman and Amos Tversky, are called System 1 and System 2. System 1 is fast thinking, which operates automatically with little or no effort. It’s the capacity to make decisions quickly with limited information. System 2, on the other hand, is slow thinking and involves deliberate attention to understanding details and the complex web of relationships among various components. Whereas System 1 is inherently intuitive, deterministic, and undoubting, System 2 is rational, probabilistic and highly aware of uncertainty and doubt.
The first of the two divergent realities is physical reality, which operates according to objective laws that apply uniformly to all elements in the universe. While we can learn how to apply these laws to solve problems, such as landing on the moon, the laws themselves cannot be altered by human action. The second is social reality, which operates according to subjective rules that are humanly constructed. These social constructs allow large numbers of people who are unknown to each other to engage in reliable and meaningful social exchange. Physical reality is the domain of science, while social reality is the sphere of ideology. To fully understand human intelligence, we need to understand the dynamics of the interplay between the two thinking modes and the two divergent realities.
Human Intelligence
Intelligence is the capacity to solve problems. It is an integral part of the fabric of the universe and exists in many different forms. Solar systems, photosynthesis, and evolution are examples of processes the universe uses to solve the problems of maintaining itself. Organic processes are particularly intelligent because they solve the problems related to sustaining life.
While many humans tend to see themselves as the only intelligent beings, this is a delusion. All organic life is intelligent because all organisms engage in processes that solve problems. Some of these processes are conscious while others are unconscious. As organisms become more complex, the proportions and complexity vary. Thus, for example, in plants, all processes are unconscious, while animals, on the other hand, exhibit a blend of the conscious and the unconscious. The unconscious processes of animals are mainly the myriad of what we call involuntary systems that operate within the body, such as breathing, digestion, and muscle repair. Their conscious processes have been commonly called instinct. While some may question whether or not instinct is a form of consciousness, anyone who has pets knows that they are indeed conscious.
Humans are clearly the most intelligent and the most highly conscious manifestations of life on our planet. However, as Kahneman and Tversky’s research has shown, we are not as conscious as we think because the overwhelming majority of our judgments and decisions are products of unconscious biases. Contrary to how we may perceive ourselves, the research convincingly shows that System 1 is our default thinking mode. This means the intelligence challenge for humans is to discover how can we expand the space of our conscious decision making. In other words, what do we need to do for System 2 to be our default mode. The solution to this challenge could very well be artificial intelligence, but only if we do a better job than we have done to date in cultivating human intelligence.
Human intelligence is a complex process that reflects how a person or groups of people apply the two modes of thinking to the two dimensions of reality. The figure below—The Human Intelligence Map—represents the different ways thinking and reality intersect. The map is comprised of four quadrants or spaces. The terrain of each space is the landscape for a particular aspect of human intelligence.
Prerational Intelligence
The first quadrant is prerational intelligence, which involves the application of System 1 thinking to physical reality. This is the intelligence we use before the application of either reason or ideology. Borrowing from Jungian psychology, each quadrant is defined by an architype that reflects an innate pattern expressed in human behavior and experiences. The architype for prerational intelligence is the Innovator. The primary mental mode of this architype is intuition, which employs pattern recognition to formulate ideas about how physical reality works. These ideas generate assumptions that become the framework for theories to explain the dynamics of physical phenomena. This was the intelligence process that Einstein used to conceptualize the theory of relativity. Intuitive theories provide us with new visions that can radically transform our understanding of physical reality, as happened when Einstein’s vision of time and space supplanted Newton’s mechanical view of the universe. Prerational intelligence is also the intuitive process used to generate myths, such as creation narratives. However, because theoretical visions are prerational, their veracity isn’t experienced as certain until the underlying theory stands the test of reason, which is the work of the second intelligence quadrant, or becomes solidified as doctrine, which is the realm of the third quadrant.
Rational Intelligence
The second quadrant is rational intelligence and represents the intersection of System 2 thinking and physical reality. The architype for this space is the Scientist. Accordingly, the primary mental mode for the rational is reason. Its principal tool is math, which is comprised of metric systems that quantify the structure, order, and interrelationships of elemental particles. Math is the language of the universe and, unlike human language, is objective, reliable, and inherently accurate. Applications of math are used to test hypotheses by producing evidence that either proves or disproves the assumptions underlying various theories. For example, on May 29, 1919, an expedition of scientists led by Sir Arthur Eddington to observe a total solar eclipse definitively verified that mass causes space to curve—as Einstein had predicted—when their measurements provided clear evidence of the bending of light. Facts that are established by conclusive evidence help us formulate empirical laws that enhance our knowledge of how physical reality works.
Arational Intelligence
The third quadrant is arational intelligence and is the application of System 1 thinking to social reality. This form of intelligence is not within the domain of what can be understood or analyzed by reason. The primary mental mode of arational intelligence is emotion and its principal tool is language. Words are the ingredients of stories, and stories are the foundation for narratives. Because language systems were developed far earlier than numerical systems, narratives are the oldest models for explaining how the two realities work, which explains why the development of the world’s religions predates the development of science. Accordingly, the architype for this segment is the Believer. The narratives of believers are the platforms of faith that are constructed with the planks of deeply held doctrines. These narratives form the framework for ideologies that are often very useful for providing a sense of direction in the face of great ambiguity until scientific evidence can generate a better understanding. However, if narratives are overly socialized within individuals or groups, linguistic tools that operate outside the rules of reason can morph into an unshakable form of blind belief that eschews rationality and becomes impervious to any evidence that might challenge the doctrines of the faith.
