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

[Fanman]

Pattern-chaser,

I did not intend to create a definition of emotional intelligence explicitly or implicitly. As such, I will not discuss this perspective with you any further. However, if you want to discuss something else, I'm more than happy to do so.

[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.

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"?

I did ... "getting along with others". How does one get along with others? How do you elicit cooperation? Usually by being cooperative.

[chewybrian]

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"?

This is a problem or surprise that I have encountered in almost all my attempts at philosophy. I have a destination in mind as I begin that is not necessarily where the train stops. I expect philosophy to tell me that I should want to be a good person, to tell me how to do so and why. I expect exposure to philosophy to reveal our flaws to us and to encourage us to fix them and make a better world and be happier.

However, when we come up with anything useful, someone will weaponize it. We made airplanes, and soon after we were dropping bombs on people from the sky. Similarly, philosophy and psychology can be weaponized.

So, for example, when I learned of cognitive bias, I was quite excited at the prospect of seeing through the biases and getting closer to objective truth. I soon realized with horror that: many folks had no knowledge of cognitive bias and saw little value in learning about it, and some folks saw the value in the concept as a method for using and abusing others.

Similarly, my instinct is to see learning about emotional intelligence as a means to treating others better, respecting them more, and helping both myself and others have a better time. Yet, I have to admit that it's not hard to see how someone could learn these skills as a means to taking advantage of others.

[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.

Where do you perceive a definition in what I stated?

OK, not "definition", but "description".

I felt compelled to comment when you include EQ within "intelligence" when the term was actually invented for the purpose of balancing intelligence, and offering an equally-significant and important complement: EQ, including all those feelings and emotions that matter so much to humans...

[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"?

I did ... "getting along with others". How does one get along with others? How do you elicit cooperation? Usually by being cooperative.

In the context of your other words, this doesn't seem to fit. You seem more on the side of the view that chewybrian describes:

However, when we come up with anything useful, someone will weaponize it. We made airplanes, and soon after we were dropping bombs on people from the sky. Similarly, philosophy and psychology can be weaponized.

EQ is about feelings and emotions, and deep, visceral, stuff like that. It is about care, even about love, and all that soppy imprecise and uncertain stuff. It's a complement to IQ, another side of our mental existence. A side which, to humans, is no less important than any other perspective.

"Who cares, wins" is not a throwaway motto. To me, it's a way of life. Or at least, it's an aspiration to aim for. I'll get there one day... Maybe.

[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?

OK, not "definition", but "description".

I felt compelled to comment when you include EQ within "intelligence" when the term was actually invented for the purpose of balancing intelligence, and offering an equally-significant and important complement: EQ, including all those feelings and emotions that matter so much to humans...

If you disagree with me to the seeming extent that you do (absolutely). Why not state why in your own words, based on what I have said?

[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.

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"?

I did ... "getting along with others". How does one get along with others? How do you elicit cooperation? Usually by being cooperative.

In the context of your other words, this doesn't seem to fit. You seem more on the side of the view that chewybrian describes:

However, when we come up with anything useful, someone will weaponize it. We made airplanes, and soon after we were dropping bombs on people from the sky. Similarly, philosophy and psychology can be weaponized.

EQ is about feelings and emotions, and deep, visceral, stuff like that. It is about care, even about love, and all that soppy imprecise and uncertain stuff. It's a complement to IQ, another side of our mental existence. A side which, to humans, is no less important than any other perspective.

"Who cares, wins" is not a throwaway motto. To me, it's a way of life. Or at least, it's an aspiration to aim for. I'll get there one day... Maybe. 😉

That's off beam. My post is a simple statement of fact. You seem to think that EQ is about sentimentality. It's not.

EQ is about managing one's emotions for effective outcomes, while sentimentality is more about immersing oneself in emotions. EQ requires rational judgement, whereas sentimentality focuses more on subjective, even idealised feelings.

A high EQ society tailors emotional responses to situations, using empathy and understanding. Sentimentality can lead to disproportionate responses.

You speak as if emotionalism was an unfettered good. No, like intelligence, EQ can be used for good or ill, which I think was Brian's point.

It should also be noted that a lot of emotion online is virtue signalling, people pretending that their "good" views makes them a good person, but with no intention of doing anything about it, aside from virtue signalling on the streets.

I still see my initial statement (bolded above) as reasonable. Your misunderstanding does not invalidate it.

[Pattern-chaser]

I felt compelled to comment when you include EQ within "intelligence" when the term was actually invented for the purpose of balancing intelligence, and offering an equally-significant and important complement: EQ, including all those feelings and emotions that matter so much to humans...

If you disagree with me to the seeming extent that you do (absolutely). Why not state why in your own words, based on what I have said?

I don't disagree with you "absolutely". I disagree with your inclusion of EQ *within* "intelligence", when the term "EQ" was *invented* to complement "intelligence", so that all the other human mental qualities could also be appreciated. Otherwise, we would have just carried on discounting and dismissing all things mental, save only intelligence.

And I already said that, but not in so much detail.

