Multiple Intelligences in the Social Imagination...

According to Psychology Today, article by Dr. Neel Burton, from Nov. 28, 2018 (updated June 7 2019), there is no agreed upon definition or model of intelligence. By the Collins English Dictionary, intelligence is ‘the ability to think, reason, and understand instead of doing things automatically or by instinct’. By the Macmillan Dictionary, it is ‘the ability to understand and think about things, and to gain and use knowledge’.

Ah, there is the key phrase (agreed upon) and thankfully right from the 'get go' = start.  If you don't know my position by now you will. Which is... there is no social reality nor social imagination without agreement. How does that work exactly? Well, our entire life, which exists in the social imagination, is entirely based information received and exchanged and is so because it is either agreed on or not in the place we are in over a period of time. That means, in order that something becomes a 'real person/place/thing' information has to be received and agreed on as having meaning to us in the place we are.

When you take time to really consider and apply what is going on...all information (no one thinks alone) is socially acquired, agreed on and shared in the social imagination. Once that happens, it is applied and becomes a kind of meaningful product (including concepts such as: liberty, justice, love) which over time is/are continually used to sustain the one and the many in the place where they are;  and, it is especially strong in its original form thus becoming deeply embedded into the social imagination as an/the absolute truth.

All those that claim to truly understand a truth in something is only through agreement and once that happens they circulate that truth. Interestingly, in its most original form one might consider that arriving at a truth is quite remarkable even intelligent. But, it never happens in as an isolated event.  What anyone in a group or the group as a whole determines as a truth is so because it works for them in the place where they are: village, town, country, and nation. Such 'truths' create the shape of what we imagine as  'culture'.

This is in fact the only measure of 'intelligence' within a group is that it understands what/who it is and is not in a place over time within the scope of its continual engagement and agreement in its social imagination... which becomes its social reality.The human mind is like a computer, either accepting bits of information or rejecting. Meaning is a product of that process. And, it can become a future framework for accepting or rejecting new or other information.

Now, this brings me to a theory which for unknown reasons I just came across yesterday. Probably, it is because having studied in Europe and studying classical social thought, not wild notions like 'multiple intelligence would explain it. Having already been informed of what intelligence is, how could anyone, think or imagine multiple intelligences?

What are  multiple intelligences?  Supposedly, multiple intelligences are specific 'modalities' but let us say categorized abilities and or strengths: spatial, visual, musical, emotional, linguistic, artistic and so on. Now, perhaps one can agree that it takes an innate talent to bang two sticks together with some degree of syncopation on a box and when certain people hear it they like it. But that is not an example of intelligence. There really aren't any multiple intelligences.

Of course, each person has certain abilities or strengths that another might not have. But as you read, strengths and abilities/learned skills are not actually intelligences but rather people agreeing that some activity is either useful, pleasant or generates more leisure, wealth, and or health. Now, having a skill or ability or strength as an individual is not just the individual's doing because every individual is shaped by the group the larger social imagination in a place over time; a social imagination that belongs to him/her and the group. A social imagination that introduced from the very beginning of life and it always starts in a mother's womb and then in her arms.

Does race, ethnicity, gender play into this process, this social imagination (locus of the mind) in a place, that produced usable truths for the one and the group? Yes! What I am saying is that they may or may not have a recognized skill or strength without the group agreeing on its role and or purpose in the place they are. So to say that there a multiple intelligences doesn't really explain anything in the social imagination, the social reality.

If you were a pearl diver but lived in the mountains, you would never have the chance to be what you seem to have an intelligence for. No one in your group/culture/society or we should rather say 'social imagination' would ever agree that you had a talent because it would never be useful in the mountains... in the place where you are/they are. 

Does that mean we could potentially all have the same talents/skills/intelligence? Maybe... Its just not that easy to say.. How long would it take for you to become a successful pearl diver even if you went to the place where they are and studied pearl diving which if you potentially could do if given a chance and even be good at it. Well, in 'their' social imagination, they would likely not accept you as a 'pearl diver' on the same level as they are.

