Emotionally intelligent, or just 'nice'?

[the number 42]

Goleman describes emotional intelligence (EQ) as including self-awareness, self-control, persistence, zeal, and motivation.

Would you rather be higher in IQ or EQ?
Would you be more insulted to be said to be low in IQ or low in EQ?

 

[Dayle Record]

If you have high EQ, then it is not possible to be insulted. If you have high IQ without the complimentary EQ then perhaps you might be out of balance enough to take insult.

 

[the number 42]

If you have high EQ, then it is not possible to be insulted.

I am very tempted to find some high EQ'ers and insult them to test this hypothesis

How about this: Ronald Regan was obviously higher on EQ than IQ.

 

[selfAdjoint]

Isn't the Q in EQ just swank? Is there any even statistical quantitative construction to it?

The Q in IQ stands for quotient, and Intelligence Quotient originally meant a child's "mental age" divided by their physical age. Thus a child with an IQ of 150 and a physical age 10 years would have a "mental age" of 15. But there were problems with the mental age concept, and the Q in IQ is now just a historical artifact, that would be dropped if it weren't for the media. But to extend this mistake in the new direction of EQ smacks of huckterism, if not fraudulence.

 

[sol2]

Isn't the Q in EQ just swank? Is there any even statistical quantitative construction to it?

The Q in IQ stands for quotient, and Intelligence Quotient originally meant a child's "mental age" divided by their physical age. Thus a child with an IQ of 150 and a physical age 10 years would have a "mental age" of 15. But there were problems with the mental age concept, and the Q in IQ is now just a historical artifact, that would be dropped if it weren't for the media. But to extend this mistake in the new direction of EQ smacks of huckterism, if not fraudulence.

I think its one of these times where we might apply a method to reactionary phases and instead of anger being produced, we quickly analyze it to a basis of Parent Child or Adult:)

http://www.businessballs.com/images/transa1.jpg

But let's say we classify this thinking in regards to happiness, and the cultural texture of this effort is being mindful of ones life and situation. The Dalai Lama might have words to say on this structure. I think you might even remember Doc's word on this subject as well.

http://quiz.ivillage.co.uk/uk_work/tests/eqtest.htm

And then of course let us not forget Antonio Damasio on the subject. The Feeling of What Happens, Body and Emotion in the making of Consciousness

"The sense of self depends, he argues, on the brains ability to portray the living organism in the act of relating, to an object. That ability, in turn is a consequence of the brain's involvement in the process of regulating life."

I mean truly, the lessons are quite remarkable if we can re-assess our reactionary phases in relation to the situation. Knowing full well, this experience cannot be changed. It is sealed in memory.

We recognize the ability then, to counter that experience, by corrective actions in the future. That's quite a responsibility, and I do not know many who can rise above the situation with a clear mind (adult). It's refinement of character and is a lifelong struggle for some. I have been working hard with my business counterparts. I think a certain professionalism and etiquette are always important. Like engaging another culture, and being the diplomat?

http://superstringtheory.com/forum/dualboard/messages14/214.html Remember

 

[Moonbear]

I am very tempted to find some high EQ'ers and insult them to test this hypothesis

Well, according to that test SOL2 posted, I have a "higher than average" EQ. Yeah, whatever, the test was like something out of Cosmo: "If you found out your best friend's husband was cheating on her, what would you do?" The real answer, that isn't one of the choices, is there is no right answer! No matter what answer you choose, someone will get mad at you. :yuck:

But if you want to try to insult me to test your theory, have at it! :rofl:

 

[Dayle Record]

A sociopath, with high EQ might not have a problem if her best friend's husband were cheating; especially if she had an attraction to her best friend's husband. The high EQ isn't an ethical test, just a test of nerves.

 

[the number 42]

Isn't the Q in EQ just swank? Is there any even statistical quantitative construction to it?

I think its probably a shallow media-friendly phrase designed to highlight the EQ concept as something of importance comparable to IQ. My knowledge of this area relies wholley on ownership of Goleman's (1995) Emotional Intelligence, but I would guess its proponents might try to emphsise qualitative measurement of it rather than quantitative.

But if you want to try to insult me to test your theory, have at it! :rofl:

Thanks Moonbear. But would you be offended if I insult SOL2 instead? Here goes (clears throat): As Thomas Babington Macauley said of Socrates: "The more I read him, the less I wonder that they poisoned him". Sorry SOL2, this thread is bringing out the worst in me

A sociopath, with high EQ might not have a problem if her best friend's husband were cheating

Point taken, Dayle I would have thought that a sociopath would be very good at seeing the world through the eyes of the other person (in order to con them etc). However, I looked it up in my EQ library and Goleman says that the psychopath has no ability to feel empathy or compassion, so I guess there can be no such thing as a sociopath with a high EQ, by definition.