To bury EQ inside intelligence is to oppose the very reason why the term (EQ) was invented and defined. This is just about the term. It makes no other contribution to this topic, I'm afraid.

[Fanman]

I felt compelled to comment when you include EQ within "intelligence" when the term was actually invented for the purpose of balancing intelligence, and offering an equally-significant and important complement: EQ, including all those feelings and emotions that matter so much to humans...

If you disagree with me to the seeming extent that you do (absolutely). Why not state why in your own words, based on what I have said?

I don't disagree with you "absolutely". I disagree with your inclusion of EQ *within* "intelligence", when the term "EQ" was *invented* to complement "intelligence", so that all the other human mental qualities could also be appreciated. Otherwise, we would have just carried on discounting and dismissing all things mental, save only intelligence.

And I already said that, but not in so much detail.

To bury EQ inside intelligence is to oppose the very reason why the term (EQ) was invented and defined. This is just about the term. It makes no other contribution to this topic, I'm afraid.

I'm sorry we don't see eye to eye. Sometimes that is the way of things. However, one of the brilliant things about philosophy is that as long as what we say is logical (within reason), we are on the right path/track. Respecting that notion, I will stick with what I have stated concerning your latest reply. As yet, I do perceive a valid reason for an assent to a claim that what I stated is illogical - If you would like to discuss my statements (on a logical basis). Then I am happy to engage with you. But if you plan to continue to appeal to authorities. Then I have no interest, as I like to hear people's genuine thoughts and opinions.

[Sy Borg]

I felt compelled to comment when you include EQ within "intelligence" when the term was actually invented for the purpose of balancing intelligence, and offering an equally-significant and important complement: EQ, including all those feelings and emotions that matter so much to humans... 😉

If you disagree with me to the seeming extent that you do (absolutely). Why not state why in your own words, based on what I have said?

I don't disagree with you "absolutely". I disagree with your inclusion of EQ *within* "intelligence", when the term "EQ" was *invented* to complement "intelligence", so that all the other human mental qualities could also be appreciated. Otherwise, we would have just carried on discounting and dismissing all things mental, save only intelligence.

And I already said that, but not in so much detail.

To bury EQ inside intelligence is to oppose the very reason why the term (EQ) was invented and defined. This is just about the term. It makes no other contribution to this topic, I'm afraid.

I'm sorry we don't see eye to eye. Sometimes that is the way of things. However, one of the brilliant things about philosophy is that as long as what we say is logical (within reason), we are on the right path/track. Respecting that notion, I will stick with what I have stated concerning your latest reply. As yet, I do perceive a valid reason for an assent to a claim that what I stated is illogical - If you would like to discuss my statements (on a logical basis). Then I am happy to engage with you. But if you plan to continue to appeal to authorities. Then I have no interest, as I like to hear people's genuine thoughts and opinions. 🙏🏾

PC has made it clear that he sees EQ as the same as sentimentality, which ignores how one may strategically use their high level EQ to benefit themselves seems not to register. It's as if he thinks marketers, politicians, executives, writers, actors, artists and activists don't intelligently leverage their knowledge of human responses to their own benefit.

I will grant that unintelligent people can display high EQ through instinct but that is just a form of raw intelligence that is passed down genetically and shaped by conditioning.

[Pattern-chaser]

I'm sorry we don't see eye to eye. Sometimes that is the way of things. However, one of the brilliant things about philosophy is that as long as what we say is logical (within reason), we are on the right path/track. Respecting that notion, I will stick with what I have stated concerning your latest reply. As yet, I do perceive a valid reason for an assent to a claim that what I stated is illogical - If you would like to discuss my statements (on a logical basis). Then I am happy to engage with you. But if you plan to continue to appeal to authorities. Then I have no interest, as I like to hear people's genuine thoughts and opinions.

Nothing you've said is illogical, that I have noticed. I merely question your redefinition of the terms EQ and intelligence, to mix them up, when the only reason for the invention of the term "EQ" was to consider mental aspects of humanity that are outside what we usually call "intelligence". Your redefinition undoes the very raison d'être of the term "EQ", and the concepts and ideas that go with it. That seems to undermine this topic and the discussion taking place here.

[Pattern-chaser]

History

The concept of emotional strength was introduced by Abraham Maslow in the 1950s.[5] The term "emotional intelligence" may have first appeared in a 1964 paper by Michael Beldoch[6][7] and a 1966 paper by B. Leuner.[8]

In 1983, Howard Gardner's Frames of Mind: The Theory of Multiple Intelligences introduced the idea that traditional types of intelligence, such as IQ, fail to fully explain cognitive ability.[9] He introduced the idea of multiple intelligences, which included both interpersonal intelligence and intrapersonal intelligence, which he respectively defined as the capacity to understand others and oneself.[10]

The first published use of the term EQ (emotional quotient) is in an article by Keith Beasley in 1987 in the British Mensa magazine.[11]

In 1989, Stanley Greenspan proposed a model to describe EI. The following year, Peter Salovey and John Mayer proposed another model.[12]

