TERM PAPER OF ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE

TOPIC: SOCIAL INTELLIGENCE

SUBMITTED TO: SUBMITTED BY:

Mr. G.S.M.T SIR RAHUL YADAV
ROLL.NO.:B37
SECTION:-RD1804

1
 ACKNO
WLEGDEMENT

I take this opportunity to present

my votes of thanks to all those
guidepost who really acted as
lightening pillars to enlighten our
way throughout this project that Contents
has led to successful and
satisfactory completion of this  Introduction and
study. We are really grateful to
our HOD for providing us with an
overview
opportunity to undertake this
project in this university and
 Social intelligence
providing us with all the facilities. as a new science of
We are highly thankful to MR. success,
G.S.M.T SIR for his active
support, valuable time and advice,  Current use in
whole-hearted guidance, sincere
cooperation and pains-taking
society,
involvement during the study and
in completing the assignment of
 Relation with AI,
preparing the said project within
 Current research
the time stipulated.
and future
Lastly, We are thankful to all
those, particularly the various
prospects.
friends , who have been
instrumental in creating proper,
 refrences
healthy and conductive
environment and including new
and fresh innovative ideas for us
during the project, their help, it
would have been extremely
difficult for us to prepare the
project in a time bound
framework.

2

Introduction
Intelligence, as defined in standard
dictionaries, has two rather
different meanings. In its most
familiar meaning, intelligence has
to do with the individual's ability
to learn and reason. It is this
meaning which underlies common
psychometric notions such as
intelligence testing, the
intelligence quotient, and the like.
In its less common meaning,
intelligence has to do a body of
information and knowledge. This
second meaning is implicated in
the titles of certain government
organizations, such as the Central
Intelligence Agency in the United
States, and its British counterparts
MI-5 and MI-6. Similarly, both
meanings are invoked by the
concept of social intelligence. As
originally coined by E.L.
Thorndike (1920), the term
referred the person's ability to
understand and manage other
people, and to engage in adaptive
social interactions. More recently,
however, Cantor and Kihlstrom
(1987) redefined social
intelligence to refer to the
individual's fund of knowledge
about the social world.
Scientific studies
There are various types of
intelligence. As society became
more complex, intellectual
competences became more
sophisticated. This competence is
social intelligence and can be
defined as the intelligence that lies
behind group interactions and This
type of intelligence is closely
related to cognition and emotional
intelligence, and can also be seen
as a first level in developing
systems intelligence.
Research psychologists studying
social cognition and social
neuroscience have discovered
many principles which human
social intelligence operates. In
early work on this topic,
psychologists Nancy Cantor and
John Kihlstrom outlined the kinds
of concepts people use to make
sense of their social relations (e.g.,
“What situation am I in and what
kind of person is this who is
talking to me?”), and the rules
they use to draw inferences
(“What did he mean by that?”) and
plan actions (“What am I going to
do about it?”)
In 2005, business writer Karl
Albrecht proposed a five-part
model of social intelligence in his
book Social Intelligence: the New
Science of Success, presented with
the acronym "S.P.A.C.E." - 1)
Situational awareness, 2)
Presence, 3) Authenticity, 4)
Clarity, and 5) Empathy.
3
More recently, popular science
writer Daniel Goleman has drawn
on social neuroscience research to
propose that social intelligence is
made up of social awareness
(including empathy, attunement,
empathic accuracy, and social
cognition) and social facility
(including synchrony, self-
presentation, influence, and
concern).[2]
Psychotherapy often involves
helping people to modify their
patterns of social intelligence,
particularly those that cause them
problems in their interpersonal
relations. Some efforts are also
underway to use computer-based
interventions to help people
develop their own social
intelligence. Paul Ekman, for
example, has created the
MicroExpression Training Tool, to
allow people to practice
identifying the brief emotional
expressions that flit across
people’s faces. The website
MindHabits.com offers a research-
based software program with
which people learn to modify their
mind habits, focusing attention on
positive social feedback and
inhibiting attention to the social
threats and rejections that can
cause stress. Other interventions,
for example to help autistic
individuals develop social
perception and interaction skills,
are also in development.
Educational researcher Raymond
H. Hartjen asserts that expanded
opportunities for social interaction
enhance intelligence. Traditional
classrooms do not permit the
interaction of complex social
behavior. Instead children in
traditional settings are treated as
learners who must be infused with
more and more complex forms of
information. Few educational
leaders he adduces have taken this
position as a starting point to
develop a school environment
where social interaction could
flourish. If we follow this line of
thinking then children must have
an opportunity for continuous
every day interpersonal
experiences in order to develop a
keen well developed 'inter-
personal psychology'. As schools
are structured today very few of
these skills, critical for survival in
the real world, are allowed to
develop. Because we so limit the
development of the skills of
"natural psychologist" in
traditional schools our students as
graduates, enter the job market
handicapped to the point of being
incapable of surviving on their
own. In contrast those students
that have had an ability to develop
their skills as a "natural
psychologist" in multiage
classrooms and at democratic
settings raise head and shoulders
over their less socially skilled
peers. They have a good sense of
self, know what they want out of
life and have the skills necessary
to begin their quest.
Measuring social
intelligence
Social IQ is a measure of social
intelligence compared to other
people of their age. Like IQ,
Social IQ is based on the "100
point" scale, in which 100 is the
average score. Scores of 140 or
above are considered to be very
high.
4
Social IQ has until recently been communication and social skills
measured by techniques such as for success in the workforce.
question and answer sessions. These people may work well in an
These sessions assess the person's office desk job; stays at home job
pragmatic abilities to test or jobs that don't require a lot of
eligibility in certain special interaction, such as construction.
education courses; however some People with social IQs over 120
tests have been developed to are considered very socially
measure social intelligence. One skilled and well adjusted, and
of these is the EQ (Emotional could work well with jobs that
Intelligence) test. This test can be involve direct contact and
used when diagnosing autism communication with people.
spectrum disorders, including
autism and Asperger syndrome. The following example chart
Other, non-autistic or semi-autistic shows (assuming a person aged 17
conditions such as semantic is being tested, with an average
pragmatic disorder or SPD, social IQ of 100 for that age) how
schizophrenia, dyssemia and a person's social age can be higher
ADHD, are also of relevance. or lower based on scores in the
People with low social IQ will be social IQ test.:
considered "child like" and
immature, even at the adult age
group. This test can also be used
when assessing people that might
have some sort of a disorder such
as schizophrenia or ADHD.
Social
Social IQ
A good way to measure Social IQ Age
is to use the basic IQ system, 120 (above average - socially
adapted for social skills. Most 20.4
mature for age)
people have social IQs from 85- 110 18.7
115, but many exceed these limits. 100 (average) 17
People with social IQs below 80
90 15.3
may have an autism spectrum
disorder, such as Asperger 80 13.6
syndrome or a severe case of some 70 (below this level, help is
11.9
other disorder such as recommended)
schizophrenia or maybe just 60 10.2
generally low in general 50 8.5
intelligence. These people may 40 6.8
have trouble with making friends, 30 5.1
and with communication, and 20 3.4
might need some social skill
training or extra support from
specialists.
The new science of human
These people may not be hired as relationships
quickly as other people for
employment, since they may not
have the require interpersonal

