Yeah, I strongly disagree. It’s a genuinely valid way to figure out someone better. While the tests and all that aren’t really standardized, the idea is quite clear, and the idea works. Just because it was made mainstream, does not mean it’s suddenly bad. Just because the origins are sketchy, does not mean the theory is invalid. It just essentially means one’s ability to objectively assess your own and other’s emotions, feel empathy (not just understand it, but feel it), low emotional intelligence people would be less rational about their own and everyone’s else’s emotions. You simply cannot argue against this. It’s a skill/mechanism that makes society function better.
where is the universally accepted metric for measuring emotional intelligence? clearly there must be a test or something by which we can judge others and ourselves and evalated this ‘skill’.
Right, so i google both those and find that neither of them is widely adopted or used. they are basically in infancy and have substantial history of use or acceptance… and a few papers both showing their methodology is highly suspect:
Results showed that this is not the case for most items: The answer indicated by experts as the most correct in several cases was not associated with the highest ability; furthermore, items appeared too easy to challenge individuals high in EI. Overall results suggest that the MSCEIT is best suited to discriminate persons at the low end of the trait. Results are discussed in light of applied and theoretical considerations.
But the idea is still clear. Sure, you have essentially steered the argument to “tests are unreliable”, but you haven’t disproved the emotional intelligence itself. You said it - just a buzzword
are you sure i’m the one shifting the goalposts here?
my argument form the start was EQ is bullshit, a made up arbitrary metric that has no widespread acceptance. and that is true.
And like all bullshit things, people mostly use it to bully and posture each other.
I guess we will stay true to our beliefs. Being able to rationally understand emotions, reflect, feel empathy, etc. are not some foreign concepts, it’s real, categorizable human psychology (and neurology?) behaviour.
Yeah, I strongly disagree. It’s a genuinely valid way to figure out someone better. While the tests and all that aren’t really standardized, the idea is quite clear, and the idea works. Just because it was made mainstream, does not mean it’s suddenly bad. Just because the origins are sketchy, does not mean the theory is invalid. It just essentially means one’s ability to objectively assess your own and other’s emotions, feel empathy (not just understand it, but feel it), low emotional intelligence people would be less rational about their own and everyone’s else’s emotions. You simply cannot argue against this. It’s a skill/mechanism that makes society function better.
Right, which is precisely why everyone things they are highly emotionally intelligent and it’s everyone else that isn’t!
such a genius metric, it is.
No, that’s just Dunning Kruger effect
where is the universally accepted metric for measuring emotional intelligence? clearly there must be a test or something by which we can judge others and ourselves and evalated this ‘skill’.
oh right, there is none.
MSCEIT and BarOn Emotional Quotient Inventory (EQ-i 2.0)
Right, so i google both those and find that neither of them is widely adopted or used. they are basically in infancy and have substantial history of use or acceptance… and a few papers both showing their methodology is highly suspect:
and around we go.
But the idea is still clear. Sure, you have essentially steered the argument to “tests are unreliable”, but you haven’t disproved the emotional intelligence itself. You said it - just a buzzword
i can’t disprove the existence of god either.
are you sure i’m the one shifting the goalposts here?
my argument form the start was EQ is bullshit, a made up arbitrary metric that has no widespread acceptance. and that is true. And like all bullshit things, people mostly use it to bully and posture each other.
I guess we will stay true to our beliefs. Being able to rationally understand emotions, reflect, feel empathy, etc. are not some foreign concepts, it’s real, categorizable human psychology (and neurology?) behaviour.