March 27, 2026
Learning
"The thread running through every phase of our development is relational."
First we named IQ — Intelligence Quotient — a measure of how well we think alone. Then we developed EQ — Emotional Intelligence — a measure of how well we read and manage our own feelings. Isabelle Hau says now we need RQ — Relational Intelligence — a measure of how well we show up for each other. Photo via isabellehau.com
Isabelle Hau is executive director of the Stanford Accelerator for Learning and author of Love to Learn: The Transformative Power of Care and Connection in Early Education. She cares about what happens to children when no one is paying attention to them. Now she's applying that interest to the question of what happens to all of us when we stop paying attention to each other.
She makes an important case that as AI reshapes education, work, and social life, the next crucial frontier is “relational intelligence” (RQ): our capacity to build trust, navigate difference, repair ruptures, and create meaning together.
RQ, she says, is the distinctly human ability to attune to others, sustain trust, handle conflict, and co-create shared meaning. In a world where machines outperform us in analysis and can simulate empathy, IQ and EQ are no longer enough; RQ becomes the core skill for human flourishing. The real question is not whether AI will advance, but whether we cultivate RQ so that progress strengthens, rather than erodes, our humanity.
Hau situates RQ within rising loneliness, fragmentation, and the substitution of technology for presence. Our relational capacities, she warns, risk atrophying just when we need them most. Technology is not neutral—it can either deepen or degrade connection. And access to “connection-rich” environments is uneven, reinforcing inequality.
Her call for “relational infrastructure” will resonate with readers of Love & Work. We can and should design schools, workplaces, health systems, and digital platforms so connection is the default. This means reallocating time toward presence, treating care as a public good, and embedding these conditions from early childhood onward.
For technology, her principles are clear: prioritize augmentation over automation, use tools to increase human contact, and design for relational safety—systems that encourage real-world connection and avoid manipulative, isolating dynamics.
The broader implication is institutional: schools should measure belonging, companies should treat trust as an asset, and policymakers should invest in connection the way we invest in physical infrastructure. That'd be nice, right?
Her vision is nothing short of a “relational renaissance,” where intelligence is measured by our capacity to care, and progress by the quality of our connections.
If this thinking sounds unreasonably optimistic, it may say less about its grounding and more about how far off course we are drifting.
