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

[Pattern-chaser]

It seems from other contributions that I have misunderstood what EQ is. It seems to be a much more work-oriented thing than I had realised. More robotic work-unit, and far fewer human feelings and emotions. In which case, I request a new acronym, please, to refer to the latter? To act as a balancing counterpoint to IQ and EQ.

[Sy Borg]

Yes, you have misunderstood what EQ is. It's not about feelings per se. Feelings can lead people to very emotionally unintelligent actions. EI is about the regulation, and understanding, of feelings, not being a bleeding-heart virtue signaller.

[Pattern-chaser]

Yes, you have misunderstood what EQ is. It's not about feelings per se. Feelings can lead people to very emotionally unintelligent actions. EI is about the regulation, and understanding, of feelings, not being a bleeding-heart virtue signaller.

That's strange. It places a different emphasis on EQ than others do. For example,

What It Means To Have Emotional Intelligence

The higher your EQ, the more in touch you are with your feelings, as well as other people’s

Link to full article.

And Wikipedia too:

Emotional intelligence (EI), also known as emotional quotient (EQ), is the ability to perceive, use, understand, manage, and handle emotions. High emotional intelligence includes emotional recognition of emotions of the self and others, using emotional information to guide thinking and behavior, discerning between and labeling of different feelings, and adjusting emotions to adapt to environments. This includes emotional literacy.

Link to full article.



No, I'm not saying I was right all along. But I am saying that there are strong elements of my apparent misunderstanding in these accounts by others. And none that I can find see the need for ad hom references to the arguments of those with whom they disagree, like "bleeding-heart virtue signaller".

It seems that EQ is about care and consideration for others, in the sense of empathy, sympathy, and the like. It seems I went wrong by not realising that it is this, but it's a fair amount more too.

Do I have it roughly right now, do you think? [Addressed to all readers, not just Sy Borg.]

[Sy Borg]

You don't have to be in touch with your feelings, you need to be aware of them. It doesn't mean being bogged down in touchy-feely virtue signalling. It means being aware of the emotional climate, your own, the emotions around you, and how they intersect.

Since you linked to Wiki:

includes emotional recognition of emotions of the self and others, using emotional information to guide thinking and behavior, discerning between and labeling of different feelings, and adjusting emotions to adapt to environments. This includes emotional literacy.

[Pattern-chaser]

You don't have to be in touch with your feelings, you need to be aware of them. It doesn't mean being bogged down in touchy-feely virtue signalling. It means being aware of the emotional climate, your own, the emotions around you, and how they intersect.

Again, you refer to "virtue signalling".

Virtue signalling is the act of expressing opinions or stances that align with popular moral values, often through social media, with the intent of demonstrating one's good character. The term virtue signalling is frequently used pejoratively to suggest that the person is more concerned with appearing virtuous than with actually supporting the cause or belief in question.

In other words, and in part, someone who indulges in virtue signalling is (at best) insincere. So are you asserting that EQ does or should include such descriptions, that many will understand as confrontational insults? Is that really what it's like to be "aware of them" (one's feelings)?

For myself, I do not behave with insincerity, and I do not claim beliefs that I do not hold.

[Sy Borg]

You don't have to be in touch with your feelings, you need to be aware of them. It doesn't mean being bogged down in touchy-feely virtue signalling. It means being aware of the emotional climate, your own, the emotions around you, and how they intersect.

Again, you refer to "virtue signalling".

Virtue signalling is the act of expressing opinions or stances that align with popular moral values, often through social media, with the intent of demonstrating one's good character. The term virtue signalling is frequently used pejoratively to suggest that the person is more concerned with appearing virtuous than with actually supporting the cause or belief in question.

In other words, and in part, someone who indulges in virtue signalling is (at best) insincere. So are you asserting that EQ does or should include such descriptions, that many will understand as confrontational insults? Is that really what it's like to be "aware of them" (one's feelings)?

For myself, I do not behave with insincerity, and I do not claim beliefs that I do not hold.

