[QatzelOk]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emotional_intelligence

The term "emotional intelligence" became mainstream in college dorms in the late 90s. It was mainly introduced to explain why people of ordinary intelligence (or less) do better economically than the more intelligent.

The way is was explained is that the ability to "recognize the emotions of others" and to react to them in a way that is profitable... is a form of intelligence that is worthy of praise and respect.

One possible problem with this PC-era neologism is that it combines two things (IQ and emotional reactions) that are really not similar and are usually thought of as being "in opposition" to one another. Reacting emotionally to an event is NOT the same thing as analyzing it. And keeping the two separate is, in my opinion, very important.

I mean, if the gangsters who sell drugs and run prostitution rings in illegal after-hours bars in your town don't seem very bright, well, it's because their super-intelligence is of the "emotional" kind. Likewise, the bully who always ends up with your lunch money. Emotionally intelligent?

Could it be that the less intelligent do better financially because they don't understand the damage that financial competition does to everyone around them including themselves?

https://www.google.ca/webhp?sourceid=ch ... s+bullshit

[quetzalcoatl]

Could it be that the less intelligent do better financially because they don't understand the damage that financial competition does to everyone around them including themselves?

It could, in certain cases. But it's not usually Vinnie the Bouncer that rises to the top of a criminal enterprise. It is usually somebody like Al Capone, who combines management skills with an ability to 'read' other people's weaknesses.

I don't really know what to call this, but you're right that emotional intelligence isn't it. I do know someone that has an uncanny ability to read emotions through body language, voice patterns, etc. Fortunately, she's not a criminal mastermind or CEO.

[One Degree]

I believe emotional intelligence refers to the ability to empathize in a manner that allows you to base decisions on their reactions. This is superior to analyzing past actions and anticipating the same emotions. Statistics are not capable of determining what empathy can. They take many more variables into consideration without realizing they are actually doing it. A form of non-linear thinking perhaps.

[jakell]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emotional_intelligence

The term "emotional intelligence" became mainstream in college dorms in the late 90s. It was mainly introduced to explain why people of ordinary intelligence (or less) do better economically than the more intelligent.

The way is was explained is that the ability to "recognize the emotions of others" and to react to them in a way that is profitable... is a form of intelligence that is worthy of praise and respect.

One possible problem with this PC-era neologism is that it combines two things (IQ and emotional reactions) that are really not similar and are usually thought of as being "in opposition" to one another. Reacting emotionally to an event is NOT the same thing as analyzing it. And keeping the two separate is, in my opinion, very important.

I mean, if the gangsters who sell drugs and run prostitution rings in illegal after-hours bars in your town don't seem very bright, well, it's because their super-intelligence is of the "emotional" kind. Likewise, the bully who always ends up with your lunch money. Emotionally intelligent?

Could it be that the less intelligent do better financially because they don't understand the damage that financial competition does to everyone around them including themselves?

https://www.google.ca/webhp?sourceid=ch ... s+bullshit

I'm not sure that 'emotional intelligence' is solely about the manipulation of others, nor is it solely about financial or material gain as you stress here. The manipulation of others is best achieved via cold psychopathy and a lack of empathy, ie through a lack of emotional complexity and concentrating on a few basic powerful drives. Understanding these latter does not take a lot of brainpower, just observation and ruthlessness.

Emotional intelligence, if it is to deserve the tag 'intelligence', would be about complexity and nuance as well as seeing these mirrored in oneself too.

[Thompson_NCL]

I did an EQ test once and scored very highly, which at the time I couldn't wrap my head around as I don't think of myself as emotionally expressive. But when it was explained to me, the score did actually make sense because I am pretty good at reading people and when it comes to finding liars I'm as good as a blood hound.

Unfortunately I reduced two of my female colleagues to tears during break out discussions, both of who had very low EQ scores. Not intentionally, I was just... less emotional about the issues we discussed and they got upset.

