Metacognition and Intrapersonal Intelligence: Shall the Twain meet?

In a recently published book, Know Thyself, cognitive scientist Stephen Fleming describes “the science of self-awareness.” He reviews the many studies carried out in recent decades under the less snappy phrase “meta-cognition.” 

Clearly, on the whole, meta-cognition is a good thing. In school, those individuals who are aware of what they need to do, how to achieve it, what help they might need, are far more likely to be successful than those who daydream, or forget what they were told to do, or who lack a skill or concept and yet don’t have the wherewithal to address that lack. Similarly at work, without meta-cognitive skills, you are unlikely to carry out tasks successfully, determine where you have gone wrong, know when and how to consult others, how you fit into the rhythm of the workplace, deduce when it’s time to move on... and where you want to end up and succeed.

Of course, meta-cognition helps one at home, on holiday, and in relations with others—be these superficial or deep, friendships or romances. 

In my work on “MI theory,” I wrote about the two personal intelligences—interpersonal intelligence (understanding of others) and intrapersonal intelligence (understanding of self). Interpersonal intelligence is far easier to explain, to study, to evaluate—we can observe how well you navigate the world of other persons. 

But what of self-knowledge? I have never been pleased with my (or others') efforts to assess self- knowledge, even in the abstract. Our selves are strange entities—with due respect to Socrates, what does it mean to “know thyself?” And indeed, I’ve quipped that only your psychoanalyst can assess how well you know yourself. 

It would be convenient if intrapersonal intelligence could be equated to meta-cognition. But I don’t think it can be. Meta-cognition helps you to navigate the world—the worlds—more successfully; and unless you get obsessed by such reflection on your mind, that’s a good thing.  

But one can understand one’s own mental capacities (and incapacities) quite well without having significant insight into how distinctive you are as a person, how you differ from others, in what ways, and what difference those differences make. Moreover, it's not clear whether, and if so how, your understanding of yourself might help you to be a different or better person—a major set of insights that one hopes to gain from therapy. I believe that’s because emotions, feelings, affect are vital parts of our person, our persona—and yet they only have meaning if you actually experience them—unless you feel fear, it does not help to know that you are 'fearful' or 'frightened' or 'anxious.' 

Put differently, I can easily see a computer program or robot becoming meta-cognitive; but when I ask about the intrapersonal intelligence of the program or robot, that seems—at least at present—to be a category error.

Photo by Laurenz Kleinheider on Unsplash

A Carpet Cleaner who Speaks 24 Languages: Clues to Linguistic Intelligence

Recently The Washington Post ran an article (link here) about a man who cleans carpets for a living—and who speaks 24 languages! Since most Americans struggle to master more than one language—this feat seems remarkable to us. Perhaps it would be slightly less remarkable if we lived in Europe, where much of the population is bilingual or even multi-lingual… and where English-as-a-second language is increasingly taken for granted. But once one goes beyond 4-5 languages, we would expect such multilingual skill to be present chiefly among individuals whose stock-in-trade is speaking or writing—and not someone who earns his living in a household trade. 

In spending time with Vaughan Smith, the reporter Jessica Contrera, learned that Smith remembers names, dates, and sounds far better than most persons. As a youth, he found fascinating the existence of multiple languages, and always wanted to know what particular messages meant. He also could remember what he read much better than most of his classmates. And yet, he only completed high school and since then has had various odd jobs. Learning languages is a hobby—not related in any significant way to his livelihood. 

When Smith came to the attention of scientists at MIT, they wanted to determine whether there is anything unusual about his brain. There is! 

But it is entirely different from what I—and, I suspect, most others—would have supposed. Rather than having larger areas of the brain devoted to language... and rather than the language areas being particularly active—MRI revealed the opposite pattern. Malik-Moraleda, a researcher working under neuroscientist Evelina Fedorenko, explains “Vaughan needs less oxygen to be sent to those regions of his brain that process language when he is speaking in his native language.. He uses language so much, he’s become really efficient in using those areas for the production of language” 

On almost any definition of the phrase, we can say that Vaughan Smith has exceptional linguistic intelligence. And clearly, there is a brain basis for his talent. And yet, for reasons which remain to be explicated, it’s in the way that he uses his brain—or his brain uses him—that makes him outstanding. 

And this may be true in other kinds of intelligence—perhaps musically gifted individuals also use their brain real estate far more efficiently. 

I can add that mastery of language is certainly a key component of linguistic intelligence. But how one uses that skill, that talent, the intelligence can vary enormously. Poets, novelists, journalists, comedians, scholars, lawyers all benefit from significant linguistic intelligence—but how that is represented in the mind—and in the brain—and in the world of practice—remains an unexplored area. 

