IQ vs EQ: Does Emotional Intelligence has any place in Epistemology?
Research has shown that people with a high EQ tend to be more successful than compare to others who have a high IQ. So if a high EQ is the key to success why focus on Epistemology?
It seems to me, it is more useful to know how to navigate the emotional spectrum than understanding the purpose of thought.
It seems to me, it is more useful to know how to navigate the emotional spectrum than understanding the purpose of thought.
Comments (62)
You assume a separation of these two. In reality they are connected. Of course you can explore knowledge and emotion separately, and investigate them as such. And use that knowledge as a key to success. But when you apply intelligence and emotion in practice, your measured and explored intelligence and emotion won't really help you. It's their unexamined combination that's the key.
In terms of psychometrics the most solid grounding is 'g' and The Big Five. EQ is just some attempt to smuggle in a new term when it is already covered under The Big Five.
I think we see a lot of attempts to discredit this more standard 'model' of personality because it is vague enough to warrant a good degree of speculation. It is a pretty well established foundation though BUT is often misapplied to individual cases when in reality such self analysis tests only really give a decent broad picture of the human personality spectrum.
I think it's a silly measure. IQ tests were originally invented to get a relative comparison of the mental development of children. I find that questionable. Even more so when adults use it and act like it's a reliable measure of "intelligence".
What am I feeling, what are they feeling? Why? How to manage?
In general, I would say self-awareness and empathy are important. Being aware of and understanding ones own and other's emotions is part of self awareness and empathy.
In any field of enquiry you are gonna have to rely on yourself and others to various degrees so it could be very useful to understand emotion, especially in so far as emotion deals with motivation.
When to be mean? Is a good example of it.
It is about control, a harsh test of a person's control. It's a harsh test of a person's self-control by a natural conduit.
Quoting 180 Proof
Thanks for that, I certainly will.
Quoting Tom Storm
First of all, there is no academically recognized thing called "EQ", which, I assume, would ostensibly refer to a measurable and testable "Emotional Quotient" (in actuality, the model of testing for "IQ", and the very understanding of what constitutes "intelligence" as well as the competency of the current model of standardized testing in general, have been called into question by the work of folks like Howard Gardner, with his theorization about "multiple intelligences"). What has become a field of study in psychology since the work of John Mayer and Peter Salovey, is the study of "emotional intelligence", which refers to relative individual ability to recognize and manage (not necessarily "control") the brain's affective output in positive, productive ways. Mayer and Salovey did, indeed, develop a test designed to measure such competency, the MSCEIT, but the results thereof do not constitute any type of recognized "EQ". The "journalist" you mention is one Goleman, who in his book of the 1990's Emotional Intelligence, popularized the work of Mayer-Salovey and others into this emerging field of psychology.
Quoting GraveItty
Better than saying "they are connected", is to say that "they work in concert to produce decision-making". Both reason (rational thought) and emotion are produced by the brain (rational thoughts are more bio-electrical in origin, and emotions more biochemical, but these are generalizations). These clearly work together in individual decision making. Who had not had the experience of knowing the "wise" thing to do, and yet doing the opposite, anyways? Surely, we can all relate to the guy who says to himself, "man, any relationship that I have with that 'b!£¢h' is going to turn into a 'shit show'", yet pursues the relationship anyways because the object woman is "prime", meaning that she has the type of good looks which will raise a fella's social capital if he is seen as "having her". Such a decision is based solely upon attainment of an emotional objective. The point is, that rational thoughts, both by themselves and especially as they factor into decisionmaking, are filtered through the complex of emotion, the highly individualized product of the affective mind, before they reach the level of our conscious thought. The human faculty which has become known as "emotional intelligence" (probably not the best of terms...perhaps 'emotional competence' might be better?) is the ability of an individual to readily discern and manage the influence that the particular emotional product of his individual brain has upon his rational decisionmaking, so mitigating the effect that emotional response might have upon his decisions. This has a profound effect in "real life". Your average CEO is usually not the "smartest" guy in the company...he's the guy who is most competent at doing just this.
Sure. I've known a few CEO's, most of them were not much good at their job and got there because they were more ruthless than the others.
Answer: giving a fuck. If you don't give a fuck about the shit you know, it's not even going to win you Mastermind, because why would you even enter?. Whereas if you give a fuck about stuff you don't know shit about, you will fuck about with it and maybe learn something.
Voltaire?
