Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Emotionally intelligent, or just 'nice'?

  1. Jun 9, 2004 #1
    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?
  2. jcsd
  3. Jun 9, 2004 #2
    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.
  4. Jun 10, 2004 #3
    I am very tempted to find some high EQ'ers and insult them to test this hypothesis :devil:

    How about this: Ronald Regan was obviously higher on EQ than IQ.
  5. Jun 10, 2004 #4


    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Gold Member
    Dearly Missed

    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.
  6. Jun 10, 2004 #5
    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:)


    But lets 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.


    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

    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). :smile: 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 [Broken] Remember :smile:
    Last edited by a moderator: May 1, 2017
  7. Jun 10, 2004 #6


    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    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:
  8. Jun 10, 2004 #7
    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.
  9. Jun 11, 2004 #8
    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.

    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 :redface:

    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.
  10. Jun 11, 2004 #9


    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    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.
  11. Jun 11, 2004 #10


    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    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? :cool: And here I even asked for it! LOL!
  12. Jun 12, 2004 #11
    Okay Mr Moonbear, don't make me have to be rude to you now, young fellow! :smile:

    (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: ).
  13. Jun 13, 2004 #12


    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    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
    :eek: Unless of course you were doing that intentionally to see if calling me male when you know I'm female would insult me :confused: 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:
  14. Jun 13, 2004 #13


    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Gold Member
    Dearly Missed

    And besides, it's physically impossible for a female to ******** *********!
  15. Jun 13, 2004 #14
    gender neutrality?

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

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

    Imagine defining such association in Matriarchial and Patriarchial relationships. I mean it throws a whole new light on, "M" :biggrin:
  16. Jun 14, 2004 #15
    Dear Miss Moonbear, ....No - ignore that bit and lets 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...).
  17. Jun 16, 2004 #16


    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    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.
  18. Jun 20, 2004 #17
    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: )
  19. Jun 20, 2004 #18
    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. :)
  20. Jun 20, 2004 #19


    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    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?
  21. Jun 21, 2004 #20
    I get the drift. This sounds like what's called being a 'high self-monitor' i.e. knowing how to fit in to 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.
  22. Jun 21, 2004 #21


    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Gold Member
    Dearly Missed

    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!
  23. Jun 21, 2004 #22
    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 :biggrin:

    I probably also shows how some of these psychological 'truths' are really little more than fashions that reflect social trends.
  24. Jun 24, 2004 #23
    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 in to 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.
  25. Jun 28, 2004 #24
    I hope my strange -- emotionally unintelligent post didn't scare off people -- :redface:
  26. Jun 29, 2004 #25
    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).
Share this great discussion with others via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook