![]() |
emotional intelligence
http://www.danielgoleman.info/blog/t...-intelligence/
I've been reading this book, Emotional Intelligence, and I find it fascinating. It's everything I've been thinking about people, grades, other forms of intelligence besides the purely intellectual. how it relates to me: The k-12 system (I'm currently a senior) tends to put you in a room and bash you on the head with purely intellectual concepts such as just about all the academic classes in high schools (exception being social science but it's not a required class). At least in my high school, Weston MA, most students eventually come to only care about grades and they become increasingly obedient as they move up the chains in the k-12 grade system. Less imagination is used and we are taught to conform and obey like little drones. We learn to take a huge range of concepts and simplify it as much as possible, almost never the other way around. This is what the big corporations want, little drones who obey without question, little factory workers and sorters who don't understand what he or she want in life. Albert Einstein once said "Imagination is more important than knowledge". of course the book touches upon a lot more aspects of life then this, the main point of the book is that emotional intelligence is more important than intellectual intelligence and that the two different life skills are indepedent of each other. There are people with lower IQ's that "succeed" in society while people with higher IQ's "don't succeed" (succeed as in ultimately do what they want in life, what makes them happy, not necessarily the most respected job or the biggest home) because emotional intelligence is not shown in the IQ, IQ really is a very small part of life. Emotional Intelligence, the book, states that Intellectual ability is 20% and emotional intelligence is 80% of influence in life's successes. It sure made me feel happy that someone else in the world thinks about intelligence in a similar way that I do. Anyone else ever heard or read this book? Any thoughts? |
Re: emotional intelligence
so what exactly is emotional intelligence and how is it defined?
|
Re: emotional intelligence
emotional intelligence is a term that describes the ability, capacity, skill or a self-perceived ability, to identify, assess, and manage the emotions of one's self, of others, and of groups
|
Re: emotional intelligence
This is something I couldn't agree with more. Having the ability to successfully analyze the mood and setting of ones environment, makes you an incredibly intelligent person in it's own retrospect. Some people are completely lacking in this area, and from experience, use their intellect to cover up their flaws in this area. Awesome. I might get this book.
|
Re: emotional intelligence
I've read plenty of books about the subject, and I think it's all pretty fascinating, but I also think that the concept is horribly overblown. Intelligence is merely your ability to think rationally, learn, conceptualize, etc. You can apply it to various things, including emotions -- which derive from your own hardwiring. People tend to forget that the ability to perform "emotional" skills like empathy require intellectualized, rational thought. It's just that people choose to apply intellect to different things. You'll also notice plenty of intelligent people who are also very "emotionally" intelligent because they too understand how rationalization fits into the whole picture.
This is also different from how the education system is structured -- I just think it sucks altogether because there's too much fact-memorization and plug-and-chug taught rather than critical thought, asking the right questions, and tackling problems dynamically. Of course, to do that you need very good teachers, which is never guaranteed. Saying that one type of intelligence is more important than the other is a little suspect, especially with ratios like 80% and 20%. If our world were run by "emotional intelligence," we'd have pretty **** progression. Whether or not most people realize it, many favorable aspects to life are the result of rational thought and "booksmart" intelligence. Social skills do help traverse the social structure we've set up that encapsulates our economy, cultural progression, career choices, education, etc, and so there's no denying that they're important for utility purposes. But I'd say that to say "emotional intelligence is more important" is a bit misleading. They're both important for different reasons. |
Re: emotional intelligence
Quote:
I read somewhere when I was reading about classifications of intelligence that some people think there is a sort of "success intelligence" - that is, being smart enough to do everything you need to do, to aspire, to create and follow goals, and so on. None of these things are covered on an IQ test, and they certainly play a very large role in whether or not you succeed, yet emotional intelligence has nothing to do with them whatsoever. By the way, emotional intelligence is intellectual ability. |
Re: emotional intelligence
My english skills doesn't let me formulate an appropriate post to this thread. :(
The subject is great, but I can't "translate" my thoughts to english, too many things. |
Re: emotional intelligence
glad to hear from some people, Tokzic nice thoughts, definitely getting me to think differently.
|
Re: emotional intelligence
Well what I tend to find is that those who tout "emotional intelligence" as superior are usually doing so because they're inept at academics and need an excuse to claim that what they're bad at doesn't matter.