For them, even more important than "ruthlessness", is the very ability to discern one's own emotions, as well as those of others, and to determine the effect that they will have upon individual decision-making and upon "group dynamics". Then, said "ruthlessness", which in actuality involves the ability to manipulate one's own decisions and those of others, given the percieved emotions involved. A good example of this has been stated above:
Quoting Varde
Just so.
Most I have known don't have any of those skills and are widely despised for their lack of diplomacy and social skills. But some have been lucky to have senior management teams who have those skills and do the key work. There's a cult of the CEO, but from what I have seen they are largely a ceremonial figure who, if they are good, will have a crack team and stay the hell away from their work. When they try to actually do things they often screw it up and mess with the bottom line.
Where did you get that from? Both are based in the lightning-like parallel paths that massive amounts of electrical spike potentials follow in a least resistance mode. Emotion and thought have the same neuronal counterpart. Every emotion is accompanied by the same neuronal functioning as a thought process. In emotion, the body is involved more than in thought though. Thoughts are pretty bodily detached. Though there is a connection obviously. If I sing a song in my mind I can feel it in my stomach, a tear can get in my eye, and I can't do it without moving my tongue. I can think about a friend, but are unable to do this in an objective, non-emotionless way. No extra biochemical reactions involved in the brain, although I (my body, that is) can respond biochemical directly, or indirectly by means of secreted stuff from the brain. And this secreted stuff is released by the integrated union of thought and emotion. The both are not part of one single structure, as you imply. One being the electric, one being the biochemical. The are both electrical mini hurricanes, taking place on the same neurons, which offer, biochemically, the same basis for their electric existence. Both thought and emotion are electrically charged structures, and you can ask, if so, then what the hell the difference can be.
Excellent, I will. I've been wanting to read this for some time and I just started my last new book, so it's buying time again.
edit: Have you read Damasio's Error by Gluck? Thinking about getting both....
[quote=Hume] Reason is, and ought only to be the slave of the passions, and can never pretend to any other office than to serve and obey them.[/quote]
Thought and emotion are highly interdependent, with the perception of external stimuli producing both thoughts and emotions, and the experience a given emotion causing the localized release of either exitatory or inhibatory neurotransmitters which either facilitate or depress thought production in certain areas of the brain, effecting the types of thoughts we have in general. In this way, emotions have a greater influence upon rational thought than the obverse.
If you formulate it in terms of virtue epistemology, then it makes more sense.
The basic idea is that it takes virtue in order to know something.
Roughly, EQ overlaps with virtue.
That was the point I was trying to get across with this question.
And how we process information in our mind is influenced by our emotions.
Take a scenario where an individual who had a series of bad experience over let's say eating spaghetti.
Let's say in this scenario a Dietitian agree with this assessment due to the high sugar content in pasta but does not know the background story on why this person hates spaghetti. Than unintentional reinforcing the belief that all spaghetti is bad.
Than this person who believes that all spaghetti is bad one day encounters a foodie (Someone who studies gastronomy) and these two individuals get in a debate on whether spaghetti is good or bad.
Not knowing the emotional motivators that lead to one's thought process can be an obstacle to understand the other in why someone would think that. Than the truth or knowledge (however you want to phrase it) becomes more of a blurred grey area.
Are you rationalizing this idea based on emotional trauma and/or personal experiences. Is this thought based on logical assessment and data? And can you differentiate the two when it comes to decision making and thought?
In my opinion, a question can result in an emotional answer, logical answer and a hybrid of both which may present many different results.
Also it become exhausting because now you need to be mindful of the question and how the question is presented. If the question is to vague than you invite other factors and different interpretation of the question. Than it creates what I call a snowball effect where numerous serious of sub questions would arise like...
Was this person abused by someone serving him spaghetti?
Was he obese and got fat eating to much spaghetti?
Are we even talking about the same thing?
Doesn't he understand the question?
Than it becomes what I call a rollercoaster of trivial questioning that do not apply to the original question you asked.
So understand emotional motivators and how it relates to rational thought may help in understand the purpose of thought and thinking.
Quoting TheQuestion
I don't agree with the breakdown of your question because it uses the term "epistemology" as somehow being the study of the purpose of thought or alternatively as having something to do with deciphering IQ. I see it simply as the academic study of how we know things about the world.
