I agree with many positions this man takes, except one. He believes emotional intelligence is an erroneous study. However, I disagree. Emotional intelligence is clearly the practice of empathy. It entails both self awareness of ones emotional state and that of others. This recognition and apllication software is built of strictly the empathetic state. The Big Five falls flat because you can condition any person to morph their mentality. For example, the say things like: low neuroticism = not easily offended versus high neuroticism = will hold a grudge. We all know with behavioral inspection (introspection, therapy, rehabilitation etc.) people can easily change these traits over time. I am an example of this incongruity, I consider my self highly neurotic, i am prone to hold judgement on a person in my head but im also very quick to ignore what happened and forgive as soon as possible giving people multiple chances, even though psychologically i am completely apprehensive of exposing myself to more damage. Overtime, i got comfortable with this transition (i became christian). I've met many individuals with high thinking capacity but i kid you not, MANY of them were socially or emotionally retarded in comparison to lower frequency thinkers. Its almost as if the two different types of thinkers place values on specfic things that the other doesnt, (scoring high grades vs achieving high social status). Whats your stance on emotional intelligence Veeky Forums?
Emotional Intelligence
Other urls found in this thread:
youtube.com
google.com
nature.com
onlinelibrary.wiley.com
twitter.com
come on Veeky Forums engage in discourse
tl;dr but i just wanna say peterson is great 95% of the time except for his christfagging
Stance on emotional intelligence concerning what exactly?
Are you asking if I like it? Have it? Whether i think it exists? Whether it can be studied? Whether it is a practice of just empathy or something else as well?
I am asking if you think it is an actual capacity in its own right or is it just a byproduct of what is considered traditional intelligence. I gave my reasons as too why i think its separate. I would like your opinion from any angle, I just would like to hear what people think on the subject
just read it user, its not even long
...
that is correct, an immovable truth which the foundation of all eternal knowledge, the first mover, the first cause, the one who is not contingent on the universe. how do know that everything you "know" will change in its validity in the time to come. everything you ever knew about anything you ever knew could change in a flash of a moment, dont be arrogant user
cringe
Veeky Forums join the discussion !
Peterson is garbage
Both of these
Op you made this thread to talk about you, not to have discourse on different forms of intelligence.
While there certainly is a type of intelligence that is suited to exploit human social interaction, it's pretty much entirely acquired and different between niches/cliques/cultures.
If you were somehow able to identify what makes an emotional quotient, I think you would find it simply boils down to experience and practice, unlike IQ, which is pretty static. I think EI arises from cues and patterns you understand, formed by interacting with people and successfully empathizing with. I think the cues and patterns you are able to empathize with in some people may have entirely different meanings for other people, and thus Emotional intelligence is pointless to quantify like IQ.
I don't like Peterson but you're retarded.
If only Peterson didn't ironically contradict himself when he said wisdom is not equal to intelligence. Which is completely true. Intelligence is completely different from Wisdom. Wisdom = Emotional Intelligence. EI would not be quantified like a numerical value but a consistency percentage perhaps. Some people while knowing the correct action to procced with in any social situation still pick the wrong one 8/10 times. Introspection and the extent of a person's virtue is an internal capacity which invloves decision making, if you do not wish to call it explicitly intelligence, then use another time but this is a valid position. Don't be so arrogant next time, sweet heart.
dealing with standard calculation or problem solving is linear, with only one spefic answer, the approach to a social situation or emotional maneourving is much more open ended and fluid/volatile endeavour, the psychology of every person differes and reacts differently to nuanced delvieries of speech and recognition of words, the ability to astutely observe and a person and extroplate from thier state to get the desired social outcome is an extremely powerful too, which is something completely outside of traditional intelligence, such as self control, love, empathy etc. these aren't logical sources, but are arbitrarily found to be superior methods of living
>Some people while knowing the correct action to procced with in any social situation still pick the wrong one 8/10 times.
What?
Also "Introspection and the extent of a person's virtue is an internal capacity"
what? do you even have examples of that?
ok i get you are trolling now, gj
you decide which manner of action to take within yourself, making it an internal contemplation then an external execution you pseud, if i said thinking capacity that would have inflamed your terminology regiment to exclaim "thats not intelligence bro!" relax you taint sniffer, do you really need examples of people deciding what route to take in a social interaction or personal endeavor or internal conflict, you can infer just from the subject. Everyone knows how to make friends or move up in network circles or self improvement theoretically, however most fail when it comes to execution of these ideals because they cannot let go of their righteousness or comfort
bump
Peterson way over states the effects of culture and parenting on people.
