Some people don't listen to well reasoned conversation, aside from that, while lawfare does pose a certain predicament, punitive criminal justice is not necessarily integral to the concept of democracy.

If I get into a fix with the Italian National Vanguard, I can't just go talk to them so as to resolve our dispute. I have to prove to them that my political assassination will result in a set of legal operations undertaken against them. Your average Neo-Fascist conscript at this or that Metal show can just be talked out of a dangerous pathology. There are other people and forces at play, however.

I also agree with @Shawn in that this just doesn't have anything to do with Emotional intelligence.

It might sound presumptuous to say this; but, are people becoming less emotionally intelligent? — Shawn

Yessssss!

Yessssss! — ArguingWAristotleTiff

How do you see the issue from your perspective?

Against what you say and all forms of clandestine wisdom, producing a potential legal, political, and press-related spectacle for your nefarious adversaries is how to adequately deal with them.

This is why the arts community tends to be extraordinarily flamboyant. It's kind of a beat way of life that only some people have to learn. Emotional intelligence is like that as well. You only learn to read into certain social when you somehow have to. It's a gift and a curse. You can begin to perceive yourself as a telepath or become acutely neurotic. There's only so much to see in the way a person sits or how they are dressed. There are things to see in it, however. It's just what you do when you can't find the information that you somehow have to. Some people call it intuition. It's really just an odd kind of common sense, but you can only believe in it so directly.

What about mindfulness or CBT? Seemingly, if there is an emotional quotient, then CBT seems to score very high on coefficients related to its measure... Ya? — Shawn

No one is saying people don't have emotional experiences, Shawn. The question is how best to describe this and how best to map people's responses (for those who appreciate such schemata). CBT certainly works to help people develop tools and strategies for managing their emotional regulation - a not inconsiderable concern for people dealing with trauma and addiction, an area I have worked in for 30 plus years.

I'm still unsure. I know people who practice meditation or mindfulness seemingly would score higher on the EQ scale, if there was one. I know logotherapy that influenced my life, with or without reading Frankel, really seems to regulate emotions much better than anything I've ever taken in terms of medication.

I'm a huge proponent of Cognitive Behavioral Therapy, and think it influences how we think and feel to a significant amount.

There are stoics who will make their daily ritual about overcoming what isn't under ones control by not paying attention to it. It's a fun thing to talk about, no?

I think the important thing is not the labels so much as being self aware, without going overboard. Being able to self-regulate is an important skill for most people and can really help in achieving goals (although I know that language doesn't work for everyone). The stoics influenced Albert Ellis who created RET, which morphed into CBT and DBT. It's great stuff.

Being able to self-regulate is an important skill for most people and can really help in achieving goals (although I know that language doesn't work for everyone). — Tom Storm

What do you mean by that? It's rather (in depression) a lack of goals or even motivation.

PM sent

The idea of EQ isn’t exactly solid. Not to mention the weird concept of calling it a type of ‘intelligence’ at all.

It's in reply to:

Are people generally less able to pick up on other's needs today than they were, say, 30 years ago? — Tom Storm

I think the important thing is not the labels so much as being self aware, without going overboard. Being able to self-regulate is an important skill for most people and can really help in achieving goals (although I know that language doesn't work for everyone). — Tom Storm

The matter is already thoroughly addressed in the concept of executive functions.

The matter is already thoroughly addressed in the concept of executive functions. — baker

What issue are you responding too here.

Against what you say and all forms of clandestine wisdom, producing a potential legal, political, and press-related spectacle for your nefarious adversaries is how to adequately deal with them. — thewonder

Provided one has the money and the political power to do so.

I also agree with Shawn in that this just doesn't have anything to do with Emotional intelligence. — thewonder

In modern times, under democracy and the rule of law, emotional intelligence is becoming redundant or counterproductive. I already sketched out why.

What issue are you responding too here. — Tom Storm

Self-awareness, self-regulation, achieving goals, seeing these things as a matter of skill.
From:

I think the important thing is not the labels so much as being self aware, without going overboard. Being able to self-regulate is an important skill for most people and can really help in achieving goals — Tom Storm

Sure.

In modern times, under democracy and the rule of law, emotional intelligence is becoming redundant or counterproductive. I already sketched out why. — baker

Maybe where you are. If emotional intelligence is said to mean a person's awareness of other people's emotional reactions and needs and their own emotions, then the people I see are more often overly polite and mindful of not offending anyone or being seen as rude. More mindful of others than they were in the 1970's 1980's.

How we would find evidence to establish a definitive case worldwide?

Provided one has the money and the political power to do so. — baker

You seem preoccupied by status and the abuse of power. Is this personality, experience or what you are reading?

You seem preoccupied by status and the abuse of power. Is this personality, experience or what you are reading? — Tom Storm

You're not my therapist, nor anyone else's here.

