Research has shown that people with a high EQ tend to be more successful — TheQuestion

why focus on Epistemology? — TheQuestion

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.

EQ is about success, more precisely, how well you control yourself objectively.

So a question comes to mind.

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?

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? — TheQuestion

I thought you might be arguing from, in a sense, a pragmatic viewpoint. It's not so important if you are smart, in the traditional IQ sense, but very important that you are successful. Success reflects an ability to make effective practical effects on reality. So, in instrumental terms, it is more important to have a high EQ.

It seems to me, it is more useful to know how to navigate the emotional spectrum than understanding the purpose of thought.

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.

Usually, discussions involving so-called "emotional intelligence" are centered around what helps people "succeed" within the business environment. — Michael Zwingli

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.)

tend to be more successful — TheQuestion

"Successful" in what?

A friend of mine compiled this series of nQ-s. Enjoy. It is not philosophy; it is fiction.

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.

"Successful" in what? — Alkis Piskas

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.

The OP clarified that later: In business — god must be atheist

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 ...)

With EQ no such test exists, and it is not possible to quantify EQ. — god must be atheist

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

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. — god must be atheist

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.

My beef with EQ is that it is 1. a misnomer, and 2. due to not being quantifiable. — god must be atheist

But, as I have already noted,

...there is no academically recognized thing called "EQ"... — Michael Zwingli

...but there are tests which purport to measure what I would call "emotional competence", which the OP has described above.

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 ...) — Alkis Piskas

Alkis, I think the poster might have been referring to my post above, wherein I noted:

...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"... — 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:

Alkis, I think the poster might have been referring to my post above, — Michael Zwingli

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:

tip: use the @. button on top.

Imagine all this taking place in a live discussion! :gasp: — Alkis Piskas

:gasp: is right!

tip: use the . button on top. — Wheatley

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:

:gasp:

Imagine all this taking place in a live discussion! — Alkis Piskas

EQ would prevail because, behind keyboard it's not straightforward to recognize emotions of others:

People with high emotional intelligence can recognize their own emotions and those of others

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

it's not straightforward to recognize emotions of others: — SpaceDweller

It's not easy for people to even recognize their own emotions!

People with high emotional intelligence can recognize their own emotions and those of others — 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:

It seems to me, it is more useful to know how to navigate the emotional spectrum than understanding the purpose of thought.
3d — TheQuestion

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.

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: — Alkis Piskas

Cool, I never thought of emoticons for the purpose of EQ :smile:

Faking emotions, hypocrisy and lying make the recognizing of actual emotions impossible sometimes. — 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:

BTW, what does "behind keyboard" mean? I couldn;t find it in the Web. — Alkis Piskas

We are now talking "behind keyboard", we are literary behind a keyboard which is needed to write posts.

BTW #2, what does all that have to do with my "Imagine all this taking place in a live discussion"? :grin: — Alkis Piskas

Imagine we discuss this stuff in live, we could better exercise our EQ.

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.
— god must be atheist
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. — Michael Zwingli

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.

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. — god must be atheist

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?

First I want to extend thanks for providing input and interest in my post.

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.

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. — Michael Zwingli

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.

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. — 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.

What do you mean "significant" when you say significant portion? — god must be atheist

See sense 4 under the English entry below:
https://en.m.wiktionary.org/wiki/significant

I put to you dear M. Zwingli, that you make up your own data. Is that true, or not? — 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.

never thought of emoticons for the purpose of EQ — SpaceDweller

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.)

Faking emotions, hypocrisy and lying make the recognizing of actual emotions impossible sometimes.
— Alkis Piskas
This is where psychology can help — SpaceDweller

Indeed. That's why I said "One must also be taught and trained to do that."

this works even online where we don't see face reactions — SpaceDweller

Certainly. Nice to bring this up! :up:

Most important factor is time needed for interlocutor to respond — 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.

what does "behind keyboard" mean?
— Alkis Piskas
we are literary behind a keyboard which is needed to write posts — SpaceDweller

OK.

Imagine we discuss this stuff in live, we could better exercise our EQ — SpaceDweller

Certainly.

I am sorry for upsetting you. But you must understand that unsubstantiated claims can have equal, and opposite counter-claims. If you say "most CEOs have good EQ" then I can say "most CEOs don't have good EQ" and that will be that. That is neither banter, nor philosophy. It is two people battling their beliefs, and neither or both can be wrong.

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.