The term became widely known with the publication of Daniel Goleman's 1995 book: Emotional Intelligence – Why it can matter more than IQ.[13][14] Goleman followed up with several similar publications that reinforce use of the term.[15][16] Late in 1998, Goleman's Harvard Business Review article entitled "What Makes a Leader?"[17] caught the attention of senior management at Johnson & Johnson's Consumer Companies. The article argued that EI comprised the skills and characteristics that drive leadership performance.[17] Johnson & Johnson funded a study which concluded that there was a strong relationship between superior performing leaders and emotional competence, supporting theorists' suggestions that the EI is a distinguishing factor in leadership performance.[18]

Tests measuring EI have not replaced IQ tests as a standard metric of intelligence.[19] In later research, EI has received criticism regarding its purported role in leadership and business success.[20]

Goleman, D. (1995). Emotional intelligence. Bantam Books, Inc.

Abstract

Is IQ destiny? Not nearly as much as we think. Daniel Goleman's . . . book argues that our view of human intelligence is far too narrow, ignoring a crucial range of abilities that matter immensely in terms of how we do in life.

Drawing on . . . brain and behavioral research, Goleman shows the factors at work when people of high IQ flounder and those of modest IQ do surprisingly well. These factors add up to a different way of being smart—one he terms "emotional intelligence." Emotional intelligence includes self-awareness and impulse control, persistence, zeal and self-motivation, empathy and social deftness.

As Goleman demonstrates, the personal costs of deficits in emotional intelligence can range from problems in marriage and parenting to poor physical health. . . . Lack of emotional intelligence can sabotage the intellect and ruin careers. Perhaps the greatest toll is on children, for whom risks include depression, eating disorders and unwanted pregnancy, aggressiveness and violent crime.

But the news is hopeful. Emotional intelligence is not fixed at birth. Goleman's argument is based on a . . . synthesis of current research, including new insights into the brain architecture underlying emotion and rationality. He shows precisely how emotional intelligence can be nurtured and strengthened in all of us.

(PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2016 APA, all rights reserved)

[Pattern-chaser]

PC has made it clear that he sees EQ as the same as sentimentality...

PC has done no such thing. Binary thinking (see below).

...which ignores how one may strategically use their high level EQ to benefit themselves seems not to register. It's as if he thinks marketers, politicians, executives, writers, actors, artists and activists don't intelligently leverage their knowledge of human responses to their own benefit.

Why do you think that a soft and cosy human perspective on this precludes any other perspective? Binary thinking at its very worst. If you're unsure that X is TRUE, that *must* mean that you think X is FALSE. No!!! For a start, the answer could be "maybe", or any one of the near-infinite number of other possibilities.

As it happens, PC is making it clear that both of these observations seem reasonable, perhaps useful, and maybe even true!

[LuckyR]

Huh? I always thought EQ related to concepts such as delayed gratification that contribute to better personal decision making, with only peripheral improvement in social situations.

[Fanman]

I felt compelled to comment when you include EQ within "intelligence" when the term was actually invented for the purpose of balancing intelligence, and offering an equally-significant and important complement: EQ, including all those feelings and emotions that matter so much to humans...

If you disagree with me to the seeming extent that you do (absolutely). Why not state why in your own words, based on what I have said?

I don't disagree with you "absolutely". I disagree with your inclusion of EQ *within* "intelligence", when the term "EQ" was *invented* to complement "intelligence", so that all the other human mental qualities could also be appreciated. Otherwise, we would have just carried on discounting and dismissing all things mental, save only intelligence.

And I already said that, but not in so much detail.

To bury EQ inside intelligence is to oppose the very reason why the term (EQ) was invented and defined. This is just about the term. It makes no other contribution to this topic, I'm afraid.

I'm sorry we don't see eye to eye. Sometimes that is the way of things. However, one of the brilliant things about philosophy is that as long as what we say is logical (within reason), we are on the right path/track. Respecting that notion, I will stick with what I have stated concerning your latest reply. As yet, I do perceive a valid reason for an assent to a claim that what I stated is illogical - If you would like to discuss my statements (on a logical basis). Then I am happy to engage with you. But if you plan to continue to appeal to authorities. Then I have no interest, as I like to hear people's genuine thoughts and opinions.

PC has made it clear that he sees EQ as the same as sentimentality, which ignores how one may strategically use their high level EQ to benefit themselves seems not to register. It's as if he thinks marketers, politicians, executives, writers, actors, artists and activists don't intelligently leverage their knowledge of human responses to their own benefit.

I will grant that unintelligent people can display high EQ through instinct but that is just a form of raw intelligence that is passed down genetically and shaped by conditioning.

Pc's contributions aside, I agree with you on the uses of emotional intelligence. I am unsure if it is passed down genetically; however, I can see some validity in the idea. One of my customers at work runs a family business that requires a strong artistic touch. Spanning four generations, their son also has artistic capabilities, so it seems that gifts, skills, and talents can be passed on genetically. I also agree with you that EQ is shaped by conditioning.