If the question is why should we put a premium on IQ when it is EQ that better defines success, the question comes down to what success means. If we want better bridges, I'd prefer the high IQ person even he's prone to temper tantrums. If I want a better neighbor, I'd prefer the high EQ person, even if he can't think his way out of a box. Ideally, we want both, where the person is both smart and civil, but if we're left with a choice of one or the other, I'd probably want a society of smart people. Agreeableness is boring, although maybe a really high EQ person would be quirky and edgy, just for me.
My cat is clever, but her EQ is piss poor. My dog is pretty stupid, but a gentler, kinder creature there's never been. Maybe this comes down to cat/dog people traits. I go with cats, but, you know, having a slap happy tail wagging dog can be a good thing too.
How do you figure? Because she's not obedient?
Usually, discussions involving so-called "emotional intelligence" are centered around what helps people "succeed" within the business environment...what facilitates the climb of the "corporate ladder". In the business world, wherein the selective cultivation of relationships and the manipulation of people within a (working) group dynamic are key skills, emotional competency assumes a higher than usual value. The business world is a brutal one, and the ability to control one's own emotions as well as discern snd massage those of others gives a person an advantage within that particular environment. Academics usually complain about their lot: publishing important papers in the quest for tenure, and all that. But, I'll take the ivory tower over the business office any day.
:up:
It seems like you are merging to very different ideas. 'Success' is about how well you do in society. While 'epistemology' is a branch of philosophy.
Should we treat Epistemology more as a tool than a philosophy?
Shouldn’t epistemologist be treated as a sort of guideline to help succeed in an academic environment.
Why try to apply epistemology in other areas of life that seem incompatible?
That last bit which I highlighted is epistemology, which is about what is knowledge, how do we get it, how do we know we have it and so on.
Which EQ can help with. If we can introspect well, notice our own emotions, this will give us a better handle on our evaluations of our own methodologies, the methodologies of those we disagree with, how thorough we have been, our willingness and ability to deal with anomolies and counterexamples and more.
Old money. Neither EQ nor IQ. If you are not totally dumb, but own assets over ten million dollars, you are guaranteed to be a CEO and such-like.
They are cruel (someone said here that that's apparently a prerequisite for CEO success) but that's neither from EQ or from IQ but from stress-pressure from the running of the business, and from impatience with employees.
My beef with EQ is that it is 1. a misnomer, and 2. due to not being quantifiable. IQ has been developed as a raw score on tests given to children, and it indicated their attained intelligence over the expected (average of the group) attained intelligence. If a kid was smarter than his age, he'd score 9 years of age over his real age, six years of age, and the resultant was his IQ: Intelligence quotient.
With EQ no such test exists, and it is not possible to quantify EQ. This gives rise to the skepticism that it is meaningless. While the term is false and misleading, there is a notion that is true that some people can psych out other's emotional state better than some others can. This is true, but it can't be measured but only ranked. (Saying Person A is better at it than Person B, but there is no numerical difference that can be given, like in IQ.)
"Successful" in what?
Mind Your Ps and Qs
"IQ, EQ, IDQ,... I really do like the idea of CQ. My neighbour's cat and my former cat had CQ,..." This fragment in a forum post on the Internet inspired me. We had been talking about the merits and pitfalls of high-low EQ vs. high-low IQ. I started to write feverishly on the Internet forum board:
People with high AQ (any quotient) are the most human people. People with high BQ (boss-quotient) have earned it through a Masters of Business Administration degree, or with an accounting designation, or by inheriting a family business. The strength of the relative measure of BQ correlates highly with CEOQ. If your boss scores high on both and you screw up on the Morrison Account, then he'll CQ out and fire you. BBQd people are legal nowhere in the world, immoral in most parts of the world, and fattening all over the world. If your BBQ pork tastes like chicken, your restaurant has broken some legal, moral, spiritual, and culinary rules.
DQ is a measure of your manliness, and if coupled with a high FAQ then it usually gets you lead roles in Schwarzenegger movies. Keep trying several ways of reading FAQ and you'll get my gist. GQ is not, but ought to be, a measure of geekiness. The editors of GQ magazine won't like this, but hey, you can't always please everyone.
At the HQ of any company there will be some JQ (cleanliness experts with a high janitor-quotient). KQ, alternatively spelled KK, is the measure of the Jew in you (Kosher Kvoshent). KKKK is your bigotry-quotient. LQ is the bottom third of any quality in humans normally distributed (Low Quotient). MQ is the middle third, and NQ is no cue, or no clue about the cue, a bit misspelled for the sake of argument.