> Emotional intelligence is clearly the practice of empathy.
Its not enough to just say there is a thing called Emotional Intelligence, you have to also show how its different, and uncorrelated with other forms of intelligence. The fundamental insight of IQ scores is that all forms of intelligence are greatly correlated, which means the people who are good at math are also good at language, and are also good at speaking and dieting and anything else one might use their mind for. The problem with claiming there is a thing called emotional intelligence, is that intelligent people already have it. People are intelligent, are intelligent generally so, and they have the capacity of empathy more so than other generally unintelligent people. There really arent many people who are highly empathetic but very dumb. Smart people can figure out other peoples emotions more so than dumb people, and smart people are more likely to care about the emotions of those more so than dumb people.
> I think you would find it simply boils down to experience and practice, unlike IQ, which is pretty static.
If IQ is not independent with experience or practice (and it couldnt be), then experience and practice are limited in how "static" they are by the degree to which they are correlated with IQ.
If you "practice" doing something, you must have some capacity to do it, and intelligence is a capacity. Therefore any activity is correlated with capacity to do that activity in the first place.
> ability to astutely observe and a person and extroplate from thier state to get the desired social outcome is an extremely powerful too, which is something completely outside of traditional intelligence, such as self control, love, empathy etc. these aren't logical sources, but are arbitrarily found to be superior methods of living
Couldnt be any more wrong. Being able to figure out what other people feel and think is exactly what intelligence enables one to do. Whatever mental operation goes into figuring out what other people feel, and therefore empathize with them, isnt fundamentally different from that of any other kind of intelligence.
Language is a pretty well understood component of IQ, which in part comes down to knowing how other people understand words, ie a form of empathy.
What a bunch of nonsense.
I didnt describe what i ment well.
I mean you cant really increase your "maximum" IQ, it is a potential, where with EI, there is no maximum, it fluctuates with the individuals "social surrounding" and wants
> where with EI, there is no maximum, it fluctuates with the individuals "social surrounding" and wants
Prove it.
Brainlets cant into hume
What is emotional intelligence to you?
To me, put basically is the ability to get what you want considering the people around you, metaphorically (friends, family, distance communication) and literally (people who are physically around you(work, bus, store etc).
Considering that, it's obvious (to me) that, when the people around you are different from what you are accustomed to, your ability to get what you want considering the people around you, is crippled.
Like someone who doesnt know anything about football at a football party. The someone can try to relate with other experience, but unless they understand the game on the same level as others, their emotional intelligence in this situation is crippled by your lack of culture. This is assuming they went to the party for enjoyment.
>Considering that, it's obvious (to me) that, when the people around you are different from what you are accustomed to, your ability to get what you want considering the people around you, is crippled.
Firstly, intelligent people can figure out things they dont understand. So, unless intelligent people find themselves in weird circumstances more than anyone else, then they muddle through them better than others, and therefore demonstrate more of this emotional intelligence.
Secondly, its empirically testable. I dont know of any studies on your exact question, but one of the common criticisms of the IQ test and other tests is that they are culturally loaded. But its just not true, when they measure the cultural awareness of people you would think arent a part of that culture, smart people still demonstrate awareness. Smart people in dumb environments have the same vocabulary as smart people in smart environments. You would think they wouldnt learn that stuff because of their environment, but you would be wrong. They find a way. Raw intelligence is a greater barrier to understanding and empathy than any cultural norms.
>Firstly, intelligent people can figure out things they dont understand.
Figuring it out, and having experience of it first hand are different things.
You can not relate to someone on same level with "having figured it out" as you can with having the experience of the subject directly.
What you are saying, doesnt warrant the term "intelligence", since it isnt a mental operation at all, but just having experience with something.
Stop being dumb.
Define "intelligence".
Define "mental operation".
Or else fuck off with your sophistry.
> Define "intelligence".
The kind of thing measured by an IQ score. Mental capacity, the degree to which one can do mental things.
> Define "mental operation".