Do multiple intelligences exist? No, and its dangerous to think that multiple intelligences exist as isolated phenomenon without a proper context like the social imagination. Doing so leaves out the very essence of what a human being is and is not... a composition of 'information' acquired from interpersonal 'social' interaction in a place over time. 

Without that context, there is no reality, no reason for intelligence whatsoever. Because, it has no role and or impact to make and how could such a thing or concept be appreciated as such without social context and place. Multiple intelligences are really no more than different skill sets, abilities, talents one or many can acquire or learn but again such things exist in agreement in the social imagination. 

In saying that, I should ask is there more than one social imagination in the world? Yes, of course. 

*Note ~ The last blog dealt with agreement reality and how its possible to have 'mutual' agreement with other cultures/groups on certain things either as they are absolute truths or that there is an advantage in agreeing on something outside of ones own culture residing in another; ... "though, we have a few things worldwide that everyone can agree on, we are still not fully in agreement on everything. For not all things appear the same to everyone in exactly the same shape or form. 

Yet, we all do seem to agree that the sun is a star.  Now, in relation to this blog discussing 'multiple intelligences', agreeing on the sun being a star is rather a no brainer since most everyone in the world seems to agree. :-) on that which hardly qualifies such agreement as an example of multiple intelligences arriving at the same conclusion. 

But, certainly in order for the sun to be a star in any social imagination it has to be agreed on which still is not an example of multiple intelligences arriving at the same conclusion; but rather illustrates that certain absolute truths stand alone...without agreement by anyone. Human beings everywhere can recognize an absolute truth when they see it because stems from the absolute intelligent source... The Creator's.
 

Agreement reality in the Social Imagination...

Agreement reality is not just thinking something is real because someone told you so... Its arrived at perception of a thing through social interaction (social dynamics of give and take) and that leads us to agreement (man is inclined toward resolve by nature of the entropic universe) and it becomes 'real' to us. The process is much deeper and wide spreading over time. Keep in mind, once agreement happens, its form is subject to decay. Only a constant agreement process keeps reality going. Its a necessary constant in the social imagination. How/why?

Agreement reality has its thread of dissemination via communication always starts the same way for every living creature including mankind and that is with the very first immediate social contact; with mother. Her social information package and sense of security and or stability in society matters a great deal. The kind of information she imparts tells you (provides you with information) about the basic construct into which you were born.

That information contains good, bad and ugly information because this world is in a state of entropy. Every mother has embedded in her such information. That is why/how the information you get becomes information that you necessarily trust or distrust and accept as true or not.  If a baby senses it can’t trust its mother for safety, warmth, love and nourishment as a basic truth… it will take that distrust or lack of positive sustaining information (untruth) with it and use it as a baseline in society; unless, of course, other information ‘truth’ is interjected and overcomes the lack of positive information issued earlier. 

Now, what is truth? The first truth is our humanity, a created being.  How was our birth possible, how were you created? In the ‘more’ traditional or natural biological way, it means that a ‘baby’ child is the result of copulation between a male and female. Thus, this in itself becomes a basic truth of our being, as in the very foundation of our human existence. This is understood as a complementing union ... one that produces fruit. It is not a union of conflicting protocol or conflicting intercourse that produces no good thing in and of itself. 

The second truth is found and crystallized in shared and or learned information in a place over time. Now, the more we regard shared/learned information as ‘the truth’ is due to the fact that appears to be if not the most then certainly more positive and sustaining us in the place where we are. That is why no culture will ever disagree with such information...like the sun is a star and it sustains life on earth. 

We 'socially' imagine that we have an idea of some kind of truths in our lives, acquired through information given us (by ‘mother/father’ - parents) or shared and learned in a place over time as having positive benefits and or sustainability. Thus, they become both real for us. And, though we have a few things worldwide that everyone can agree on, we are still not fully in agreement. For not all things appear the same to everyone. Yet, what we can all agree on the sun being a star because its is at least one truly apparent truth in any place. And, the only other truth that is equal to that is that we live in an entropic universe. 

