Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[chewybrian]

I encountered this idea and thought it merited investigation. After 7 or 8 snoozer videos, I found this one that really explained it well and showed clearly how learning about it could have positive effects for us and the people around us:

If you search, "12 traits emotionally intelligent people share" on Youtube, you will find it as the first hit. It's only about 12 minutes long.

(It seems nearly impossible to have a solid discussion these days without linking a source to explain yourself and help others learn about your topic. I don't get why this forum has such a zero tolerance policy on so many things like this. I would expect a philosophy forum to allow almost anything that wasn't trolling or trying to scam others or make money from them. The tragic irony is that this gripe relates to one of the main points in the video. Leaders who enact zero tolerance policies can achieve some short term goals. However, in the long run, they generate a culture of anxiety and distrust, and people are ultimately less productive and apt to leave as soon as they are able. The ones the organization would benefit from keeping on are the first ones to go, because they have marketable skills.)

Back to the topic, though. I am curious about this idea and sense value in it, but I don't know a lot about it. I would like to hear if you think it has merit, what you think it means, or, ideally, how you have benefited from learning about it and applying it in your life.

(This is where I would insert a picture or gif of George Costanza's father yelling "SERENITY NOW", if we were allowed to use pictures or gifs to express ourselves)

[Good_Egg]

Seems like this term refers to a cluster of skills to do with working constructively with other people.

I'm entirely prepared to believe that this is a cluster, meaning that individuals with high levels of one such skill will tend to have high levels of the others.

I'd suggest that most skills can be learnt. And also that for most skills, people's natural aptitude varies. So that when you look at people's different levels of performance on any test of skill, some of the variation will be due to "nature" - talent, aptitude, innate ability - and some will be due to "experience" - the extent to which that skill has been learned and practiced.

One of the questions every teacher should ask is whether there are limits to what can be taught and what can be learned. One school of thought is that there are two things that cannot be taught - motivation and intelligence. Motivation being willingness to learn and intelligence being ability to learn.

So I"m open to the possibility that some people may have high or low Emotional Intelligence (EI) - both innate levels of talent in dealing with and managing one's own emotions and the emotions of others, and the ability to develop these skills.

But am wary of self-help books that urge us to "raise our EQ". If somebody does develop a sound EQ test - a correlation between performance on multiple easy-to-test tasks that is stable over time and correlates well with successful management of emotions in practice - then will that be a measure of aptitude, of innate ability, or of current skill
of levels of performance ?

We can perhaps distinguish cognitive tasks (like playing chess), physical tasks (like riding a bicycle or walking a tightrope) and emotional tasks (? examples?).

But I'm wondering about how far the process of learning itself involves cognitive skills - recognising and conceiving of how and why a particular performance is poor and how to improve it ?

Sorry - that's more about learning in general rather than about the specific skills. But maybe 12 skills is too many to try to get one's head around at less than an essay-length post ?

[chewybrian]

Seems like this term refers to a cluster of skills to do with working constructively with other people.

I'm entirely prepared to believe that this is a cluster, meaning that individuals with high levels of one such skill will tend to have high levels of the others.

I'd suggest that most skills can be learnt. And also that for most skills, people's natural aptitude varies. So that when you look at people's different levels of performance on any test of skill, some of the variation will be due to "nature" - talent, aptitude, innate ability - and some will be due to "experience" - the extent to which that skill has been learned and practiced.

One of the questions every teacher should ask is whether there are limits to what can be taught and what can be learned. One school of thought is that there are two things that cannot be taught - motivation and intelligence. Motivation being willingness to learn and intelligence being ability to learn.

So I"m open to the possibility that some people may have high or low Emotional Intelligence (EI) - both innate levels of talent in dealing with and managing one's own emotions and the emotions of others, and the ability to develop these skills.

But am wary of self-help books that urge us to "raise our EQ". If somebody does develop a sound EQ test - a correlation between performance on multiple easy-to-test tasks that is stable over time and correlates well with successful management of emotions in practice - then will that be a measure of aptitude, of innate ability, or of current skill
of levels of performance ?

We can perhaps distinguish cognitive tasks (like playing chess), physical tasks (like riding a bicycle or walking a tightrope) and emotional tasks (? examples?).

But I'm wondering about how far the process of learning itself involves cognitive skills - recognising and conceiving of how and why a particular performance is poor and how to improve it ?

Sorry - that's more about learning in general rather than about the specific skills. But maybe 12 skills is too many to try to get one's head around at less than an essay-length post ?