I dont have such a firm definition for this one, I just meant the performatively mental stuff, like figuring stuff out. Doing things. Not just recalling information, or having something in your experience. The point was this "Emotional Intelligence" isnt intelligence. If Emotional intelligence is just having a common experience with someone, its not intelligence. Now, if its actually being able to interact with someone of common experience vs not common experience, then it is intelligence, but I think the research shows its not limited by ones life experience.
Would you consider the following as "doing/being able to do mental things": being able to detect if you are feeling an emotion, differentiating it from other emotions, designating it with a word, inferring how to conduct yourself when you take into account the emotion that you detected, observing expressions both verbal and bodily of another person and detecting, differentiating, designating and inferring how to conduct yourself in context of those emotions.
If you do consider these "mental operations" then you have essentially argued for existence of emotional intelligence.
Reminder:
>doesnt warrant the term "intelligence", since it isnt a mental operation at all
>There really arent many people who are highly empathetic but very dumb
>Smart people can figure out other peoples emotions more so than dumb people, and smart people are more likely to care about the emotions of those more so than dumb people.
this directly contradicts my experience that i just enlightened you about earlier. Most of the highly intelligent people i've encountered in my life were the individuals who struggled most socializing or interacting appropriately. And in the other section, not as intelligent people were much more effective or comfortable engaging socially , which according to my thesis is because the two different groups value different objectives, independence vs community, high grades vs high social status. I have to admit my emotional intelligence is premised with a moralistic viewpoint. While i said that any action, or combination of words can be used for a desired social outcome. the intention has to be for what is considered universally "moral". I do not consider psychopaths mimicking emotions and manipulating people emotionally intelligent. That is emotionally dishonest and immoral and detrimental to people and socially and personally and even they can get caught because it impossible to simulate sincerity. Humans have an innate inexplicable ability to catch what is authentic and what isn't in a person, some much better than others, which can change. Which i believe is rooted in intuition and consciousness/sub consciousness. I am not a cognitive psychologist yet so I have to admit this is all technically anecdotal, but all information technically is, its all observed from human behavior and happens to occur numerous times for other individuals performing the study. So a new key point is, its not just about using an effective interaction for a social outcome, it also has to have the correct moral prognosis
same thing for you, read above
>high grades vs high social status
That was discerned long time ago through 4 temperaments:
Choleric - Extroverted with "High grades focus"
Sanguine - Extroverted with "Social status focus"
Melancholic - Introverted with "High grades focus"
Phlegmatic - Introverted with "Social status focus"
The order in which i presented these temperaments is in my opinion the generally the hierarchy of temperaments that experience success(Whatever success means for them) in life.Why? Because being introverted yet valuing social status is a recipe for disaster generally on the other hand extroverted and valuing "grades", for such a person there is almost no limit to how much success he will be able to attain.
>The kind of thing measured by an IQ score.
Except IQ doesnt measure intelligence
to add to my writing, intelligence to me is the capacity to deliberate then use your own conclusion to complete an objective. with emotional intelligence it gets much wider because there are many ways to achieve the correct objective (which again has to be moral). Like in mathematics, there is only one route to completing any problem. When it comes to objectives of human interaction the possibilities are endless, but again the action has to moral. Emotional intelligence in my opinion is not a matter of if you CAN act correctly, emotional intelligence is WILL you act correctly. So its not test based but CONSISTENCY based. This is not a matter of traditionally smart or dumb people. "dumb" people in my experience are less self concerned and have high awareness of community and serving others and do so because they value that instead of being independent. How many intelligent people know they should help the poor, do community service, aid their neighbor but instead choose not to, even not as intelligent people do this too. Its not a matter of intelligence, but an acceptance of the stimulated conscience, the acknowledgement of the need to lubricate social situations by amelioration or engagement for social pleasure. This is an open field of practice that is indiscriminate of both the intelligent and not as intelligent. This involves humility which is not a quantifiable practice but is recognized as humans as practically true. It's about acceptance and response. What each person is accepting to respond to varies amongst situations and relative to what the person know is moral to do in each situation for the betterment of the individual or society.
You are confusing emotional intelligence with zealous habitual righteousness.
Emotional intelligence is not being immediately compelled to act "right", whenever a trigger presents itself, to bring the state of the world closer to your concept of the ideal world.