[One Degree]

I did an EQ test once and scored very highly, which at the time I couldn't wrap my head around as I don't think of myself as emotionally expressive. But when it was explained to me, the score did actually make sense because I am pretty good at reading people and when it comes to finding liars I'm as good as a blood hound.

Curious. I am not an emotional person either, but believe I am a very good judge of character. I thought it was due to my 'street smarts', but perhaps the lack of emotion makes it easier to see the emotions of others?

[Drlee]

I think your entire premise is flawed. People with lower IQ's do not do better. There are hundreds of tests showing a positive correlation between higher IQ and financial and other kinds of success.

From Forbes: IS IQ a predictor of success?

As the question is stated, the answer is simply "yes".

If you take a "real" IQ test (see comments below), then the result is a strong statistical predictor of multiple future life outcomes - income, education level, health, even longevity. There are hundreds of studies that confirm these correlations. So in that sense, it "predicts" your future "success".


http://www.forbes.com/sites/quora/2015/09/16/is-iq-a-predictor-of-success/#e585b255ddcc

Read the article before you respond. It is short.

So anyway. People with lower IQ's do not do better.

I am suspicious of EQ. More specifically I am concerned about the validity of testing something like EQ

[One Degree]

I am suspicious of EQ. More specifically I am concerned about the validity of testing something like EQ

I agree. I don't see how you could test for it. Everything in our memories is stored with the emotion we felt at the time. Our emotions are intertwined with everything we know. They can not be separated and measured.

[QatzelOk]

I think your entire premise is flawed. People with lower IQ's do not do better. There are hundreds of tests showing a positive correlation between higher IQ and financial and other kinds of success.
...
Read the article before you respond. It is short.

I read the article. It doesn't offer any more substance than your post, referring (like you do) to all those studies out there... somewhere... that we don't even have to analyze.

The Forbes article also asks you to reconsider what intelligence means (like Emotional Intelligence-promoters do) and to take a "real IQ" test. This is Tautology 101. "It's true because look, I provided a chart and a poll and talked about some studies."

[youtube]J0kra86l41s[/youtube]
I think Kevin O'Leary is an example of a successful businessman/media personality, who has a lot of emotional intelligence.

In the 3-minute video interview, he says that he waited to join the PC leadership race... to weed out the contenders (emotional intelligence). But in fact, he waited until the French-language candidate-debate was over because... he doesn't speak French (IQ).

With EQ, he can "read" the intelligence of the average Canadian, and he adjusts his message accordingly. Like a used car salesman does (reading emotions) while selling you a lemon.

[Besoeker]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emotional_intelligence

The term "emotional intelligence" became mainstream in college dorms in the late 90s. It was mainly introduced to explain why people of ordinary intelligence (or less) do better economically than the more intelligent.

The way is was explained is that the ability to "recognize the emotions of others" and to react to them in a way that is profitable... is a form of intelligence that is worthy of praise and respect.

One possible problem with this PC-era neologism is that it combines two things (IQ and emotional reactions) that are really not similar and are usually thought of as being "in opposition" to one another. Reacting emotionally to an event is NOT the same thing as analyzing it. And keeping the two separate is, in my opinion, very important.

I mean, if the gangsters who sell drugs and run prostitution rings in illegal after-hours bars in your town don't seem very bright, well, it's because their super-intelligence is of the "emotional" kind. Likewise, the bully who always ends up with your lunch money. Emotionally intelligent?

Could it be that the less intelligent do better financially because they don't understand the damage that financial competition does to everyone around them including themselves?

https://www.google.ca/webhp?sourceid=ch ... s+bullshit

Isn't that intelligence about the emotions of others?

[Drlee]

Good Lord Quatz. Post your evidence. You puked out some nonsense and then offer nothing in defense.

[jakell]

I think your entire premise is flawed. People with lower IQ's do not do better. There are hundreds of tests showing a positive correlation between higher IQ and financial and other kinds of success.

I think there's probably a 'sweet spot' in the IQ range where one does better in a particular environment.