I feel like it was a big mistake that he initially labelled this 'intelligence' rather than calling it 'emotional wisdom'. I think wisdom can be learned. Intelligence seems to refer to innate skills. However, people with high intelligence can be short on wisdom, and can certainly be short on emotional wisdom.

You triggered me a bit when you said motivation and intelligence can't be taught. I'm autistic with ADHD. What often passes for intelligence comes easy for me. I can see patterns quickly and make predictions when logic rules. However, if you take me to a party, I'll likely spend my time out in the yard playing with the dog instead of trying to navigate the minefield of human interaction. Motivation is mostly lacking for me unless the subject is my special interest, and if it is, then I might be motivated at the expense of anything else that needs doing. These aspects of my brain are pretty well stuck, though medication helps regain a small fraction of the executive function that others take for granted.

My TLDR interpretation of this subject is that we can benefit from learning about our own emotional triggers and recognizing when we are projecting. We can learn to stop expecting others to think as we think and to meet them on neutral ground. I think these skills are like learning the customs of a foreign country to show people that we value and respect them and to encourage them to return the respect to us. I know I was in desperate need of these skills when I was younger, but I didn't understand that many things that came easily for me were very difficult for them, and vice versa. Finally, I began to see that others might have a very different narrative or way of understanding things, and we could both be correct in a sense, or it might be uncertain who was on the right track. Either way, they were often making an effort on their own terms, even if it did not look that way through my own lens of habits and opinions that worked for me.

If the 12 traits are too much, the four core skills might be easier to discuss. It seems to me that these can be learned.

1-Self awareness-the ability to diagnose your own current state at all times

2-Self management-the ability to regulate your emotions, thoughts and behavior; widening the gap between impulse and action.

3-Social awareness-using cognitive empathy to try to see the narrative or world view of the other, using emotional empathy to try to understand their feelings (the impact of the same event for them may be very different than it is for you), and showing concern

4-Relationship management-learning to be a team player, a good coach or mentor

[Pattern-chaser]

I feel like it was a big mistake that he initially labelled this 'intelligence' rather than calling it 'emotional wisdom'. I think wisdom can be learned. Intelligence seems to refer to innate skills. However, people with high intelligence can be short on wisdom, and can certainly be short on emotional wisdom.

Agreed. Particularly about the use of "intelligence" in the phrase "emotional intelligence". It is not intelligence, as I understand it, but something that stands alongside it. Intelligence tends to focus on facts, while EQ focusses on feelings, and the like.

I'm not sure wisdom can be learned, either. I think wisdom is something that, if we are fortunate, comes with age and experience. And so I think both intelligence and wisdom are both "innate skills".

As for the whole topic, yes, I find the idea of EQ informative and useful. Instead of focussing on facts, it is about feelings, and showing care and consideration for others (and having the ability to do so). It is the more human face of facts, which can seem a little mechanical or robotic, and it centres on human values such as (emotional) understanding, care, regard, even love. IMO.

[Nice Tea]

Yes, I agree that it is kind of flawed to call EQ a capability rather than an acquired ability. Being able to relate to others, sense their emotions, and provide emotional support are all parts of empathy, that make you a good person. Calling it an intelligence, I think, is the flawed perceptions that some people can emotionally manipulate others and get people to like them. True empathy and emotional well-being comes from treating others fairly and with kindness as you would to yourself, this balanced way of seeing things is not just helpful in guaranteeing morals but also is a wisdom that people learn with life experience. No one is born with emotional intelligence in my opinion, it is their choices and how they interact with others thoughtfully which comes from a place of wisdom, not a competition of likability at all.

[Sy Borg]

On a basic level, EQ is the ability of a member of a social species to get along with other members of the group. It's especially important for those seeking leadership positions, because they need to gain the support of powerful members of that society who do not give their approval easily. Humans and other species cluster around power, because power holds desirable resources, so leadership is an ultra-social situation, requiring strong EQ. By contrast, a hermit will have no problem if he or she has low levels of EQ. It is a purely social ability.

[Pattern-chaser]

On a basic level, EQ is the ability of a member of a social species to get along with other members of the group. It's especially important for those seeking leadership positions, because they need to gain the support of powerful members of that society who do not give their approval easily. Humans and other species cluster around power, because power holds desirable resources, so leadership is an ultra-social situation, requiring strong EQ. By contrast, a hermit will have no problem if he or she has low levels of EQ. It is a purely social ability.

I don't disagree with any of what you say. But isn't there more to it than this? It seems to me that your description is somewhat 'mechanical', perhaps lacking in the human values that mean so much to us naked apes? I'm commenting on your focus, not disagreeing with you...