 

[Moonbear]

A sociopath, with high EQ might not have a problem if her best friend's husband were cheating; especially if she had an attraction to her best friend's husband. The high EQ isn't an ethical test, just a test of nerves.

Oh, the answer choices weren't about things like would it bother you, it was what would you do. For example, would you tell your friend, would you say nothing, would you go to the husband and tell him you knew and give him a chance to confess...there was a fourth answer, but I can't remember it. Whether it bothers you is completely different from how you would handle it.

 

[Moonbear]

Thanks Moonbear. But would you be offended if I insult SOL2 instead? Here goes (clears throat): As Thomas Babington Macauley said of Socrates: "The more I read him, the less I wonder that they poisoned him". Sorry SOL2, this thread is bringing out the worst in me

Awww, that spoils all my fun. Maybe having high EQ doesn't have anything to do with getting insulted, but with not doing things that makes people feel the need to insult you? And here I even asked for it! LOL!

 

[the number 42]

Awww, that spoils all my fun. Maybe having high EQ doesn't have anything to do with getting insulted, but with not doing things that makes people feel the need to insult you? And here I even asked for it! LOL!

Okay Mr Moonbear, don't make me have to be rude to you now, young fellow!

(Just between the two of us, I am worried about publicly lowering my EQ. Can we just take it that under normal circumstances I would have called you a ******* ***** ********, and leave it at that? :tongue2: ).

 

[Moonbear]

Okay Mr Moonbear, don't make me have to be rude to you now, young fellow!

(Just between the two of us, I am worried about publicly lowering my EQ. Can we just take it that under normal circumstances I would have called you a ******* ***** ********, and leave it at that? :tongue2: ).

LOL! Now I'm starting to wonder what it is about a post or nickname that leads one to decide whether someone is more likely to be male or female on a board like this? This is the only forum where I use a gender neutral handle, and it seems everyone jumps to the conclusion I'm male
Unless of course you were doing that intentionally to see if calling me male when you know I'm female would insult me You're right, as soon as you mention EQ in a thread, you wind up doing a lot of second-guessing, not wanting to appear to have a lower EQ. Anyway, thought I'd point out that I'm female, just so you know which pronouns to choose when calling me a ******** ***** ****** :rofl:

 

[selfAdjoint]

And besides, it's physically impossible for a female to ******** *********!

 

[sol2]

gender neutrality?

There are charasteristics I think, that some can be certainty endow with but seriously, can left/right brane be specific

Matter distinctions and continuity might have their issues, but they are both addressing the problem

Imagine defining such association in Matriarchial and Patriarchial relationships. I mean it throws a whole new light on, "M"

 

[the number 42]

Dear Miss Moonbear, ...No - ignore that bit and let's start again.

Dear Moonbear,

I have such a high EQ that see all humanity as sharing a common spirit and am capable only of considering terms such as 'fellow' and 'Mr' as gender-neutral.

...No, that doesn't make sense. Ignore that bit, I was clutching at straws there.


Hey, Mooners!
I have looked in 'Emotional Intelligence' for inspiration here. Goleman mentions a program for delinquint kids, where they were taught, for example, to "see how some of the social cues they interpreted as hostile were in fact neutral or friendly" (p. 238).

Tax payers money to teach hooligans the obvious? I say bring back the birch.

(Agh! Forget that last bit too...).

 

[Moonbear]

LOL! Nice try :-)

I used to have an English instructor who was really nitpicky about using he/she or worse, s/he, as pronouns when you were being general. I was adamant that I used "he" in entirely a gender-neutral context and it's socieity's problem that it's not acceptable. But, since my instructor controlled the grades, he won that argument. Pbbbt!

Anyway, I know I do that on boards too, guess at the gender of someone posting when it hasn't been stated, or, for that matter, guess a lot about them...age, what they look like...I have this whole picture in my mind of each poster. But I guess it could be related to EQ as the way we project our own feelings, emotions, views, etc into how we read someone else's words.

 

[the number 42]

Anyway, I know I do that on boards too, guess at the gender of someone posting when it hasn't been stated, or, for that matter, guess a lot about them...age, what they look like...I have this whole picture in my mind of each poster. But I guess it could be related to EQ as the way we project our own feelings, emotions, views, etc into how we read someone else's words.

