It seems to me, it is more useful to know how to navigate the emotional spectrum than understanding the purpose of thought. — TheQuestion
Thanks for that, I certainly will.Check out Descartes' Error by neuroscientist Antonio Damasio — 180 Proof
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.I thought EQ (although initially based on an old psychology paper) was essentially the creation of a journalist and part of the self-help world. I wonder it the term is almost meaningless and is generally used to separate people on the spectrum or narcissists from the supposedly neurotypicals. — Tom Storm
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.It seems to me, it is more useful to know how to navigate the emotional spectrum than understanding the purpose of thought.
— TheQuestion
You assume a separation of these two. In reality they are connected. — GraveItty
Your average CEO is usually not the "smartest" guy in the company...he's the guy who is most competent at doing just this. — Michael Zwingli
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. — unenlightened
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: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. — Tom Storm
Just so.When to be mean? Is a good example of it. — Varde
ven 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". — Michael Zwingli
rational thoughts are more bio-electrical in origin, and emotions more biochemical, — Michael Zwingli
Check out Descartes' Error by neuroscientist Antonio Damasio for a better account for the role emotion plays in human intelligence than you will get here or from most philosophers (except Spinoza and a few others). — 180 Proof
Voltaire? — Tom Storm
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. — Hume
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.Every emotion is accompanied by the same neuronal functioning as a thought process. In emotion, the body is involved more than in thought...No extra biochemical reactions involved in the brain... — GraveItty
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
emotions have a greater influence upon rational thought than the obverse. — Michael Zwingli
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. — TheQuestion
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.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. — Hanover
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.