Claims of being empathetic and virtue signalling are often closely related. Many who virtue signal don't even realise they are doing it, the habit is so engrained. They believe that they are being a good person by being a champagne socialist and "speaking up" for [x] group. No, the are posturing, claiming moral high ground while lambasting can-do people who actually do a great deal to help others, far beyond mere pontificating.

[Pattern-chaser]

You don't have to be in touch with your feelings, you need to be aware of them. It doesn't mean being bogged down in touchy-feely virtue signalling. It means being aware of the emotional climate, your own, the emotions around you, and how they intersect.

Again, you refer to "virtue signalling".

Virtue signalling is the act of expressing opinions or stances that align with popular moral values, often through social media, with the intent of demonstrating one's good character. The term virtue signalling is frequently used pejoratively to suggest that the person is more concerned with appearing virtuous than with actually supporting the cause or belief in question.

In other words, and in part, someone who indulges in virtue signalling is (at best) insincere. So are you asserting that EQ does or should include such descriptions, that many will understand as confrontational insults? Is that really what it's like to be "aware of them" (one's feelings)?

For myself, I do not behave with insincerity, and I do not claim beliefs that I do not hold.

Claims of being empathetic and virtue signalling are often closely related. Many who virtue signal don't even realise they are doing it, the habit is so engrained. They believe that they are being a good person by being a champagne socialist and "speaking up" for [x] group. No, the are posturing, claiming moral high ground while lambasting can-do people who actually do a great deal to help others, far beyond mere pontificating.

I wasn't asking for yet more hateful vitriol toward those who adopt positions and opinions for fashion reasons. I was hoping instead for your opinion of the questions I asked:

So are you asserting that EQ does or should include such descriptions, that many will understand as confrontational insults? Is that really what it's like to be "aware of them" (one's feelings)?

[Sy Borg]

You don't have to be in touch with your feelings, you need to be aware of them. It doesn't mean being bogged down in touchy-feely virtue signalling. It means being aware of the emotional climate, your own, the emotions around you, and how they intersect.

Again, you refer to "virtue signalling".

Virtue signalling is the act of expressing opinions or stances that align with popular moral values, often through social media, with the intent of demonstrating one's good character. The term virtue signalling is frequently used pejoratively to suggest that the person is more concerned with appearing virtuous than with actually supporting the cause or belief in question.

In other words, and in part, someone who indulges in virtue signalling is (at best) insincere. So are you asserting that EQ does or should include such descriptions, that many will understand as confrontational insults? Is that really what it's like to be "aware of them" (one's feelings)?

For myself, I do not behave with insincerity, and I do not claim beliefs that I do not hold.

Claims of being empathetic and virtue signalling are often closely related. Many who virtue signal don't even realise they are doing it, the habit is so engrained. They believe that they are being a good person by being a champagne socialist and "speaking up" for [x] group. No, the are posturing, claiming moral high ground while lambasting can-do people who actually do a great deal to help others, far beyond mere pontificating.

I wasn't asking for yet more hateful vitriol toward those who adopt positions and opinions for fashion reasons. I was hoping instead for your opinion of the questions I asked:

So are you asserting that EQ does or should include such descriptions, that many will understand as confrontational insults? Is that really what it's like to be "aware of them" (one's feelings)?

"Hateful vitriol"? No, I'm just observing personal dynamics, how a lot of people seek moral brownie points for talking the talk but without walking the walk. I know, I did it in the past too.

Meanwhile, falsely calling Musk "evil" was actually pretty hateful. He is obviously not a Nazi of any kind, and his support for a different political party to your own does not make him evil, just different.

As for EQ, it refers to one's capacity to understand emotions, both one's own emotions and those of others. Like any form of intelligence, emotional intelligence is a power that can be used for good or ill.

[Pattern-chaser]

"Hateful vitriol"? No, I'm just observing personal dynamics, how a lot of people seek moral brownie points for talking the talk but without walking the walk. I know, I did it in the past too.

In everyday discourse, the people who accuse others of virtue signalling are often not interested in doing real moral analysis – mostly, they want to discredit their political opponents. My allies are heroically rallying for a just cause, people on the other side are virtue signalling.