Your OQ gets the job done (occupational quotient), PQ is one of many of the same pairs that you must be watching when you perform a new or difficult task. RQ is our queue; a line-up of compatriots, and also the special interest group of line-up aficionados in a community. SQ - I've heard a lot of definitions for this, including a female sous-knight in medieval England (Esquire), Serpentine Quotient (how winding a road is in a mountainous area), Solitary Quotient (how many people there are in your company when you're alone).
TQ: Total Quotient (total number of people divided by the total number of people), UQ (how much of yourself you are being at any given time over how much of yourself is an act), U2Q (the measure of one's relative knowledge of trivia on the life of British musician Bono). VQ is the ratio of how much speed is in your street drug (Velocity quotient), WQ (a person's total knowledge of the entire contents of WiQuipaedia), YQ (yeah, really. Why question anything?), and ZQ (sportiness quotient of an expensive sports car of the 80s.)
We would not be fair if we did not make a mention of QQ, the Quotient Quotient. It's a measure how much of a person's vernacular is peppered with the expressions "IQ," "EQ," and "SQ."
I think I just maxed out on that.
The OP clarified that later: In business.
The topic prompted me to check out examples of assessing "EQ" and it seems peculiar to me that so many are based upon reporting on oneself through series of questions. A lot of those questions are of the 'when did you stop beating your wife' variety. If emotional intelligence is about perceiving emotions other people are having, it should me more like an archery contest where many arrows miss the mark.
As for the ones who make the best decisions because of the ability, the problem of comparison is like the kind discussed in the Art of War by Sun Tzu. The true masters of conflict are able to perceive and respond to what is happening so that fighting becomes unnecessary. The visible arts of strategy and persuasion are attempts to compensate for failures of insight and response. The highest skill is not visible.
Thank you for replying at the place of the poster, @TheQuestion to whom I addressed my question and who is responsible to clear up this issue and who, BTW, has never done that, as I realized after looking at all the posts in this thread. (You could at least save me some time and refer me to the appropriate post ...)
Here are some examples of emotional intelligence testing. I don’t agree in that statement to say they don’t exist.
Global leadership foundation
http://globalleadershipfoundation.com/geit/eitest.html
Test your emotional intelligence
https://greatergood.berkeley.edu/quizzes/ei_quiz/take_quiz
“ Today, there are 6 major emotional intelligence instruments or assessments. There’s Multi-Health Systems EQ-i 2.0, Mayer-Salovey-Caruso’s MSCEIT, Goleman and Hay Group’s ESCI, Six Seconds SEI, Genos International EI Inventory, and Talent Smart’s EQ Appraisal” -
EQ vs EI revisited.
https://www.drshawnandrews.com/blogs/eq-vs-ei-revisited
I won't bother to go into lengthy explanations, but at least in the "high finance" sector: investment banking, private equity, hedge funds, etc., this is quite untrue. That is, it seems to be the usual "outsider's perspective" containing no more than a grain of truth, being either a common "outsider's" misconception, or the remonstration of "sour grapes". In this industry, because of the rigors and expectations foisted upon junior employees, most of the "connection" and nepotism hires have all "washed out" by year five, and those who endure are those who are (1) hyper-competitive and "driven" by nature, and (2) good at building relationships (which is where "emotional intelligence" plays a role).Things may be more as you describe in less competitive corporate environments, though I suspect not by too much. Certainly, however, this does not apply to privately owned companies.
But, as I have already noted,
Quoting Michael Zwingli
...but there are tests which purport to measure what I would call "emotional competence", which the OP has described above.
Quoting Alkis Piskas
Alkis, I think the poster might have been referring to my post above, wherein I noted:
Quoting Michael Zwingli
In this, most popular depictions of "emotional intelligence" occur within the context of the ever vibrant "business improvement"/"business advice" industry.
He, @god must be atheist, must have mistaken me for "the Question", who must certainly, undoubtedly, be a smashing looking fellow...:wink:
So, to summarize: I asked a question to the @TheQuestion (the poster), then @god must be atheist replied to me instead of him, then I replied to him, and then @Michael Zwingli (you) replied to me instead of @'god must be atheist'! Imagine all this taking place in a live discussion! :gasp: ... :grin:
Now, I assume that by "the poster" you mean @god must be atheist and that he confused you with the OP. Well, that's funny too, but not as much as the above! :smile:
:gasp: is right!