How do these categorizations account for change? How often is this test taken to review the consistency of the result? You know people are able to condition and prime themselves into transitions of a new person right? We also know there are countless examples of exceptions to the rule. This pseudo science does not even get implemented into any institution for filtration, neither does IQ. Do want to know why? Because they do not account for change. People ADAPT all the time. Either through AMBITION or STRESS. These categorizations and placement tests are redundant and problematic. Just give the individual the problem and method of solution or drop them in certain scenarios and they will learn to overcome and progress or they will reject any improvement and move on. This spectrum thinking highly ignores that the placement is dial which can be adjusted at any given moment in time.
>zealous habitual righteousness
morality is objectively true. This statement is a huge diving board which im not sure if you want to dive off now. Emotional intelligence from what I understand is equivalent to virtuous. Which is not a matter of logical thinking capacity but the consistency to respond to an empathetic inclination all humans have.
ex: to sacrifice oneself for another person to live is naturally speaking the most illogical thing to do. But out of an innate calling within the psyche or "spirit" of a person, he understands this action is not only totally detrimental but supremely good. He overrides the contradiction to execute a virtue that most people cannot encompass. This can be learned, but it is inherently extremely difficult for both the highly intelligent and not very intelligent. This is an indiscriminate capacity every individual possesses
this is me
im going golfing now, ill reply later if you respond
>ex: to sacrifice oneself for another person to live
>the most illogical thing to do
Depends on how you define "logical".
If you use one of the informal definitions of logical, then its not necessarily true that saving someone through sacrifice is illogical, especially if you value that persons life over your own, like for example the life of your own child.
How doesnt it? Its greatly correlated with all kinds of mental abilities, language and numeracy not the least.
> this directly contradicts my experience that i just enlightened you about earlier.
Thats not scientific at all.
> Most of the highly intelligent people i've encountered in my life
A small, unrepresentative sample, without any rigorous methodology.
> were the individuals who struggled most socializing
Which isnt mutually exclusive with social capacity.
You are just an idiot.
why is it logical to sacrifice your own life, tell me please, since you like to dance with definitions
>why is it logical to sacrifice your own life, tell me please, since you like to dance with definitions
Did you even read his/her post? He/she made it very clear
>ad hominem
I already highlighted my experience is only an anecdote, but thats how you challenge a notion any ways, when numerous exceptions present themselves and challenge a previously established notion, the methodology changes as well. why didn't you refute my actual argument with an argument instead of secretly salivating over my intelligence kek
good try charlatan
wtf is an informal definition
stfu no ones talking to you, you made this blurrier
>wtf is an informal definition
Definition/sense of a word in informal language.
Are you going to ask what is informal language next?
>why is it logical to sacrifice your own life
I have offered an explanation in the very post you replied to. If you have difficulties comprehending the wording, quote the specific words and explain what difficulty you are experiencing with it and I may be able to help you.
in what sense did i use the word informal you fucking ignormaus
*informally
fuck head, wtf is an informal definition, you fucking fraud, no one here is using the informal definition, were using standard definition, sensible and verifiably reasoned, you just outed yourself as the pseudo intellectual you are. no argument, just semantics
Stfu brainlet, this thread is out of your league.
Also learn English.
Give us the formal definition of logic then.
>nuisance
sound reasoning, natural or sensible given the circumstance you fucking MORON. You can condition yourself to detach emotion from human beings and just reason that there is nothing after death and that there is no point shortening this precious to time live for someone when they are just going to experience eternal sleep afterwards and that existence is final and purposeless so just enjoy what you have and stay alive as long as possible OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOORRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................there is an after life and an objectively moral way to live in this life because it is designed by the logos. You fucking pseud.
Yes, there is no morality without GOD.
>sound reasoning, natural or sensible given the circumstance you fucking MORON. You can condition yourself to detach emotion from human beings and just reason that there is nothing after death and that there is no point shortening this precious to time live for someone when they are just going to experience eternal sleep afterwards and that existence is final and purposeless so just enjoy what you have and stay alive as long as possible OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOORRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................there is an after life and an objectively moral way to live in this life because it is designed by the logos. You fucking pseud.
cringe
>sound reasoning, natural or sensible given the circumstance
Wrong thats informal language definition, that is, the definition/sense of a word used in casual conversations.
>Logic is generally held to consist of the systematic study of the form of arguments.
Now this is a formal language definition, the kind that is technical and not used in casual conversations.
