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. — skyblack

Not sure.

It makes sense for me to say that emotional awareness or intelligence is required to make these sort of realizations through empathy or sympathy for other people around the world. One's sphere of interest where they reside in is important towards this goal, surely.

So, what matters most is the fact that we can identify emotions and them reflexively promote some kind of 'care' or interest in what's worthwhile to promote for the benefit of those who suffer.

At the very least some kind of concern is necessary, in any regards.

One's sphere of interest where they reside in is important towards this goal, surely.

So, what matters most is the fact that we can identify emotions and them reflexively promote some kind of 'care' or interest in what's worthwhile to promote for the benefit of those who suffer. — Shawn

As i see it, the above will then become a mechanical practice, some form of relative empathy, which is directed at certain goals. It will lack the certitude of genuine insight and will suffer from the defects of relativity, which is just like everything else we are used to. a convenient trade off.

relative empathy — skyblack

What's that?

What's that? — Shawn

I mentioned earlier about a "a convenient trade off". A relative empathy would also be considered as a conditional empathy. It will demand certain conditions to be met. It isn't given freely. It's like when you were saying earlier:

One's sphere of interest where they reside in is important towards this goal, surely. — Shawn

. This is like setting a condition.

But if we see that everyone suffers, including myself, then out of that com-passion ( etymology: getting together in sorrow) an unconditional empathy may take birth.

Which takes us back to my original example, we will have to see how we share our emotions, our mind, our consciousness, which is common to entire humanity.

To ignore ‘definitions’ and answer your OP as directly as possible (no point quibbling over a gist question I guess) ...

When it comes to ‘emotional maturity’ a lot of this is likely due to life experience. A lot is to do with how ‘maturity’ tends to lend itself toward the ability to plan long-term rather than being limited to short-term goals. Both combined, measured and understood would be wisdom.

Im todays world there is undoubtedly a large shift towards the ‘immediate’ because technologies have made our lives dramatically easier in many regards and therefore it seems reasonable to me to attribute a certain lack of ‘long-term planning’ to exhibit itself in apparent ‘immaturity’.

I don’t see the ‘emotional’ side having much more to do with this other than all humans generally being able to better deal with difference circumstances through lived experience. Stuck in a short-term planning loop would necessarily cut of access to certain life experiences. If you don’t plan anything long-term then you don’t have experience of this (obviously). It is seemingly less necessary to plan long-term.

For small things ... simple communication is now so SIMPLE across the globe. Whereas a few generations ago one didn’t carry a phone around in your pocket or have the ability to look up anything you wished online ... no, you’d have to visit the library and select a number of books you wished to read and ONLy take so many out for a set period of time. Now you don’t even ‘have to’ read ... just listen to podcast and/or watch a youtube video whenever and where ever you like.

People don’t really need to plan anymore, they just do. This may explain a shift in what you’re referring to when you suggest people are ‘less emotionally mature’.

Well, yes. Life experience is important. Yet, it seems to me that when talking about emotional intelligence, I think, there's some kind of truth to saying that the drug epidemic or need for immediate gratification is quite an indicator to show that there's some kind of issue with emotions for certain people.

I've been thinking that those with less to do with distractions and being focused on "goals" (as mentioned previously by @Tom Storm) and most importantly, sticking to them, could also be an indicator.

Yet, there are undoubtedly other indicators for discerning emotional intelligence, such as being in poverty or such.

Thanks.

Yet, there are undoubtedly other indicators for discerning emotional intelligence, such as being in poverty or such. — Shawn

Evidence?

Given that the concept of ‘emotional intelligence’ isn’t very widely accepted means any measurement of it is on pretty sketchy footing.

Intelligence (the g factor) does help discern an individuals economic standing, but it is one factor of many. There is no hard evidence - to my knowledge - that has a hard connection to ‘emotional intelligence’ because, as I said, the term isn’t even very widely accepted by researchers. There are ‘hints’ that something is there, but it could just be what I said (g factor + experience).

Given that the concept of ‘emotional intelligence’ isn’t very widely accepted means any measurement of it is on pretty sketchy footing. — I like sushi

Can you link me something on the matter? A Buddhist or Stoic would object mostly, no?

The summary isn't bad in the link below:

https://www.ihhp.com/meaning-of-emotional-intelligence/

It’s an advertisement.

You can look into studies if you wish to. Basically there are a few empirical measurements of human traits. There are the Big Five and the g-factor.

These can are known through a set of standard tests that have been given to many people over many decades from many walks of life. They are not completely accurate though.

There are other ‘ideas’ thrown around by other psychologists too such as ‘Grit’ ... generally these really boil down to a combination or one or more of the Big Five and sometimes combined with ‘g’.

My point being, what I mentioned above are the most non-reducible items of psychological research. Maybe some ‘emotional’ attribute exists too that is more distinct from these ... I’ve yet to see any compelling evidence for it though - I’ve looked a little and here and there. Some things look interesting, but most often it is someone trying to make a name for themselves and/or getting tunnel vision.

