Emotionally intelligent, or just 'nice'?

  • Thread starter Thread starter the number 42
  • Start date Start date
Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The forum discussion centers on the concept of Emotional Intelligence (EQ) as defined by Daniel Goleman, which encompasses self-awareness, self-control, persistence, zeal, and motivation. Participants debate the comparative value of IQ versus EQ, suggesting that high EQ individuals may be less susceptible to insult and better at navigating social situations. The conversation also critiques the quantification of EQ, questioning its validity and comparing it to the historical context of IQ. References to Goleman's work and the implications of EQ in real-life scenarios, such as interpersonal relationships and professional conduct, are highlighted.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of Emotional Intelligence as defined by Daniel Goleman
  • Familiarity with the concept of Intelligence Quotient (IQ)
  • Knowledge of social dynamics and interpersonal communication
  • Awareness of psychological theories related to empathy and emotional regulation
NEXT STEPS
  • Research Goleman's 1995 book "Emotional Intelligence" for foundational concepts
  • Explore the psychological implications of high EQ in professional settings
  • Investigate the validity of EQ assessments and their methodologies
  • Learn about the role of empathy in emotional intelligence and its impact on relationships
USEFUL FOR

This discussion is beneficial for psychologists, educators, human resource professionals, and anyone interested in enhancing their emotional intelligence and interpersonal skills.

  • #31
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.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #32
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?
 
  • #33
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.
 
  • #34
the number 42 said:
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.
 
Last edited:
  • #35
franznietzsche said:
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. :-p
The punishment for breaking Rule 1 is to join in the 'American Freedom' thread in 'Politics and General Fanaticism' for 3 days. :eek:

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. :eek: :eek:

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

(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).
 
  • #36
In a report published Monday, the Lovenstein Institute of Scranton,

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)

Number 2, this is a fake study. Several people I know have researched this so-called "Lovenstein Institute" and determined it does not exist, nor has ever existed. But of course, you seem to allude to this fact anyway, but I find it curious why you posted the list.

Nixon's IQ is almost assuredly the highest on that list, yet they have Clinton at 182. Come on, 182? Excuse me if I view the list with a bit of incredulity when it proclaims Clinton has an IQ as rare as 1 in a billion. That means only 6 people are alive that are as smart as Clinton.
 
Last edited:
  • #37
Tasthius said:
Number 2, this is a fake study. ... you seem to allude to this fact anyway, but I find it curious why you posted the list.

Apologies, Tasthius, for not making myself clearer. In the UK "spoof" unambiguously means 'humourous send-up' or 'satirical'. It may well be that in other parts of the world it has different meanings.

And I can understand why you are curious as to my motives. I did a google for a list of presidents' IQs, and I could find nothing except for the bogus list. But thinking it might be a bit of fun, I posted it on PF. On the other hand I realize that there is always a danger that spurious facts can linger in the memory, and seem to gain legitimacy over time. And I should search my conscience over how much I didn't mind if this happened, seeing as it was directed against Bush.

Thanks for pointing this out. I doubt that I will post or quote any bogus info in future, or at least without making it very very clear that it is not to be taken literally.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
2K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
8K
Replies
24
Views
4K
  • · Replies 60 ·
3
Replies
60
Views
10K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 37 ·
2
Replies
37
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 20 ·
Replies
20
Views
4K
  • · Replies 40 ·
2
Replies
40
Views
26K
  • · Replies 41 ·
2
Replies
41
Views
7K