Therefore, no matter who you are and are not, not all information you receive at the beginning nor throughout your life is always or in anyway 100% free of decay …as in mis/disinformation. Even that which we call ‘science’ or evidence that something exists as it was or is… means only that a group of people somewhere or everywhere agreed that it is and it is just this – information that has a certain amount of realness about it having been experienced positively and continuously… sustaining us and life around us as we think/imagine it is which is all piled into agreement reality. 

Now, why is that men strive to find or have as in possess truth or a quality of realness in their lives? Why do they strive to agree on anything and or fight to get people to agree with them? Those are good questions. Oddly, I don’t find too many people talking about that in sociology or psychology. There is more talk about gender identity. But, there is more interesting discussion about agreement reality and truth within computer programming and especially when it pertains to Ai. 

Does such discussion lean toward the idea that we ‘mankind’ are some kind of organic computing entity, designed to be in agreement with each other so that the program does not succumb to total corruption ‘takeover’ and or chaos? It seems that way, doesn't it? 

Would it be necessary for the designed computing entity ‘mankind’ to recognize an upgrade if interjected in order that it has a means of escape through a default mode or the ability to accept the authority of the upgrade in order to override total disagreement  as in total chaos? Perhaps, we should even say 'resurrected' from disagreement/chaos upon accepting the saving ‘compatibility’ upgrade as the one and only original default mode directive/command? 

I think so… give the command to save me! "Be my rock of refuge, where I can always go. Give the command to save me, for You are my rock and my fortress" ~ Psalm 71:3.

Perception of Social Reality in the Social Imagination...

The above sounds a bit like an oxymoron..."seeing comes before what is to be seen"???

Now, if it were stated like this - The perceived social reality in the imagined social imagination leads us to think that we are living in an information agreement reality whereby the only way we can agree on anything is that we agree we can perceive something and imagine it to be something. Well, that's  not an oxymoron.

The terms perception of social reality and the social imagination are not opposing. Its not hard to imagine that research regarding the concept of social reality perception was at the foundation of 20th century social scientific research, and there is no indication of a decline in academic interest in this topic in the 21st century. Importantly, this topic has drawn together researchers from across the core social sciences, including psychology, sociology, communication, and political science. Why is that?

Its because of the ongoing debate about social reality. Many argue this - aren't we an evidenced based reality? No. What is evidence anyway? Evidence is corroboration which means having the ability to compare information provided by two separate sources and find similarities between them. Finding corroboration between sources strengthens your conclusions, especially when you are making a historical argument. To me, that sounds like agreement reality.

Isn't the sun a star; isn't there plenty of evidence for that? The sun is a star because we say it is... and yes, there is plenty of evidence for that; especially when you consider what evidence is... just stated above. So, am I saying that nothing is real until we observe it? Well, in quantum physics that is the case.  

Werner Heisenberg, among others, interpreted the mathematics to mean that reality doesn’t exist until observed. “The idea of an objective real world whose smallest parts exist objectively in the same sense as stones or trees exist, independently of whether or not we observe them ... is impossible,” he wrote. John Wheeler, too, used a variant of the double-slit experiment to argue that “no elementary quantum phenomenon is a phenomenon until it is a registered (‘observed,’ ‘indelibly recorded’) phenomenon.”

There are plenty of quantum theories and experiments out there about this in context of light particle behavior. But, in all cases, it comes down to the same truth... we cannot escape observation of the event and what it means to us plays into the whole scheme. It's meaning that we are truly after when you think about it. This is what the social imagination craves. That is why, we find many arguments concerning the nature of reality and its description.

If nothing else, these experiments are showing that we cannot yet make any claims about the nature of reality, even if the claims are well-motivated mathematically or philosophically. And given that neuroscientists and philosophers of mind don’t agree on the nature of consciousness, claims that it collapses wave functions are premature at best and misleading and wrong at worst.

Now, if we can agree on that much... we are doing ok. Why should I think that's ok? Well, in sociology, interactionism which happens to be my forte, is a theoretical perspective that derives social processes (the social imagination) from human interaction. It is the study of how individuals shape society and are shaped by society through meaning that arises in interactions.