Photo by Waldemar Brandt on Unsplash

"Intelligences" vs. "Languages"

I was pleased to see The New York Times article by Siobhan Roberts about Stanislas Dehaene's claim that geometry is a unique human capacity just as is language (link here). He proposes, therefore, that humans have "multiple languages." When I originally developed “multiple intelligences theory” forty years ago, I used the analogy of eight separate computers (one for each intelligence). I was critiquing the notion of a single all-purpose computer which is the construct underlying the standard IQ view of intelligence. (In the vernacular, according to the traditional view, people are either smart, average, or dumb).

At the time that I developed "MI theory," building on the work of Chomsky, Fodor, and others, I was using “natural language” as my prototype intelligence. And within language, my focus fell on syntax—semantics, much less so, pragmatics not at all. 

Reading about Dehaene's use of the term "multiple languages" led me to blog (link here) that he might just as well have used the term "multiple intelligences." Dehaene responded that his use of the term language refers to a formal "computer-like language whose expressions correspond to human mental representations and whose minimal description length captures psychological complexity." He went on to say, "As far as I know, multiple intelligences are not so well defined."

When I reflect on my original list of seven intelligences, I acknowledge that the personal intelligences are not well-described in traditional computational terms. Selma Mehyaoui seems to be alluding to personal intelligences when, responding to Dehaene, she says that language is not just a matter of representation but also involves pragmatics. I also don’t think of bodily-kinesthetic intelligence in traditional computational terms, but as robots become “smarter” they may also reveal the extent to which the uses of the body can be captured in computational language.

However, I submit that four of the original list of multiple intelligences do indeed fit the Chomskian and Dehaene model of language: not only linguistic intelligence and spatial intelligence (Dehaene's geometry language), but also mathematical and musical intelligence.

Multiple Languages, Why Not Multiple Intelligences?

When The New York Times elects to devote more than a page to a news story (link here), that’s news in itself—even more so if the story is about psychological research.

On Tuesday, March 22, 2022, in the print edition of the paper, there was a major story on “decoding shapes” with the subtitle “Grasping geometrical concepts may make humans special.”  The story describes the research of neuroscientist, Stanislas Dehaene, an expert on numerical and mathematical cognition.

Dehaene and colleagues have demonstrated that human beings, but not baboons, can pick the “odd one out” when shown several instances of the same geometric shape (e.g., a five-sided irregular form presented in different sizes and orientations) along with a regular five-sided geometrical shape (e.g., a pentagon.) In other words, humans have the concept of regular vs. irregular shapes. When the same task required selecting a cherry as the odd one in the midst of images of watermelon slices, baboons had no trouble in doing so.

Here are the kinds of problems used to test baboons:

Image from The New York Times | Source: Mathias Sablé-Meyer, Stanislas Dehaene et al.

On this seemingly modest basis, Dehaene builds a vast superstructure. He says that human beings are capable of perceiving and creating geometric forms, and this capacity in turn enables them to construct systems for representing ideas—as is needed in creating artistic renderings, or geometric numerical systems. And since he introduced these ideas at a workshop at the Vatican last fall, he adds the following bold conjecture: “The argument I made in the Vatican is that the same ability is at the heart of our capacity to imagine religion.” 

I’m less interested in the possible link between conceptions of geometric forms and conceptions of god (or, if you prefer, God) than in the fact that geometry is now being posited as a uniquely human capacity, just as language has been argued to be uniquely human by linguist Noam Chomsky. Over half a century ago, Chomsky marshaled a huge amount of evidence that linguistic capacity is an exclusively human faculty, and one that allows—via syntax—all kinds of relations to be expressed among objects, actions, and ideas.

Both Chomsky and Dehaene are arguing for a uniquely human capacity, and these two capacities probably overlap little if at all. Language and geometry have very different evolutionary histories and draw on very different neurological systems. Indeed, if any two human capacities merit separation, discursive language and geometric forms would be high on the list. (Music could be a third).

Just this line of thinking induced me, over forty years ago, to conceive of the human intellect as decomposable into separate cognitive systems. When I wrote about spatial intelligence, I had geometry in mind. When I wrote about linguistic intelligence, I had expressive and discursive language in mind. And when I wrote about logical-mathematical intelligence, I had in mind arithmetic, algebra, and logical reasoning.

It’s therefore revealing to me when The New York Times article ends with the following sentences:

“Language is often assumed to be the quality that demarcates human singularity, Dr. Dehaene noted, but perhaps there is something that is more basic, more fundamental. We are proposing that there are languages—multiple languages.”

Perhaps someday, he or his colleagues, will bite the bullet and say “multiple intelligences.”