In the US, even mask wearing has been branded by some as virtue signalling — signifying to progressives a serious approach to public health but to the right an over-reaction amid political culture wars. Indeed the term can sometimes say more about the person who wields it than its ostensible target.

“Virtue signalling” joins other right-wing slurs like libtards, bleeding hearts, snowflakes, and social justice warriors.

It is a cousin of accusations of political correctness. In their apparent sermonising and moral outrage against racism, sexual harassment, climate change and more, progressives are viewed as emotional and weak, or accused of being sanctimonious.

Ironically, wielding the term sometimes serves as virtue signalling in itself. By calling out virtue signalling, the speaker publicly claims the moral high ground.

The term is often used as an ad hominem attack — a charge that dismisses an argument based on the character of the presenter, not the argument itself.

Maybe people do behave this way. But not everyone agrees with your analysis, as we can see, above. No, these quotes are not from 'authorities', just people who've given the matter some thought. They're there because they say it a great deal better than I could, so I nicked their words instead of making my own mess of it.

I would like to know how widerspread such behaviour is. I searched for that information, but could find nothing. There's plenty of stuff written about virtue signalling, but I can find no indication at all that anyone has tried to find out if people do it. And if so, how many and how often?

[Sy Borg]

"Hateful vitriol"? No, I'm just observing personal dynamics, how a lot of people seek moral brownie points for talking the talk but without walking the walk. I know, I did it in the past too.

In everyday discourse, the people who accuse others of virtue signalling are often not interested in doing real moral analysis – mostly, they want to discredit their political opponents. My allies are heroically rallying for a just cause, people on the other side are virtue signalling.

In the US, even mask wearing has been branded by some as virtue signalling — signifying to progressives a serious approach to public health but to the right an over-reaction amid political culture wars. Indeed the term can sometimes say more about the person who wields it than its ostensible target.

“Virtue signalling” joins other right-wing slurs like libtards, bleeding hearts, snowflakes, and social justice warriors.

It is a cousin of accusations of political correctness. In their apparent sermonising and moral outrage against racism, sexual harassment, climate change and more, progressives are viewed as emotional and weak, or accused of being sanctimonious.

Ironically, wielding the term sometimes serves as virtue signalling in itself. By calling out virtue signalling, the speaker publicly claims the moral high ground.

The term is often used as an ad hominem attack — a charge that dismisses an argument based on the character of the presenter, not the argument itself.

Maybe people do behave this way. But not everyone agrees with your analysis, as we can see, above. No, these quotes are not from 'authorities', just people who've given the matter some thought. They're there because they say it a great deal better than I could, so I nicked their words instead of making my own mess of it.

I would like to know how widerspread such behaviour is. I searched for that information, but could find nothing. There's plenty of stuff written about virtue signalling, but I can find no indication at all that anyone has tried to find out if people do it. And if so, how many and how often?

I made my point and would rather speak about emotional intelligence than address your need to fight what you deem to be a political enemy.

Avoid virtue signalling, don't play the victim and just be straight up with me, and then all will be well.

[Pattern-chaser]

Avoid virtue signalling, don't play the victim and just be straight up with me, and then all will be well.

Yet another ad hom. I have always done what you suggest I should do.

I aim to communicate with honesty, clarity, and courtesy. And, though I say so myself, I don't do badly at it.

You seem to have a real problem with anyone who does not use your world-model and/or world-view. To the extent that, when you have no argument to offer, you hand out insults instead. I don't think this makes your position stronger, or that it makes it *appear* stronger, either. Quite the opposite.

[Good_Egg]

It seems that EQ is about care and consideration for others, in the sense of empathy, sympathy, and the like. It seems I went wrong by not realising that it is this, but it's a fair amount more too.

Do I have it roughly right now, do you think? [Addressed to all readers, not just Sy Borg.]

Sorry PC, I think you're reading into it something (an assertion of value?) that isn't there.