Also I'll just remark that your writing tone suggests that you are one of the most childish tantrum throwing imbeciles currently on Veeky Forums.
Might want to reconsider how you present your thoughts to others, especially when you step outside and try talking to others.
dis nigga...
baka
Now distill that and make it practical you fucking imposter. What i stated doesn't discredit or invalidate the original terminology and concept. the derivative is equivalent you fucking pseud. Of course you would focus on the language instead of the heavy load of refuting the argument or theory you lazy bum.
>cringe
only an insecure insignificant nitwit would physically vibrate from immaterial words, you weak minded wimp
>baka
weebo detected, limp minded google brain
You are being vague, what is it exactly that you want?
If you have an issue with anything I posted quote the specific words and state your issues with them.
>What i stated doesn't discredit or invalidate the original terminology and concept
You didnt state anything as far as I'm aware. Youve only been autistically screeching buzzwords at me and asking inane questions like what does informal language and its definitions mean, which is something a 12 year old already knows intuitively and needs not to ask.
>Of course you would focus on the language instead of the heavy load of refuting the argument or theory you lazy bum.
What argument?
Quote it.
Do you even know the difference between an interrogative sentence and argument?
Because youve only posted the former as far as I can see.
i want to know who's who in this thread
Empathy is a weakness.
practice sympathy
Compassion is better than either of those.
user, are you mentally retarded, I don't mean this in a derogatory manner, I mean it quite literally. Are you slow? Read the mountain of text I gave you and extract the obvious argument. If you cannot, you are on the wrong board. I stated it once and I will again. You are a lazy, pseudo intellectual . However, we are both quite arrogant.
The fuck is the point of sympathy? The whole worth of empathy is that it moves you to ACT because you can envision the circumstance.
You have no argument.
If you did you would have quoted it by now instead of throwing a barrage of insults at me and asking inane questions and being generally vague.
It is obviously more important to you to vent out that in it is to engage in a rational discourse.
Also how ironic it is that you call someone else lazy when you have still to present you argument in a lucid, coherent manner instead of dodging about it like an indolent bastard.
I have answered most of your queries and you cant be bothered to answer even one of mine.
Emotional intelligence is a meme.
It's a buzzword used by dumb people to find a way to insult people they know are smarter.
For what reason ? 99% when you don't show enough pity.
Which has nothing to do with empathy, or your capacity to understand emotions.
emotional retard spotted
Why would I reiterate what you WON'T read AGAIN you schmuck. You started to have a fetish with the word "logical" because you couldn't contain your argument anymore, you had none. Go re read what has been written you sloth filled GOOF. Take a fuckin hike if you're not going to engage with sincerity.
This desu he sounds even socially retarded
might be
Sorry to disappoint you.
Good to confirm that you have no argument and that the only content of your writing are insults.
Now off with you.
Good to know you can't read or abbreviate, charlatan.
Implying any sane person would attempt to read this:You are an incoherent hysterical mess.
Go take your meds.
There is a .94 correlation between emotional intelligence and openness, so you tell me. google.com
>Malaysian "scientists"
>Shows well cited, peer reviewed study
>Oh ha haw Waht? MAY-LAEY-SHJAAH!?
I am done with Veeky Forums
Xhe is just joking, calm down m8.
Psychology is a pseudoscience, I'd bet the paper you linked falls in the majority of psychology research that fails to be reproduced
nature.com
Also scientific publications from Asia are notoriously unreliable
> I'd bet
Not science.
Also not an argument.
0/10 Apply yourself.
>I believe everything I read
Typical sycophant
I havent even posted the article nor have I read it, but I did observe what you wrote and called you out on it.
Deal with it faggot.
>Deal with it faggot.
Why the homophobia?
>Not science.
Neither is psychology, what's your point?
>Not making paragraphs
Genetics predispose you to some big 5 levels
Your reading comprehension is atrocious.
> You wrote
Not me. Anyways, I only linked the other article because it was free. Here is an American made one with the same conclusion.
onlinelibrary.wiley.com
>In before you did not read.
If you are really this ignorant, then why don't you just head off to BuzzFeed. Especially if you are the Over Poster that was complaining about the exact lack of emperical data that I have shown.
>Your reading comprehension is atrocious.
Likewise.
faggot has a nice ring to it.
Right cause that's ALL I wrote you fucking shameless tramp