A very high IQ might lead one to be distant and geeky, possibly too concerned with abstractions that lead one away from everyday interactions with 'regular' folks, and a low one means you probably don't get to enter the game in the first place.
That 'sweet spot' could be pretty wide though.

[Besoeker]

I think there's probably a 'sweet spot' in the IQ range where one does better in a particular environment.

A very high IQ might lead one to be distant and geeky, possibly too concerned with abstractions that lead one away from everyday interactions with 'regular' folks, and a low one means you probably don't get to enter the game in the first place.
That 'sweet spot' could be pretty wide though.

If indeed it even exists. And, if wide, it isn't a spot.
But let that pass.

I don't think IQ alone is a reliable measure for determining success.

[Drlee]

Drop the word "alone" and you are wrong.

The APA has repeatedly reported correlation between IQ and grades, job performance and even social adjustment. It is undisputable that high IQ is significantly predictive of success in academia. For example.

The average IQ of a MD, JD or PHD is 125. (WAIS 1987)

a college graduate is 112.
High School grad 100
Dropouts 85

Professional technical jobs - 112
Unskilled labor 85

I am not going to get into a shit storm about this. There are arguments against IQ as a predictor. They simply are not supported by the data.

But a serious question. Why do you care? There is no "merit" in a high IQ. If you really understand what it means you will also understand why few psychologists or psychometrics folks favor telling young people what their IQ's are.

Finally. If you hang around a bunch of people who you know for a fact have very high IQ's you can see the difference in an instant. One-on-one, not so much. If you are even remotely interested in learning more about this stuff I will be happy to post on it. I will not waste time arguing with someone Googling some obscure study.

[MistyTiger]

I think that testing for EQ is like testing for Social Skills or common sense. It tests how well people can "think on their feet", figuratively speaking.

The last time I took such a test was 10 years ago? It was awhile back and I scored a little lower than average and I think it was due to the fact that I was absorbed in books and I failed to notice much about social cues or body language of those around me. I think that these days I am a lot better and I do not need a test to tell me if I suck at Social Skills or not. I know that I am not the most outgoing person or the life of the party and that is fine by me. I like to do the behind-the-scenes work.

[One Degree]

What is the purpose of such a test? Are we now going to decide which personality type is the best one and discourage all others? Hopefully this is just being used for job placement?

[jakell]

What is the purpose of such a test? Are we now going to decide which personality type is the best one and discourage all others? Hopefully this is just being used for job placement?

An obsession with measuring stuff just for the sake of it and an expression of the feeling that science (etc) is the new philosophy that will lead mankind into a bright new future.

Of course, a degree of measurement is necessary to get a handle on some things, but here I'm talking about it becoming part of a belief system.

[MistyTiger]

Some service sector jobs like Sears, give job applicants some type of emotional intelligence test. I even heard that at usajobs.gov, they have over 100 questions for people to answer if they want to start working for the US Visa Center. Now that is painful. They try to word the same question in different ways. I forget the specifics. I just remember helping someone to answer a lot of the questions. It gave me a headache.

[QatzelOk]

The average IQ of a MD, JD or PHD is 125. (WAIS 1987)

a college graduate is 112.
High School grad 100
Dropouts 85

Professional technical jobs - 112
Unskilled labor 85

There is nothing about income attainment in these figures. High school grad tar sands workers bring in far more than most eggheads do. Of course, it's more fun to talk to eggheads if you're smart, but you'll make more money throwing back brewskies with rig operators.

I think there's probably a 'sweet spot' in the IQ range where one does better in a particular environment.

A very high IQ might lead one to be distant and geeky, possibly too concerned with abstractions that lead one away from everyday interactions with 'regular' folks, and a low one means you probably don't get to enter the game in the first place.
That 'sweet spot' could be pretty wide though.

This is one explanation.

Another is that the 1% (who inherit money and power) don't reward people who are smarter than themselves, preferring to give the big bucks to slightly dumb people who they can ultimately control.

Another advantage of slightly-dumb workers is that they "take more chances," especially with other people's lives. This also appeals to our insatiable one percenters.

[QatzelOk]

double post