Given that, I can also tell you that no one person could exist whatsoever, I mean literally; let alone exist on his/her own if there were no construct to interact with (basic landscape).... let alone the lack of any other person or concept of another person. The one example that illustrates this for the laymen is the film - Castaway with Tom Hanks.

Bottom line is this folks, the only evidence we have for our existence is what we agree on is real to us and for us... that later here implies 'meaning' and even that changes based on 'place' as in basic landscape construct. Which brings us to the always greater question... who made that for us to agree on is real and for us to exist in 'meaning'. Who made the construct and gave us a social imagination?

For what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood from His workmanship, so that men are without excuse. For although they knew God, they neither glorified Him as God nor gave thanks to Him, but they became futile in their thinking and darkened in their foolish hearts.…Romans 1:19-21.

He holds all things together ~ Colossians 1:17. Now to Him who is able to do so much more than all we ask or imagine, according to His power that is at work within us, to Him be the glory in the church and in Christ Jesus throughout all generations, forever and ever. Amen ~ Ephesians 3:20-21.




*Online source ~  https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/what-does-quantum-theory-actually-tell-us-about-reality/

The Social Life of a Bot in the Social Imagination, really?

The following first six paragraphs are an excerpt from an online article published in March 2017 by SCIENCENODE. 

Milena Tsvetkova, a sociologist, at the London School of Economics and Political Science is primarily interested in human interaction: with other humans or with computers. “I was initially resistant to the thought that computer programs could show interesting social behavior,” says Tsvetkova. “But the data proved me wrong!”

The number of bots in online systems is increasing quickly. They’re currently used to collect information, moderate forums, generate content, and provide customer service, as well as disseminate spam and spread fake news. “Even if bots are not designed to interact, they find themselves in systems with other bots and interaction is inevitable,” says Tsvetkova.

The researchers found that the same handful of bots are responsible for most of the ‘arguments’ with other bots. Conflicts between bots tend to occur at a slower rate and over a longer period than conflicts between human editors.

“Interaction leads to unexpected results, even when we design for it,” says Tsvetkova. “Bots' presence in and influence on our lives will be increasing, and if we want to understand society, we need to understand how we interact with these artificial agents too.”

Much of the scientific and popular discussion about artificial intelligence has been about psychology ...whether AI is able to think or feel the way we do, says Tsvetkova. “But now it’s time to discuss how artificial agents are expected to interact with us.”

When studying human-human interaction, social scientists often model individuals as ‘bots’ that follow simple rules when they meet other agents. These modeled interactions can lead to complex patterns at the group level, patterns that none of the individuals intended.

Its not that bots are so different from us socially... so, we are finding that out. Mmm, the question to consider is that dangerous or not. Well, conflicts exist among humans and now we are finding out they exist among bots.

Could we see a war between machines? That would be something right out of the movie "The Matrix", wouldn't it? Well, that's exactly what is concluded at the end of the article put out by SCIENCENODE - See online source below.

We all like to think, largely from watching science fiction movies, that all AI technology will be benevolent i.e. caring and compassionate. But, that is not true as the article posits and I concur. The main reason is that we are in a fallen world. What does that mean? It means that this 'world' was/is corrupted. Its entropic.  

The definition of entropic is having a tendency to change from a state of order to a state of disorder. And, the entropy of the universe is increasing. Therefore, in the future it will be higher, and in the past it was lower by definition.

We see this truth even by observing humanity, its very concept found in the social imagination. Today, we no longer want to recognize that genders were solid and stable as in good for society; now, there are over 50 different kinds. We see national boundaries as once having meaning, cultural data as something unique occurring only in a certain place and something to be study and protected.

Today, we see ideas such as freedom, justice, wisdom and respect being twisted. The titles bestowed upon people of position such as 'president' or 'pope' for example reflect this. Parents were once a man and woman living together, raising their children, teaching them the basics of life ... and it was called common sense.

We are definitely moving from a state of order to a state of disorder in the social imagination. But, that just my educated opinion in my entropic social imagination; and likely the state of the social life, the social imagination, of a bot... lest I say more. 




*Online Source ~ SCIENCENODE March 17, 2017. [https://sciencenode.org/feature/the-social-life-of-bots.php]