5
Explores the nature of human
relationships, finding that humans
are "wired to connect," and
bringing together the latest
research in biology and
neuroscience to reveal how one's
daily encounters shape the brain
and affect the body. "Humans
have a built-in bias toward
empathy, cooperation and
altruism, provided we develop the
social intelligence to nature these
capabilities in ourselves and others
In this companion volume to his
bestseller, Emotional Intelligence,
Goleman persuasively argues for a
new social model of intelligence
drawn from the emerging field of
social neuroscience. Describing
what happens to our brains when
we connect with others, Goleman
demonstrates how relationships
have the power to mold not only
human experience but also human
biology. In lucid prose he
describes from a neurobiological
perspective sexual attraction,
marriage, parenting, psychopathic
behaviors and the group dynamics
of teachers and workers. Goleman
frames his discussion in a critique
of society's creeping disconnection
in the age of the iPod, constant
digital connectivity and
multitasking. Vividly evoking the
power of social interaction to
influence mood and brain
chemistry, Goleman discusses the
"toxicity" of insult and unpleasant
social experience as he warns of
the dangers of self-absorption and
poor attention and reveals the
positive effects of feel-good
neurochemicals that are released
in loving relationships and in care
giving. Drawing on numerous
studies, Goleman illuminates new
theories about attachment,
bonding, and the making and
remaking of memory as he
examines how our brains are
wired for altruism, compassion,
concern and rapport. The massive
audience for Emotional
Intelligence will revel in
Goleman's latest passionately
argued case for the benefits to
society of empathetic social
attunement.
Current use of social
intelligence
• Understands people's
thoughts, feelings, and
intentions well;
• Has extensive knowledge
of rules and norms in
human relations;
• Is good at taking the
perspective of other
people;
• Adapts well in social
situations;
Is warm and caring; and
6
 Is open to new
experiences, ideas, and
values.
• Accepts others for what
they are;
• Admits mistakes;
• Displays interest in the
world at large;
• Is on time for
appointments;
• Has social conscience;
• Thinks before speaking
and doing;
• Displays curiosity;
• Does not make snap
judgments;
• Makes fair judgments;
• Assesses well the
relevance of information to
a problem at hand;
• Is sensitive to other
people's needs and desires;
• Is frank and honest with
self and others; and
• Displays interest in the
immediate environment.
Relation with AI
After an initial burst of interest in
the GWSIT, work on the
assessment and correlates of social
intelligence fell off sharply until
the 1960s (Walker & Foley,
1973), when this line of research
was revived within the context of
Guilford's (1967) Structure of
Intellect model. Guilford
postulated a system of at least 120
separate intellectual abilities,
based on all possible combinations
of five categories of operations
(cognition, memory, divergent
production, convergent
production, and evaluation), with
four categories of content (figural,
symbolic, semantic, and
behavioral) and six categories of
products (units, classes, relations,
systems, transformations, and
implications). Interestingly,
Guilford considers his system to
be an expansion of the tripartite
classification of intelligence
originally proposed by E.L.
Thorndike. Thus, the symbolic and
semantic content domains
correspond to abstract intelligence,
the figural domain to practical
intelligence, and the behavioral
domain to social intelligence.
Within Guilford's (1967) more
differentiated system, social
intelligence is represented as the
30 (5 operations x 6 products)
abilities lying in the domain of
7
behavioral operations. In contrast
to its extensive work on semantic
and figural content, Guilford's
group addressed issues of
behavioral content only very late
in their program of research.
Nevertheless, of the 30 facets of
social intelligence predicted by the
structure-of-intellect model, actual