My Latest Thoughts on Intrapersonal Intelligence

I recently received an interesting question from Peter van Deerse, a musician in the Netherlands. With his permission, this was his note:

I have always been fascinated with your contribution concerning MI theory.
I really am interested in what your thoughts and feelings are when it comes to a big missing link in education in relation to personal and even mondial problems. This missing link in my view is the development of what you call the intra personal intelligence as an integral part of education and beyond.
I truly believe that when young people would (also) learn in school to reflect on what they feel, what they really want and from a spiritual point of view: who they are, the world would be a more organic place in which every human being is working as much as possible from their mission and strength.
It is too elaborate for me and probably for you that I write everything down.
My question is: what do you see as the benefit of implementing the development of the intra personal intelligence in relation to personal struggles, illness, being in your strength in your working life etc...So what is your vision and what made you write this aspect in particular?
I truly believe that what you have written is the key to more balance and consciousness and a better world with more wisdom and harmony.

My Response:

I have thought and written less about intrapersonal than about the other intelligences—so I am using your question as a catalyst for setting down some thoughts.

First, while I believe that there are psychological and neurological bases for all of the intelligences, intrapersonal intelligence is by far the most difficult to describe, understand, and nurture.

Indeed, while it's clearly been a human potential for thousands of years, it has really ballooned in importance only in the last few centuries, and chiefly in the West—defined as Europe, North America, and places influenced by these portions of the globe.

Another way to put this: the Greeks (Socrates) said "know thyself"—but that directive was not much heeded in the rest of the world for many centuries.

Painting with a very broad swathe, one could say that interest in oneself was catalyzed by the Renaissance of the 15th century and heightened by the Enlightenment of the 18th century. Medieval paintings were almost never signed, while the painter's signature became important in the last few centuries. We could even say the same about music, the area that you are familiar with—who wrote Gregorian chant? We don’t know. What composers did we know by name before Josquin de Pres (1450/1455? -1521)—we don't even know his date of birth for sure! By the time of Beethoven (1770-1827), his persona (and his person) had become fundamental to the world of music.

Freud ushered in the 20th century, and, with it, an obsession with the self (and also, to be fair, many useful concepts to think about persons in general, and oneself in particular—the movie maker, Woody Allen, has made much of that!) And even without Freud, in a complex modern industrial and post-industrial society, it's much more important to have knowledge of self, than in a communitarian era, where individuals hunted or farmed throughout their lives, and all decisions and signals were seen as coming from the gods, rather than from one's own society or one's own psyche.

I have sometimes quipped that "Only your psychiatrist knows for sure whether you have good intrapersonal intelligence." And indeed, nowadays, most of us think that we know ourselves but that knowledge can be very faulty. One purpose of a 360 degree evaluation carried out across an office is to reveal to you, aspects of yourself which you may not be aware of. But even if the rest of the world were constituted by Mary Trump—the niece who revealed aspects of her uncle Donald's psyche to the rest of the world—we can be quite sure that it would not have changed Donald Trump's view of himself—he thinks that he knows himself (and others) thoroughly.

Having given this background, let me know return to your question. In our time, it's certainly important that each of us know something about ourselves, and we should make use of useful comments and insights from others—certainly, from individuals who are clinically trained, but also from family and trusted friends. I have certainly learned lots about myself without having to lie on a couch for an hour each week and pay significant amounts of money.

But like every other intelligence, intrapersonal intelligence can be used benevolently or malevolently. A thief or even a murderer could be more effective if he or she understood his or her personality, moods, motivations better.

In our recent study of colleges, The Real World of College (link here), Wendy Fischman and I report an astonishing finding: that American college students use the word "I" or "me” eleven times more frequently than "we" or "us". Clearly there is intrapersonal interest, even preoccupation!—but that is not necessarily benevolent for the society (Fischman and I would say it's not) and it does not mean that our understanding of self is necessarily more accurate, it's just that our preoccupation with ourselves is prevalent.

I am quite confident that this empirical result would be less true in Japan—which is much more of a "we" society, than an "I" society—it's a society that has been far more interested in Western sociology than in Western psychology. China is somewhere in between, though with its Confucian roots, there is probably a large segment of the society that is more similar to Kyoto than to Chicago or California—but these are empirical matters, not ones to be speculated about casually. 

Finally, how about your question of knowledge of providing support at times of troubles, difficulties? As a complete Westerner, I think that such knowledge is useful, and indeed, I recommend Michael Ignatieff's  recent book, On Consolation, as a way for people in the Western tradition to deal with death, dying, and illness. But I believe that support at such times can come as well from religion—and from religious figures and texts and rituals. So I would not necessarily mandate a course on "I"—even if that course were quite sensibly and sensitively designed and executed. (This is one of the problems of the field of positive psychology, but that’s an issue for another day).

I am not sure that my response is helpful, or even that it is directly responsive to the question that you raised—but I am indebted to you for helping me to think about and articulate my current thoughts about intrapersonal intelligence.