With what I was outlining before we’d expect people with good communication skills and experience to have a good degree of Openness and to be Agreeable probably. To use this efficiently I’d factor in the g-factor (as it is the best indicator of health and general longterm ‘success’ - as in good job and promotions.

To be clear, when I say ‘best indicator’ it is not a particularly good indicator alone. Once other things are factored in it can help get a better idea of someone, but individuals are pretty much individuals. We can discern a fair amount about groups of humans, but individual humans are a completely different and much more complex system to predict.

I don’t believe buddhists or stoics are somehow in a better position than psychologists to dismiss or back such an idea because I think they’re more concerned with ‘how to live life’ than empirical scientific research.

A simple wiki search would’ve highlighted the criticisms:

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

Just dropped in for a minute and thought I'd click on your link.

https://www.ihhp.com/meaning-of-emotional-intelligence/ — Shawn

Stopped right in my tracks at this:
'It’s a scientific fact that emotions precede thought'
With nothing to support that claim.

I tend to agree with @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). The stoics influenced Albert Ellis who created RET, which morphed into CBT and DBT. It's great stuff. — Tom Storm

From my own experience - no science to support this - the emotion/thought process is a bit of a cycle with no clear defining moment as to which comes first.
I guess it depends on the person and situation; the context.

I think what matters is the formation of a helpful attitude and behaviour towards self and others.
Behaviour produced as a combination of thoughts and emotion has consequences.
Others react to our behaviour and v.v.
This can be done with or without taking time to attend or care.
A good or a bad life experience has its effects on wellbeing.
Sometimes it is necessary to change the way we think or feel.
How do we do this usefully - can it simply be willed ? Can we do this alone ?
Well, I think self-regulation takes practice and the ability to stop and reflect on the emotion and why it arises...

So, what matters most is the fact that we can identify emotions and them reflexively promote some kind of 'care' or interest in what's worthwhile to promote for the benefit of those who suffer. At the very least some kind of concern is necessary, in any regards. — Shawn

Yes. I think so...

From my own experience - no science to support this - the emotion/thought process is a bit of a cycle with no clear defining moment as to which comes first. — Amity

Yes. The general idea is we develop emotional habits that are informed by thoughts. An initial impulse may well be a lighting quick, unreflective reaction. But the person who weeps openly whenever the word 'father' is mentioned, or who thinks of self-harm or suicide when they are criticised by a spouse definitely has thoughts informing their emotions. Significant unhappiness and unwelcome emotion in people is also produced by rumination and 'festering'.

Did you notice? Every study on emotions - philosophy, psychology, you name it - is either entirely about eliminating them or reigning them in. Isn't it time someone tried something different?

Did you notice? Every study on emotions - philosophy, psychology, you name it - is either entirely about eliminating them or reigning them in. Isn't it time someone tried something different? — TheMadFool

Don't think that's true for good psychology. Eliminating emotions or reigning them in isn't the idea - it is developing an awareness of why overwhelming emotional reactions are happening and being better able to understand yourself and those reactions. Insight. Not all that different from the goal of philosophy.

I also think that psychological interventions that prevent violence, suicide and misery are greatly beneficial and no trivial achievement.

Significant unhappiness and unwelcome emotion in people is also produced by rumination and 'festering'. — Tom Storm

Yes. Dwelling too much in the past, especially after loss and dealing with grief.
Regrets or anger of previous behaviour/actions by self/others.
What a killer of present possibilities...of happiness...moments of joy...appreciation...

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. — Tom Storm

This type of work must be so challenging and fulfilling when you see positive results.
With regards to addiction - I expect this kind of self-management requires a daily commitment...after being shown how to use tools and strategies...
Fascinating and most worthwhile practice.

Don't think that's true for good psychology. Eliminating emotions or reigning them in isn't the idea - it is developing an awareness of why overwhelming emotional reactions are happening and being better able to understand yourself and those reactions. — Tom Storm

Opinion seems divided: Appeal To Emotion but, in my defense, being perfectly rational (that's our aim, right?) requires controlling our emotions. Perhaps it's a myth that emotions hamper rationality but I'd like to see someone figure out, and I quote, "...why overwhelming reactions are happening..." and also be "...better able to understand yourself and those reactions..." while in a highly emotional state (angry, in love, etc.).

Nevertheless, I still feel there's something to learn if we let loose our feelings.

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. — Tom Storm

Are you sure you're distinguishing between
1. the respect that people generally have for high(er) socio-economic status,
and
2. the respect that a particular person has for another person, regardless of the other person's socio-economic status?

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. — Shawn

Only a Buddhist dilettante would try to negate or profess detachment from emotions.

The actual Buddhist practices are about understanding how thoughts and emotions arise, what is the nature of perception, practicing a measure of austerity in terms of food, clothes, entertainment, etc.

Here are three sample suttas for how to deal with hatred:

https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an05/an05.161.than.html
https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an05/an05.162.than.html
https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an10/an10.080.than.html

There is no denial there and no professing of detachment.