The truth is that being able to think rationally will undoubtedly get you far in life in terms of career/academics, but there's no denying that being good with people is essential if you plan on holding a career, which will undoubtedly involve other people. Either way, being able to hold healthy relationships requires the same sort of intellectualized, rational approaches that any other skill or subject calls for. |
Re: emotional intelligence
Quote:
|
Re: emotional intelligence
Quote:
|
Re: emotional intelligence
Quote:
Slightly more relevant is in school. I take from your examples of grades that you are suggesting that a teacher would value a students work when they put a large amount of effort into it more than that of a much more intelligent student who threw together a very beautiful work with less effort. This is also not always true, obviously depending entirely upon the gearing of the instructor grading the work, but chances are the greater work would be rewarded more than that of the high effort with a poor result. My point in this is that the result is just as important and often times more important than the level of effort put out in the process. |
Re: emotional intelligence
I agree doing well academically in school is important. What I mean is a person who gets A's in academic classes is not necessarily the person the society likes the most and sometimes they don't even end up being "successful" (successful is not necessarilly having the highest paying job, the biggest house etc.) after school. We like the nice people, the people good at communicating, the people willing to help others for others, not for his or herself. Sometimes that is the person who gets straight A's, and sometimes it isn't.
I'm open to others opinions and ideas on this, if I feel you presented me better evidence for otherwise, I'll change my opinion. |
Re: emotional intelligence
Quote:
I think that so many things call for teamwork such that it's important to be emotionally aware and understanding of the psychology and underlying relationship dynamics, and so to some extent I do think that being good with people opens more doors for you, but again, you have to be able to deliver on skill, which is harder to come by. |
Re: emotional intelligence
your right.
values change from individual to individual |
Re: emotional intelligence
Rubix pretty much covered most everything I was about to say.
Quote:
As for being successful, there's never a concrete way to say whether or not someone will be or not. Perhaps someone with only average IQ/EQ has a revolutionary idea, or perhaps someone is just lucky and pushes himself/herself to the top. However, the general trend is that people with at least average EQ or IQ and an incredible measure of the other one do really well in real life. The rest of this is a crosspost from KBO: I think you guys have some misconceptions. There are some points in here that are valid, most definitely, but many of the ideas you have brought forth are actually not true. Quote:
However, it is impossible to assign percentages like you have here. 80%/20% might be applicable to a janitor, but for a physicist, you would obviously need to have much more IQ. It's all conditional. Part of EQ/IQ is being able to figure out how much EQ/IQ you actually need for each circumstance and being able to adequately adjust to your surroundings. So while your general concept is correct, you're misguided about the importance of each. Quote:
First of all, school has no influence over a person's EQ/IQ level. School only enters information into our brains, but computing power resides in the person itself and nothing else. In fact, your EQ/IQ level is mostly determined by genes and interaction at home. The fact that you blame the school for this is completely inaccurate. However, as a senior, I'm sure you indeed have taken a few courses that in fact do "limit your creativity." However, these courses are only found in the upper levels, and are debatable. From K-8, there should be almost no dispute that the education is at the very least adequate enough to endorse creativity while learning new concepts. High school, once again, is debatable. The problem with the education system in this country is not that it limits your creativity. In fact, we are actually pretty well off. We have tons of resources. The only problem is that these resources are being wasted, and the system is not personalized enough. There's actually nothing wrong with the teaching. The teaching is fine. On that note, enough about the education system. That's a completely different topic altogether. |
Re: emotional intelligence
Quote:
Academics are important for a career requiring them to whatever extent that they're necessary. That same career could also require a certain degree of "emotional intelligence". People boasting intellectual intelligence to be greater, can be doing so because they lack the emotional intelligence that others do, and likewise, this can be reversed. To say either one is greater or more important is futile, because certain careers don't require certain things and can produce just as much money, ultimately leading to the success and happiness you'll achieve in the end. |
Re: emotional intelligence
Ah, I can see how you got confused reading that. I meant the opposite of how you perceived it. You said "if I can't get good grades aka have a poor work ethic nobody will care." And I was simply disagreeing.
|
Re: emotional intelligence
For any job you can provide an example for where you can earn 100K from "emotional intelligence," I can give you hundreds where skills and brains win out. It's not impossible to succeed with crappy grades/etc, but it's certainly a lot harder.