Interesting idea. That would be a bit of a challenge, trying to guess people's physical characteristics from their postings, and would probably involve some flexing of EQ. I might even have proposed it as a game of sorts, but I have just seen a MASSIVE thread on member's photos in general discussion., which makes it somewhat redundant.

I reckon I'd have found it easy though, being a girl.

(Go on, take the bait :tongue2: )

 

[Tigers2B1]

Well here's an idea --------- is emotional intelligence saying and doing the money and/or status socially accepted 'thingy' at the right time and place only --- as I understand the EQ concept implies --- or could it also include inappropriate and highly emotional behavior? Sometimes "sanely inappropriate" behavior relates to poetry or visual art or music or with Nature -- No? For example – I've seen emotionally stable folks who understand social rules --------- but also have the emotional itch to post poetry on a Physics Board. Always putting the social brakes on here. :)

 

[Moonbear]

I'm not sure I entirely understand your point, but I take it you're asking about something like: once you have mastered the rules, you're able to break the rules?

 

[the number 42]

is emotional intelligence saying and doing the money and/or status socially accepted 'thingy' at the right time and place

I get the drift. This sounds like what's called being a 'high self-monitor' i.e. knowing how to fit into your surroundings and social mores, whatever they happen to be. This, as opposed to a 'low self-monitor', who is more true to themselves but less socially adept.

I looked in Goleman's EI again, and the HSM concept isn't listed. But I think someone who was constantly a HSMer might be a tad too like Woody Allen's Zelig i.e. stuck in chameleon mode. I reckon a bit of self-expression is good, even if it puts you in the minority. Otherwise there can be a tendency for people not to rock the boat, and for 'evil to triumph because good people do nothing'. Of course belching at the high point in a wedding ceremony probably doesn't count, but I could be wrong - I'll look it up.

 

[selfAdjoint]

I hadn't heard that self-monitor line before. We used to call it other-directed and inner-directed, and those bygone days, inner-directed (your low-self-monitor) was thought good, even essential to a democracy, and people worried about the future with its hordes of other-directed company men. Well, we're in that future now!

 

[the number 42]

...people worried about the future with its hordes of other-directed company men. Well, we're in that future now!

Thank you selfAdjoint - proof that we should always listen to our elders. I guess this means that Goleman is soon to expound the merits of Emotional Cretinism - I can't wait

I probably also shows how some of these psychological 'truths' are really little more than fashions that reflect social trends.

 

[Tigers2B1]

I'm not sure I entirely understand your point, but I take it you're asking about something like: once you have mastered the rules, you're able to break the rules?

Well let's see. I understand that this is an EQ thread on a Physics Board. Most might think that posting even a beautiful poem like the one below - is pretty socially odd considering the context. I understand that. But what the heck -- we're all human and what's so wrong with breaking out unexpectedly in humanness every now and then?


Death of a Son (who died in a mental hospital aged one), By Jon Silkin

Something has ceased to come along with me.
Something like a person: something very like one.
And there was no nobility in it
Or anything like that.

Something was there like a one year
Old house, dumb as stone. While the near buildings
Sang like birds and laughed
Understanding the pact

They were to have with silence. But he
Neither sang nor laughed. He did not bless silence
Like bread, with words.
He did not forsake silence.

But rather, like a house in mourning
Kept the eye turned into watch the silence while
The other houses like birds
Sang around him.

And the breathing silence neither
Moved nor was still.

I have seen stones: I have seen brick
But this house was made up of neither bricks nor stone
But a house of flesh and blood
With flesh of stone

And bricks for blood. A house
Of stones and blood in breathing silence with the other
Birds singing crazy on its chimneys.
But this was silence,

This was something else, this was
Hearing and speaking though he was a house drawn
Into silence, this was
Something religious in his silence,

Something shining in his quiet,
This was different this was altogether something else:
Though he never spoke, this
Was something to do with death.

And then slowly the eye stopped looking
Inward. The silence rose and became still.
The look turned to the outer place and stopped,
With the birds still shrilling around him.
And as if he could speak

He turned over on his side with his one year
Red as a wound
He turned over as if he could be sorry for this
And out of his eyes two great tears rolled, like stones,
and he died.

 

[Tigers2B1]

I hope my strange -- emotionally unintelligent post didn't scare off people --

 

[the number 42]

Its hard to know what to say when presented with something as intense as that poem. I guess saying nothing can be seen as giving someone space to deal with their feelings (emotionally intelligent) or being a bit at a loss for something to say (the number 42).