How we would find evidence to establish a definitive case worldwide? — Tom Storm

No need to, as the situation talked about was clearly enough specified: In modern times, under democracy and the rule of law.

Democracy and the rule of law are not universal, last I checked.

You provide no evidence just an assertion based on your own biases about status and power and their negative effects on behaviour.

You're not my therapist, nor anyone else's here. — baker

Thank goodness for that.

You provide no evidence just an assertion based on your own biases about status and power and their negative effects on behaviour. — Tom Storm

It's a matter of logical consequences, not empirical evidence. Can't you see that?

I can't see what you see.

The spread of democracy and the rule of law (which amounts to "power to the most powerful/rich") result in a decline of informal, silent understandings of what is "proper behavior". Where in the past, people would show consideration for others and expect it in return, they can now say "If you don't like something about me, sue me, see if you can do it / if it's worth it to you".

When lawsuits and calling the police were generally not realistic options, people would make an effort to get along with others. Now, with democracy and the rule of law, they don't have to. — baker

This is what you see? Bleak, huh?

Bleak, huh? — Tom Storm

Just realistic.

Baker, having been inspired by what she doesn't realize is Post-Left Anarchism, is putting forth the rather spurious claim that potential victims of assault are to blame for the failure of the democratic project through an appeal to an odd kind of beat pathology. She takes precarity for a sign of weakness and assumes that being fairly keen on navigating social networks is indicative of an incapacity for self-actualization. She's no different from more or less anyone else. Dangerous people take a disliking to those who are otherwise, purely by virtue of that they are, but their others tend to take the blame for any and/or all situations that arise. The predicament isn't taken for that a person's place in the world ought not to be considered as a contest of wills; it is just generally assumed that people just shouldn't meddle in other people's affairs.

What you may think is what I did, which is that you should listen to Yeasayer and stick up for yourself. Having done this, what I found is that people became all too willing to just sort of abandon me, thereby offering other nefarious parties the chance to ask, "you and what army?", at which point, I came to a certain realization as to why Anarchist tend to be such open minor criminals. It's just because of urban decay.

Anyways, of emotional intelligence, I would say that there are two ways that it develops. It can arise out of the development of good relationships, and is often quite valuable by that account, or just simply because it is the sort of skill that a person has to hone, one that is useful to them, but hazards a certain neurosis.

It's an oft-overlooked facet of the human psyche that can occasionally result in an obsession with social relations that people take for self-loathing narcissism.

Even though I do plan on leaving, I feel like this is a good thread and that could generate an interesting conversation.

It will depend on what you mean by emotional intelligence. If you mean things like empathy etc., humans were never very emotionally intelligent and it's getting worse. It seems to be emotionally mature one has to be free from a persistent self interest and the thought of being a separate individual.

The idea of EQ isn’t exactly solid. Not to mention the weird concept of calling it a type of ‘intelligence’ at all. — I like sushi

I don't know how else to call it, though. Emotional experience?

As one grows older, it seems to me that they accumulate an attitude of, 'don't bother me, I'm old'.

Where one can look into Buddhism and see that it takes a surreal amount of awareness about one's emotions, desires, and the source of dukkha to overcome suffering by negating or professing a detachment from emotions. @Tom Storm, would you agree?

It seems to be emotionally mature one has to be free from a persistent self interest and the thought of being a separate individual. — skyblack

Care to elaborate?

Care to elaborate? — Shawn

Sorry there was a typo. Please read it as :

"It seems, to be emotionally mature one has to be free from a persistent self interest and the thought of being a separate individual".

There is not much to elaborate other than the obvious. How can one be empathetic if they are constantly looking out for themselves and their self-interest?

How is relationship ( to relate) possible if we do not see the shared commonalities between the species?

Where one can look into Buddhism and see that it takes a surreal amount of awareness about one's emotions, desires, and the source of dukkha to overcome suffering by negating or professing a detachment from emotions. Tom Storm, would you agree? — Shawn

Can't talk to Buddhism, I only have a basic knowledge of it and can't claim to have taken enough interest in it.

Outside of spiritual systems, I think if people have to work hard at detachment, it isn't detachment. I think it might be better to recognize emotions and name them. Awareness of how things impact upon us is a really important skill. Then it's how much power you give these emotions in influencing behavior and actions that is the key issue.

Care to elaborate? — Shawn

Maybe i can use an example to do an addendum to the previous response.

If there isn't any disease or mutation then all of us share the same biological/physical components, perhaps the same DNA and gene blueprints, right? Then why is it hard to see that we also share the blueprint for same primary emotions, the blueprint for the same mind, the same consciousness? Are we really separate individuals or the fact is, it isn't your mind or my mind, it isn't your sorrow or my sorrow, but is a human/global sorrow? I don't know if this makes sense.