I also want to make a distinction: Getting a job through family connections doesn't have anything to do with emotional intelligence. If you're good at BS'ing your way through an interview though even if you're devoid of skill, then emotional intelligence would help in this regard -- of course, don't expect to get promoted much if you're actually an underperformer. Rational/academic intelligence is the primary driving force that keeps our world advancing -- "emotional intelligence" merely greases the wheels and acts as a way to advertise your underlying assets. Of course, you need the assets to advertise to get anywhere. |
Re: emotional intelligence
Quote:
Also, I don't remember saying anything about family connections. I'm loving this presumptuous attitude. Can't help but feel like everything you've said surrounding the emotional intelligence area, has been biased and likewise, condescending towards it's importance and value. |
Re: emotional intelligence
Quote:
And yes, I never said you mentioned anything about family connections because, as far as I can tell, I am the one who brought it up, lol -- what's your point? |
Re: emotional intelligence
Quote:
Forgive me, I was under the impression that your -random- mentioning of connections( in your case family connections), had something to do with my mentioning of friends having connections for a 100k+ job not requiring academic credentials. |
Re: emotional intelligence
Quote:
Quote:
|
Re: emotional intelligence
I've found that what has been said in this thread has been helpful in progressing the topic at least up to post #24. Rubix's and stargroup's opinions are more deeply thought out than mine I admit.
|
Re: emotional intelligence
Feel-to have a particular sensation or impression of
Feeling-a sentiment; attitude; opinion I went on to say that this is the feeling I get. I never said "you ARE...etc". Excuse my confusing tone. I can see it's made discerning from what is, and is not to be somewhat difficult on your behalf. Most understandable. Tis' the dilemma we sometimes face while posting on the internet. |
Re: emotional intelligence
emotional intelligence seems like an interesting concept but very badly developed, reading this thread. a borderline-but-not-so-much-pseudo-scientific speculation about something that most people have experienced is not something i'd call an interesting read, but a starting point for further analisys for sure it is.
|
Re: emotional intelligence
I know I'm a bit late getting in on this topic, but whatever.
Maybe EI vaguely exists and maybe it could be important, but I can make a very good argument for why we can't measure it, which means that as a psychometric property (such as IQ), it's an entirely useless construct, and that it's not actually an intelligence. Tests that currently measure EI do not show high reliability or validity of measurement. Actually, many tests of EI do not measure what they are supposed to measure. One particular study showed the highest loading factor being measured on classic EI tests, e.g. MSCEIT, is conformity. That is, people that score high in this supposed 'emotional intelligence' just conform well to standards and norms. They're the robots that do whatever they're told, as referenced by the thread creator. Other studies have shown that high scores on EI tests do not have external validity. E.g. you might have high knowledge of emotionality and how to respond in various situations, but that does not translate to actually behaving that way in real life. People tend to respond in ways which are socially desirable, not ways in which they actually behave. This makes it just about impossible to ever develop a valid model of EI that can testable. Also, because of these things, we shouldn't be calling it an 'intelligence' to begin with, because it goes against the standard definition of what an intelligence is. EI is really just IQ - cognitive capacity for complexity - applied to a single domain - emotions. It is not an intelligence, but a skill. An intelligence is a natural ability to grasp complexity and abstraction; it is what you do when you do not know what to do. Dealing with emotions is highly culturally and socially dependent and is something that you learn to do - it is not an innate capacity. So yes, the capacity to deal with people and their emotions is integral with respect to social interaction, which is obviously related to success in life, since success largely depends on how well you can kiss ass. This, however, is a learned ability and not an intelligence, and it is doubtful we would ever be able to measure it reliably. |
Re: emotional intelligence
essencially EI will always be based on society
|
| All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:05 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright FlashFlashRevolution