tests were devised for six
cognitive abilities (O'Sullivan et
al., 1965; Hoepfner & O'Sullivan,
1969) and six divergent
production abilities (Hendricks,
Guilford, & Hoepfner, 1969).
O'Sulivan et al. (1965) defined the
category of behavioral cognition
as representing the "ability to
judge people" (p. 5) with respect
to "feelings, motives, thoughts,
intentions, attitudes, or other
psychological dispositions which
might affect an individual's social
behavior" (O'Sullivan et al., p. 4).
They made it clear that one's
ability to judge individual people
was not the same as his or her
comprehension of people in
general, or "stereotypic
understanding" (p. 5), and bore no
a priori relation to one's ability to
understand oneself. Apparently,
these two aspects of social
cognition lie outside the standard
structure-of-intellect model.
Current research and future
prospects.
The Intelligence Model
From a cognitive point of view,
Mischel's "cognitive-social
learning person variables" all
represent the person's knowledge
and expertise -- intelligence --
concerning him- or her and the
surrounding social world.
Following Winograd (1975) and
Anderson (1976), this social
intelligence (Cantor & Kihlstrom,
1987) is classified into two broad
categories: declarative knowledge,
consisting of abstract concepts and
specific memories, and
procedural knowledge, consisting
of the rules, skills, and strategies
by which the person manipulates
and transforms declarative
knowledge, and translates
knowledge into action. The
individual's fund of declarative
knowledge, in turn, can be broken
down further into context-free
semantic memory about the world
in general and episodic memory
for the events and experiences,
each associated with a unique
spatiotemporal context, which
make up the person's
autobiographical record (Tulving,
1983). Similarly, procedural
knowledge can be sub classified in
terms of cognitive and motor
skills. These concepts, personal
memories, interpretive rules, and
action plans are the cognitive
structures of personality.
Together, they constitute the
expertise which guides an
individual's approach to solving
the problems of social life.
The cognitive architecture of
social intelligence will be familiar
from the literature on social
cognition (for overviews, see
Cantor & Kihlstrom, 1982; Fiske
& Taylor, 1991; Kihlstrom &
Hastie, 1997) -- a literature which,
interestingly, had its beginnings in
early psychometric efforts to
measure individual differences in
social intelligence. Thus, for
Vernon (1933) one of the
characteristics of a socially
intelligent person was that he or
she was a good judge of
personality -- a proposition which
8
naturally led to inquires into how
people form impressions of
personality, (Asch, 1946) or
References:
engage in person perception www.google.com
(Bruner & Tagiuri, 1954), as well
as to the implicit theories of www.wikipedia.com
personality (Bruner & Tagiuri,
1954; Cronbach, 1955) which lies Text Book ELAINE RICH &
at the base of such impressions RICH KNIGHT
and perceptions. Specifically,
Cronbach argued that one's
implicit theory of personality
consisted of his or her knowledge
of "the generalized Other" (1955,
p. xx): a mental list of the
important dimensions of
personality, and estimates of the
mean and variance of each
dimension within the population,
as well as estimate of the
covariances among the several
dimensions. Cronbach argued that
this intuitive knowledge might be
widely shared, and acquired as a
consequence of socialization and
acculturation processes; but he
also assumed that there would be
individual and cultural differences
in this knowledge, leading to
individual and group differences
in social behavior. Studies of
impression formation, implicit
personality theory, and, later,
causal attributions (e.g., Kelley,
1967), social categories (Cantor &
Mischel, 1979; Cantor, Mischel, &
Schwartz, 1982b), and scripts
(Schank & Abelson, 1977), and

person memories (Hastie, Ostrom,

Ebbesen, Wyer, Hamilton, &
Carlston, 1980) provided the
foundation for the social-
intelligence analysis of personality
structures and processes.