 

[recon]

LOL. My principal has this poster in her office that says that EQ is more important than IQ. In my opinion, EQ is just an invention of people who score low at IQ tests as morale boosters. At least that is the feeling that my EQ-loving friends and teachers give me.

 

[the number 42]

EQ is just an invention of people who score low at IQ tests as morale boosters.

Recon, I want to give you such a big hug. But I will restrain myself and instead pose two questions:

If we can accept that EQ and IQ are separate abilities,

1/ What would be a cerebrally intelligent response to your statement, and
2/ What would be an emotionally intelligent response to your statement?

 

[selfAdjoint]

Recon, I want to give you such a big hug. But I will restrain myself and instead pose two questions:

If we can accept that EQ and IQ are separate abilities,

1/ What would be a cerebrally intelligent response to your statement, and
2/ What would be an emotionally intelligent response to your statement?

1/I will restrain myself and instead pose two questions

2/I want to give you such a big hug

 

[Moonbear]

Well, with that attitude, I can see why you'd get that opinion. It's still a little fuzzy what exactly EQ is, but I don't think one is more important than the other. My impression has been that the point being made is you need both to be highly successful. I guess it's just a way of saying that it doesn't matter how smart you are if nobody can stand to be around you long enough to hear what you have to say.

 

[the number 42]

Well, with that attitude, I can see why you'd get that opinion. ... it doesn't matter how smart you are if nobody can stand to be around you long enough to hear what you have to say.

Is this a coded way of saying that you'd like to give Recon just the biggest hug? Or a knee in the goodies, perhaps?

I think its time we had a group hug. Come on now everyone, reach out, cuddle your monitor now, that's it...

Now, doesn't that feel better? Still want to knee Recon in the goodies?

 

[selfAdjoint]

IMHO there are a lot more things than IQ and EQ in getting along in a job or in life. Street smarts (fluid g) are important, and I've noticed that skill at cards doesn't always correlate with IQ. The only thing I know from studies is that IQ is more important than your daddy's social standing or the amount of money your family had. Up to a point, that is. If daddy was very very rich then all bets are off.

 

[loseyourname]

I wonder what the stats are on US presidents. Dubya seems to have a fairly low IQ, but a very rich father. IIRC, Clinton has a pretty high IQ. What about his father?

 

[the number 42]

Hmm, given that most of the presidents are deceased, the question arises of whether you can get someone to take an IQ test through a medium. Could be an interesting sitting.

There was a spoof list of American presidents' IQ's a couple of years ago at
http://www.linkydinky.com/BushIQ.shtml

"147 Franklin D. Roosevelt (D)
132 Harry Truman (D)
122 Dwight D. Eisenhower (R)
174 John F. Kennedy (D)
126 Lyndon B. Johnson (D)
155 Richard M. Nixon (R)
121 Gerald Ford (R)
175 James E. Carter (D)
105 Ronald Reagan (R)
098 George HW Bush (R)
182 William J. Clinton (D)
091 George W. Bush (R)

The six Republican presidents of the past 50 years had an average IQ of 115.5, with President Nixon having the highest IQ, at 155".

I think the idea was just to have a go at Bush. Which makes it okay then, really.

However, where is the list of presidents' EQ's? I don't know how much he minds being considered relatively dim, but I bet Bush would care very little if someone called his EQ into question. In fact he may well think EQ is for vegetarians and girls with pigtails.

 

[franznietzsche]

Point taken, Dayle I would have thought that a sociopath would be very good at seeing the world through the eyes of the other person (in order to con them etc). However, I looked it up in my EQ library and Goleman says that the psychopath has no ability to feel empathy or compassion, so I guess there can be no such thing as a sociopath with a high EQ, by definition.

Edit: Nvm, on further research it seems i was mistaken in my statement.

 

[the number 42]

Edit: Nvm, on further research it seems i was mistaken in my statement.

Rule 1: There is no room for error on this thread, Sonny Jim. :tongue2:
The punishment for breaking Rule 1 is to join in the 'American Freedom' thread in 'Politics and General Fanaticism' for 3 days.

By the way, can I take it that Franznietzsche and Dayle Record are one and the same person? If so, you must spend SIX days on the above thread.

How do you like THEM apples, mister mistake maker? Hmmm?

(I think the book says it is a sign of emotional intelligence to punish mistakes swiflty and with brute force. Or that might be a different book. Dunno).