Thanks for the tip. I know about that. But this is if you want to mention someone, which will involve a notification from TPF to that person, etc., and I didn't want all that. The present case is already a mess! :grin:
EQ would prevail because, behind keyboard it's not straightforward to recognize emotions of others:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emotional_intelligence
It's not easy for people to even recognize their own emotions!
Quoting SpaceDweller
About so. A high EQ is apparently needed to recognize others's emotions. But it's not enough. One must also be taught and trained to do that. I have been.
Recognizing one's own emotions is not that difficult if aso one is taught about it and trained on how to do it.
One more thing: The conditions in which one is trying to recognize emotions plays a hige role. Recognizing emotions in live (having the person in front of you) is mush easier than trying to sense or dig out emotions from written text This is why emoticons have been invented! :smile: It might also be difficult to recognize emotions even over the phone. In most cases, it is necessary to observe the face of the person and also hear his tone of voice.
And one last (for now at least!) thing: Faking emotions, hypocrisy and lying make the recognizing of actual emotions impossible sometimes. There are "talents" in this area (besides what acting schools and seminars teach! :grin:)
***
BTW, what does "behind keyboard" mean? I couldn;t find it in the Web.
BTW #2, what does all that have to do with my "Imagine all this taking place in a live discussion"? :grin:
Right! :smile:
Knowing how to navigate is not part of the intelligence measured in the IQ. In measuring IQ, a certain kind of knowledge is measured. Knowledge that is useless in daily life. The subject is kindly invited to solve abstract problems in a context of temporal pressure. Numbers are assigned to succeeding or not within a window of time. If one doesn't like the pressure of time (as there also is when an exam is taken, giving pupils the nerves and a hindrance of their intelligence, and afterwards the result of the exam is considered a measure of their knowledge, showing a creepy importance of facts and figures), the intelligence is already influenced, and the speed with one solves abstract formal knowledge (like the famous finding of the age of Diophantus, or solving a geometrical fit problem), which anyone can solve, if they were interested and given enough time. In daily life one is helpless with such knowledge, which is useful only in reality-detached institutions like universities or labs, in which even money is to be made and a Scala of scientific money prizes is to be found, and the amounts of money are amazing truly! So, for money the IQ could be useful. But normally, a groundbreaking money-winning scientific breakthrough involves creativity.
Same for IQ.
Cool, I never thought of emoticons for the purpose of EQ :smile:
Quoting Alkis Piskas
This is where psychology can help :wink:
Best weapon to detect hypocrisy is to ask questions to which you already know the answer from previous conversation such as suggestive, closed or loaded questions.
But taking care interlocutor doesn't spot your attention, for example by spanning your question across days or weeks, this works even online where we don't see face reactions.
Most important factor is time needed for interlocutor to respond, since you know he knows the answer, the response should be quick, otherwise you poked something. :cool:
Quoting Alkis Piskas
We are now talking "behind keyboard", we are literary behind a keyboard which is needed to write posts.
Quoting Alkis Piskas
Imagine we discuss this stuff in live, we could better exercise our EQ.
At the risk of contradicting you, I must say that in high finance it is also true. I worked in one of the largest Canadian banks, in the Inspection department. I was a lowly computer programmer, and I got to know most people in the department. All of them were millionaires. Or married to millionaires. This was back in the nineteen-nineties, when having a million dollar was still outstanding asset level. These people were filthy rich, and I could tell you anecdotes about them, if I were able to fend off law suits financially.
To be honest, your paragraph as quoted above was too full of "quotes", and unidentifiable references by antecedents. It made no sense to the reader. I think the whiff of it was, that in publicly held companies, the CEOs did not have to have had old money. Well, in your milieu that was true, and my personal (PERSONAL) experiences that was not true. You be the judge.
If you take, say, the "class" of corporate officers as a whole, you will certainly find an outsized percentage who come from privileged backgrounds. This only makes sense, more resources allow for greater educational and other opportunities. I think, however, that if you looked at the Fortune 500, you might find a significant proportion of CEO's come from rather modest backgrounds, and that "emotional competence" is an important part of their toolkit. But, this is saying nothing about "high finance" (by which I mean equity investing, asset management, and the like) per se, wherein background offers no guarantee of success, unless within a private concern, like Fidelity, for instance. Privilege helps with education, and often in "getting one's foot in the door", but it appears to me that after that, other drives and competencies tend to assume a greater role in advancement.