You have a value-system that tends to value feeling over thinking, and tend to equate virtue with caring about others' feelings - what you might call the soft virtue of kindness.

It's true that it's hard to care about others' feelings if you do not perceive them.

But perceiving the emotions of self and others while it may be necessary for kindness, is not itself kindness and is not sufficient for kindness.

Perceiving more of what is there is a good thing. But just as it can be used for kindness, it can be used for cruelty, or for morally neutral ends such as efficiency at work. And also used to inform judgment as to when kindness is appropriate (e.g. to recognise when someone else is being emotionally manipulative).

[Sy Borg]

Avoid virtue signalling, don't play the victim and just be straight up with me, and then all will be well.

Yet another ad hom. I have always done what you suggest I should do.

I aim to communicate with honesty, clarity, and courtesy. And, though I say so myself, I don't do badly at it.

You seem to have a real problem with anyone who does not use your world-model and/or world-view. To the extent that, when you have no argument to offer, you hand out insults instead. I don't think this makes your position stronger, or that it makes it *appear* stronger, either. Quite the opposite.

YOU are the one who cannot tolerate those with different world views. You called Musk "evil". That is a nasty and inappropriate ad hominem. And why did you call him that? Because his politics are not the same as yours. No other reason. Then you have the unmitigated hide to say that I abuse those who disagree with me!

The arguments I have offered have had far more substance than your focus on sentiment. Emotional intelligence is a strength - and strengths can be used for good or ill. Those who indulge their sentimentality are not necessarily emotionally intelligent, just emotionally labile.

[Pattern-chaser]

It seems that EQ is about care and consideration for others, in the sense of empathy, sympathy, and the like. It seems I went wrong by not realising that it is this, but it's a fair amount more too.

Do I have it roughly right now, do you think? [Addressed to all readers, not just Sy Borg.]

Sorry PC, I think you're reading into it something (an assertion of value?) that isn't there.

So I was wrong, and EQ is *only* about those other things, described in previous posts? Is the touchy-feely stuff just not part of EQ at all? Or is that not what you're saying?

You have a value-system that tends to value feeling over thinking, and tend to equate virtue with caring about others' feelings - what you might call the soft virtue of kindness.

I have a "value-system" that finds value in feeling, and in thinking too. But I do not value one "over" the other. This would require a comparison where comparison is inappropriate, maybe even impossible. If we follow that route, don't we end up with a philosophy built on a foundation of invalid comparisons of things that are not sufficiently associated to make a meaningful comparison possible? It's like comparing tea and toast with space shuttles — how do we even *do* that?

It's true that I value kindness too, and consider it virtuous. "Soft virtue"? I'm not quite sure what's meant by that.

It's true that it's hard to care about others' feelings if you do not perceive them.

But perceiving the emotions of self and others while it may be necessary for kindness, is not itself kindness and is not sufficient for kindness.

Perceiving more of what is there is a good thing. But just as it can be used for kindness, it can be used for cruelty, or for morally neutral ends such as efficiency at work. And also used to inform judgment as to when kindness is appropriate (e.g. to recognise when someone else is being emotionally manipulative).

I wonder why you always see fit to introduce the situations where some human abuses something that benefits most? Yes, people are, or can be, manipulative. But is that a useful part of a discussion about EQ? Or is it just like 'benefit cheats', where most play by the rules, but a few do not? This argument doesn't devalue or invalidate the benefit, so what good does that do us?

[Pattern-chaser]

You called Musk "evil". That is a nasty and inappropriate ad hominem.

I don't remember saying that. And I just searched for it, but could find nothing. Nevertheless, it is something I *could* have said, although if I did, then I should probably have phrased it in more neutral terms, as you suggest.

And why did you call him that? Because his politics are not the same as yours. No other reason.

Musk appears to lack any sympathy or fellow feeling toward other humans. His job as DOGE is destroying the lives of hundreds or thousands of families, as he fires those whose contribution does not contribute directly to this quarter's results. No allowance for the future. Etc. I disapprove not because our politics are different, but because of the effects on real humans of his actions.