[Fanman]

I think that emotional intelligence is one of the faculties within the overarching concept of intelligence. As such, I would argue that it is a facet of our intellectual capabilities. For starters, if we’re talking about understanding and navigating the complex dynamics of relationships and self-awareness, I see it as foundational.

[Sy Borg]

On a basic level, EQ is the ability of a member of a social species to get along with other members of the group. It's especially important for those seeking leadership positions, because they need to gain the support of powerful members of that society who do not give their approval easily. Humans and other species cluster around power, because power holds desirable resources, so leadership is an ultra-social situation, requiring strong EQ. By contrast, a hermit will have no problem if he or she has low levels of EQ. It is a purely social ability.

I don't disagree with any of what you say. But isn't there more to it than this? It seems to me that your description is somewhat 'mechanical', perhaps lacking in the human values that mean so much to us naked apes? I'm commenting on your focus, not disagreeing with you...

Yes, EQ is not only the ability to get along with others, but also to manipulate them.

[Good_Egg]

Being able to relate to others, sense their emotions, and provide emotional support are all parts of empathy, that make you a good person.
...True empathy and emotional well-being comes from treating others fairly and with kindness as you would to yourself...
...this balanced way of seeing things is not just helpful in guaranteeing morals...

I think it's a mistake to identify morality / goodness with the possession of any particular skills / abilities, whether or not they relate to emotions.

[Pattern-chaser]

Being able to relate to others, sense their emotions, and provide emotional support are all parts of empathy, that make you a good person.
...True empathy and emotional well-being comes from treating others fairly and with kindness as you would to yourself...
...this balanced way of seeing things is not just helpful in guaranteeing morals...

I think it's a mistake to identify morality / goodness with the possession of any particular skills / abilities, whether or not they relate to emotions.

Yes. Just as the existence of IQ does not guarantee high 'intelligence', so our invention of "EQ" does not guarantee "morality / goodness". The two are just intended, in this context, as measures of two related, er, qualities.

[Pattern-chaser]

I think that emotional intelligence is one of the faculties within the overarching concept of intelligence. As such, I would argue that it is a facet of our intellectual capabilities. For starters, if we’re talking about understanding and navigating the complex dynamics of relationships and self-awareness, I see it as foundational.

Doesn't this mean that, in your eyes, the idea of "intelligence" does not only include the stuff we all associate with IQ tests, and the like, but it also includes feeling and emotion? This is far beyond/outside any definition of "intelligence" that I have ever encountered.

[Pattern-chaser]

On a basic level, EQ is the ability of a member of a social species to get along with other members of the group. It's especially important for those seeking leadership positions, because they need to gain the support of powerful members of that society who do not give their approval easily. Humans and other species cluster around power, because power holds desirable resources, so leadership is an ultra-social situation, requiring strong EQ. By contrast, a hermit will have no problem if he or she has low levels of EQ. It is a purely social ability.

I don't disagree with any of what you say. But isn't there more to it than this? It seems to me that your description is somewhat 'mechanical', perhaps lacking in the human values that mean so much to us naked apes? I'm commenting on your focus, not disagreeing with you...

Yes, EQ is not only the ability to get along with others, but also to manipulate them.

I have been known to be cynical, or to express cynical views, but even to me, this seems hard. Do you not recognise the, er, softer side of "EQ"?

[Pattern-chaser]

Being emotionally intelligent means being in tune with your emotions and the emotions of others — being able to identify, manage and even anticipate how you or someone else may feel.

Psychologist Daniel Goleman, PhD, coined the term in his 1995 book, Emotional Intelligence: Why It Can Matter More Than IQ.

“To put it plainly and simply, emotional intelligence is the ability to perceive, understand, comprehend and manage emotions,” Dr. Tworek explains. “EQ refers to how you recognize and respond to the emotions of others, as well as how you manage your own emotions and understand how they may be perceived by others.”

The full webpage can be accessed here: "What It Means To Have Emotional Intelligence"

[Fanman]

I think that emotional intelligence is one of the faculties within the overarching concept of intelligence. As such, I would argue that it is a facet of our intellectual capabilities. For starters, if we’re talking about understanding and navigating the complex dynamics of relationships and self-awareness, I see it as foundational.

Doesn't this mean that, in your eyes, the idea of "intelligence" does not only include the stuff we all associate with IQ tests, and the like, but it also includes feeling and emotion? This is far beyond/outside any definition of "intelligence" that I have ever encountered.

Where do you perceive a definition in what I stated?