P.S., is the moderation on this site not wonderful, giving plentiful leeway for such enjoyably tangential conversation?
Though I have to admit I got a little intimidated by the platform and the interest in the topic because I feel I open a can of worms hear. LOL!
And apologies in advance for not answering everyone directly.
To elaborate EI and EQ even though they are not recognized by academics environmental (I assume not sure gotta investigate). To me these terms help relay the point across that analytical thinking is not limited to logic or rational thought but being aware of your feeling, interpreting your feelings and the feelings of others.
Also how is another form of communication in society. Is especially highlighted in the business world where there are jobs that require high analytical thinking that may produce high levels of stress. And being mindful of Emotional health is not just productive it prevents employees from leaving there positions and creating a high turn over rate.
The process of filling a position can take months and cost the company thousands of dollars in background checks and training.
Now we are kind of trending on the lines of Human Resources in a corporate setting and how employees emotional state can effect productivity. And that is why they have EAP programs in the work place. And in some cases provided free therapy in case a love one pass away. Or provide FMLA for Mom’s and Dad’s to provide them the opportunity to bond with there children.
EI and EQ is not dismissed as this mambo jumbo self help stuff. Corporation and business take it quite seriously. And they go as far as hiring specialist so the make sure they have the most optimal performance from there employees.
If business and corporation see the value in this why aren’t intellectual not following suite?
Why are we neglecting this aspect of logical thinking just because it cannot be physical observed.
It just leads me to believe that anyone who practice epistemology would be working with a handy cap. Assuming they dismiss emotions as part of logical and rational thinking.
It has been proven countless times in business that EI and EQ is a valuable tool. So why is it dismissed in philosophy if it is supposed to be a discipline of rational thought and thinking?
I believe there is a discriminatory perspective that emotions should not be a form of validation. But you see it in action all the time especially in business.
So should there should be a sort of epistemology reform or update to make it more compatible to the modern times.
In other words maybe epistemology is outdated and needs a upgrade.
What do you mean "significant" when you say significant portion? Did you count the ones coming from modest backgrounds? How do you define "modest" background vs. "immodest" background? you talk in large general terms, unverified, unverifiable, and claim that they are true because you say that
they are true. Do the Fortune 500 descriptors of CEOs include "toolkit includes emotional competence"? I doubt that. Yo are claiming truths based on hearsay that you yourself make up.
Quoting Michael Zwingli
Your definition of high finance is ridiculous. You say "background offers no guarantee of success", while you ignore the fact that success is not guaranteed by any one thing.
It is tiresome to read your posts for those who are used to reading those reports that discern facts that are verifiable. You did not demonstrate you have data that supports your factual claims. Consequently, I put to you dear M. Zwingli, that you make up your own data. Is that true, or not? If not true, please name the source of your data, and the claim associated with them; the claims you made.
See sense 4 under the English entry below:
https://en.m.wiktionary.org/wiki/significant
Quoting god must be atheist
Hey man, I don't remember even trying to offer "data", so how can my "data" be "made up"? How fatuous a consideration is this? Citations of data? What do you expect, me to do research, count numbers, and render stats? Man, get the fuck outta here. What I offer herein, is my opinion based upon general observation only. What am I writing, a thesis paper? Get real...this is a pastime for me, nothing more, and my posts are made on work breaks, in between book chapters, and at other such opportune moments. How much you payin' me to produce data sets and find pertinent citations? This whole enterprise amounts to no more than conversation between guys who, if they had anything better to do, wouldn't be fucking around on here...and yeah, that includes me as well. PF is essentially one big "shoutbox" for reasonably inteligent guys to talk about their opinions...one big, extended tertulia. Truth? The Philosophy Forum is, for most, a leisure activity, and an opportunity to converse with other reasonably intelligent people about something other than...I don't know...Kim Kardashian, or whatever else fascinates the moronic general populace. As a result, this should be made enjoyable, not contentious. Me? I'm here for intelligent banter, not to do work...
Regarding the subject matter, no you're right...the U.S.economy is simply an economic pseudo-aristocracy run by an economic elite who all come from a long line of men born with silver spoons in their mouths. Happy? But then, how the fuck do you explain a guy like Ray Dalio, who grew up the son of a nightclub musician, and whose annual compensation now dwarfs that of any corporate "CEO" that you could cite (including those in Canadian commercial banks)? How do you explain Ken Langone, whose father was a plumber, or John Henry, whose parents were soybean farmers, and who now is wealthy enough to own the Red Sox franchise? I can cite examples, but if you want statistics, you're gonna have to go somewhere else.