Extrarational Intelligence
The fourth quadrant, which is the intersection of System 2 thinking and social reality, is extrarational intelligence. This mode of thinking goes beyond human reason by superseding yet including rational knowledge. The architype for this space is the Philosopher. Because extrarational intelligence is inherently holistic, it integrates and balances the primary mental modes of the other three quadrants—intuition, reason, and emotion—to bring to light insights that effectively integrate objective and subjective realities. Extrarational intelligence recognizes that we live in a complex world that cannot be fully explained by reductionistic thinking. Accordingly, its principal tool is systems thinking, which is used to raise the level of understanding of individuals in what is often experienced as a sense of enlightenment, or of groups in the form of a shared understanding. Whereas the prerational produces ideas, the rational results in evidence, and the arational spawns narratives, only the extrarational yields the truth that enables the effective navigation of both physical and social realities. This truth informs the formulation of timeless principles that serve as the foundation for the wisdom that enables the people Abraham Maslow referred to as self-actualizers to attain the higher reaches of human nature.
Inherent Tensions
In the exercise of intelligence within groups, each of the four quadrants contains an inherent tension. When a group is operating primarily in the prerational space, the tension is between the new theory and the old approach. In this space, there is robust debate and argument regarding which concept best describes how physical reality works. People are free to express opinions, challenge each other, build upon each other’s ideas, or agree to disagree. In the absence of definitive proof of any particular theory, groups typically find a way to compromise to move forward together.
In the rational space, the tension is between whether an idea is true or false. Groups resolve this tension by producing irrefutable evidence. If there is a difference of opinion about the temperature, a thermometer decides who is correct and who is incorrect. In this space, tensions are quickly resolved because the rational participants place a high value on objective facts and empirical laws.
The inherent tension in the arational space is centered on good and evil. When subjective narratives are informed by assumptions and facts about physical reality that are compatible with empirical evidence, doctrine can serve as a helpful vehicle for parsing life’s enduring mysteries and discerning what is good or evil. However, when subjective narratives rather than objective evidence define how physical reality works, ideology typically replaces evidence to engender a misplaced sense of certainty and a rigid doctrine that far too easily defines those who profess the narrative as good and those who challenge the orthodoxy as evil. In other words, those who do not embrace the established doctrine are not just wrong, but dangerous and worthy of condemnation simply because they think differently. When the prevailing thinking in groups dismisses dissenters as inherently evil, collaborations and compromises are impossible, and censorship and ostracization abound. This quadrant is unique in that people in the other three quadrants are far more prone to reach mutual resolutions because, while they may not agree with differing perspectives because of divergent assumptions, or the need for more evidence, or disagreements on the application of principles, there exists a fundamental respect that accepts that intelligent people can see things differently and still find common ground. The arational space, on the other hand, often lacks this tolerance. When those who disagree are dismissed as evil, respect is absent and finding common ground is virtually impossible.
When a group is operating in the extrarational space, the tension is between right and wrong. Similar to the prerational and rational quadrants, the participants explore solutions through an exchange of perspectives in open dialogue and discussion. While they appreciate the value of expert knowledge, they also understand that experts are not immune from human biases and recognize that contributions can come from anyone. Accordingly, extrarational groups are the least prone to groupthink and the most likely to appreciate the wisdom of collective intelligence. One of the unique characteristics of this quadrant is that the tension to be resolved is not necessarily a pitting of positions among participants within the group but rather a collaborative exploration by the group to blend the strengths of everyone’s thinking to discover the best way to apply the core principles they value to guide them in doing the right thing.
The Problem and the Opportunity
When it comes to human intelligence, we have a big problem. Perhaps the most significant finding from Kahneman and Tversky’s extensive research into human thinking is that, contrary to our self-perception, it is System 1 and not System 2 that is our default thinking mode. This means, despite the certainty we may feel, the vast majority of our judgments and decisions are informed by unconscious biases and are not rationally based. This is problematic because, when we are engaged in System 1 thinking, we are operating in either the prerational or arational intelligence space. However, remaining in prerational intelligence is not sustainable because humans have an inate need for certainty. This need and the proclivity for System 1 thinking means that certainty is achieved by engaging in arational intelligence. As a consequence, the default mode of intelligence for the vast majority of people is the lowest of the four modes of human intelligence. The implications of this predilection on the development of AI are quite serious. If the unconscious biases of System 1 thinking form the foundation for building AI, then the archetype of AI will be the Believer. Were this to happen, we run the risk of creating the most tyrannical “true believer” the world has ever known. We are likely to find ourselves in a world where censorship, controlling behavior, and intolerance would become ubiquitous.
However, it doesn’t have to be this way because the great promise of AI technology is that, for the first time in human history, we have the very real opportunity for humans to do System 2 thinking at System 1 speeds. As we have discussed in a prior article, the momentous innovation is not artificial intelligence, but rather accelerated human intelligence. It’s not AI; it’s AHI. If the primary landscape for the production of AHI is extrarational intelligence, we have the unprecedented opportunity to greatly diminish—if not eliminate—the hazards of unconscious biases from human decision-making on a massive scale. Were this to happen we would have the capacity to rapidly aggregate and leverage the wisdom of the crowd, and as a consequence, experience an evolutionary leap in human intelligence. The choice is ours. Hopefully, we will choose wisely.
And read also:
What Is the Goal? Is It AI Or AHI?
Navigating Two Divergent Realities
Follow me on X/Twitter. Check out my website or some of my other work here