Sorry for the vehement tone, man, but you "got my back up". Since I kinda feel like a 'loser' in life, I can be touchy when it comes to even minor insults, especially those of an inane nature, and I suppose my own "emotional competence" could use some work. Instead of waiting for data sets from me, why don't you just go ahead and tell me how it is, then, and render your own obviously handy data sets and citations? What are your own opinions about corporate officers, and about the relationship of so-called "emotional intelligence" to the attainment of such a position? I'd rather read that than petty insults of myself. Just do me a favor. Next time I express an opinion on here, please don't ask me for data or statistics, nor insinuate that I have concocted non-existent, imaginary data. Just give me your opinion in return, and if you're interested, feel free to ask me why I believe thusly.
Emoticons are used "to express a person's feelings, mood or reaction, or as a time-saving method."
So, they are actually a kind of EQ substitutes, since they help recognizing emotions from wtitten text, where it is difficult or impossible for EQ to do so. (Before them, we were using exclamation marks to indicate strong feelings and sometimes short words, like e.g."sig, sig" or "sniff, sniff" to express sobbing and crying sound.)
Quoting SpaceDweller
Indeed. That's why I said "One must also be taught and trained to do that."
Quoting SpaceDweller
Certainly. Nice to bring this up! :up:
Quoting SpaceDweller
Right! Nice to bring this up too! :up:
In fact, sometimes psychological testing relies on that: You can evaluate the person's reaction based on response time only in real time. Otherswise he has all the time not only to think about but also to "construct" his response.
Quoting SpaceDweller
OK.
Quoting SpaceDweller
Certainly.
This is a philosophy forum, and as such, we seek the truth here. If we quote non-existent statistics and we make up facts, that is not going to lead to truth.
Banter is one thing. Talking unsubstantiated opinions is another thing. The former can be philosophy. The latter is just idle talk. And to me idle talk is not philosophy.
Thank you, you're a gentleman.
I am rather sensitive to percieved insults. I fully mean my characterization of myself as a "loser": only one semester of college (absolute shit show for my being absolutely unprepared for the milieu) followed by far too many years of menial jobs, with me continually regarding my bosses and saying to myself, "fuck, man, not only am I smarter than this guy, I'm in an entirely different intellectual category...what the fuck is wrong here, what the fuck is going on?". In any case, "abject failure" is my opinion of the state of my life, and as a result thereof, there exists a seething anger (actually, "rage" would not be too strong a word) which resides just underneath the surface of my affect.
If you want the truth, the convincing reason for the strength of my personal convictions regarding "emotional competence" is my own personal experience with it. My own problems were never intellectual, they were purely emotional in nature, based upon early (as early as second or third grade...that is, seven or eight years of age) perceptions of inadequacy. I blame the parents. If you see your kid is feeling shitty about himself to the extent that he seems to have developed the kernel of an injurious, malign self concept, and you don't address the issue, in fact do whatever the fuck you have to do to address the issue, then you are utterly remiss. My point is, that I know from personal experience, and can unreservedly affirm, that intellectual capacity is utterly ineffectual if it exists within a framework of emotional instability or of a malignantly poor self-concept.
Anyways, sorry for the intensity of my above reply (it was even more intense before I edited out all the "f-bombs"). I hope that I have provided a reasonable explanation therefore...an explanation sufficient to merit the pardon of yourself.
Have fun, carry on, make the best of it.
I can relate to your experience of "feeling shitty", in childhood and later... so can many users here, although they may keep mum about it. It's just that most people who are philosophically inclined are autistic to some degree. Not all need to have had a depraved childhood with molestation, starvation and unlove, but we are all Inwardly turning, reflective, questioning, deep and intuitive in logical ways but not emotionally. Well not emotionally on the interpersonal level. Intrapersonally, we may be. We (I, for sure, I don't know how many others I can speak for) are social misfits at worst, and difficult to get along with at best. The difficulty may not spring from being cantankerous or abrasive, but just from a lack of an ability to make ourselves understood and vice versa for and by the general population.
I don't blame my parents for my being autistic, not beyond the genes they supplied me with. I hold them innocent in the sense that they lacked the intention to bear a sick son.