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).

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.

:up:

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. Of course you can explore knowledge and emotion separately, and investigate them as such. And use that knowledge as a key to success. But when you apply intelligence and emotion in practice, your measured and explored intelligence and emotion won't really help you. It's their unexamined combination that's the key.

Yeah, it's basically just nonsense.

In terms of psychometrics the most solid grounding is 'g' and The Big Five. EQ is just some attempt to smuggle in a new term when it is already covered under The Big Five.

I think we see a lot of attempts to discredit this more standard 'model' of personality because it is vague enough to warrant a good degree of speculation. It is a pretty well established foundation though BUT is often misapplied to individual cases when in reality such self analysis tests only really give a decent broad picture of the human personality spectrum.

Can we stop comparing ourselves to others? :grimace:

This is my understanding too, with emotional intelligence, such as it is probably correlating with agreeableness - if you are going to take the OCEAN model as your basis.

If you were intelligent around an objective, it would show.

Does IQ have any place in epistemology?

I think it's a silly measure. IQ tests were originally invented to get a relative comparison of the mental development of children. I find that questionable. Even more so when adults use it and act like it's a reliable measure of "intelligence".

I'm not sure EQ is a specific kind of intelligence, so much as someone one can develop understanding and ability to deal with emotions.

What am I feeling, what are they feeling? Why? How to manage?

In general, I would say self-awareness and empathy are important. Being aware of and understanding ones own and other's emotions is part of self awareness and empathy.

In any field of enquiry you are gonna have to rely on yourself and others to various degrees so it could be very useful to understand emotion, especially in so far as emotion deals with motivation.

Emotional Intelligence is something.

When to be mean? Is a good example of it.

It is about control, a harsh test of a person's control. It's a harsh test of a person's self-control by a natural conduit.

del

Great thread topic! The influence upon the person, of the affective dimension of the mind is a subject of great interest to myself. This is quite a psychological subject...if only there were a few psychiatrists on the site who might contribute...

Check out Descartes' Error by neuroscientist Antonio Damasio — 180 Proof

Thanks for that, I certainly will.

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

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.

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

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.

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

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.

Which is more important, knowing shit or giving a fuck?

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.

who gives two shits? If you fuck around you get in shit, wise to know about shit so you don't fuck up.

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

Voltaire?

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

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:

When to be mean? Is a good example of it. — Varde

Just so.

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

Most I have known don't have any of those skills and are widely despised for their lack of diplomacy and social skills. But some have been lucky to have senior management teams who have those skills and do the key work. There's a cult of the CEO, but from what I have seen they are largely a ceremonial figure who, if they are good, will have a crack team and stay the hell away from their work. When they try to actually do things they often screw it up and mess with the bottom line.

rational thoughts are more bio-electrical in origin, and emotions more biochemical, — Michael Zwingli

Where did you get that from? Both are based in the lightning-like parallel paths that massive amounts of electrical spike potentials follow in a least resistance mode. Emotion and thought have the same neuronal counterpart. Every emotion is accompanied by the same neuronal functioning as a thought process. In emotion, the body is involved more than in thought though. Thoughts are pretty bodily detached. Though there is a connection obviously. If I sing a song in my mind I can feel it in my stomach, a tear can get in my eye, and I can't do it without moving my tongue. I can think about a friend, but are unable to do this in an objective, non-emotionless way. No extra biochemical reactions involved in the brain, although I (my body, that is) can respond biochemical directly, or indirectly by means of secreted stuff from the brain. And this secreted stuff is released by the integrated union of thought and emotion. The both are not part of one single structure, as you imply. One being the electric, one being the biochemical. The are both electrical mini hurricanes, taking place on the same neurons, which offer, biochemically, the same basis for their electric existence. Both thought and emotion are electrically charged structures, and you can ask, if so, then what the hell the difference can be.

Te question will always;remain: now that we found knowledge of the both, what are we gonna do with it?

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

Excellent, I will. I've been wanting to read this for some time and I just started my last new book, so it's buying time again.

edit: Have you read Damasio's Error by Gluck? Thinking about getting both....

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

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

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.

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

If you formulate it in terms of virtue epistemology, then it makes more sense.
The basic idea is that it takes virtue in order to know something.

Roughly, EQ overlaps with virtue.

emotions have a greater influence upon rational thought than the obverse. — Michael Zwingli

That was the point I was trying to get across with this question.

And how we process information in our mind is influenced by our emotions.

Take a scenario where an individual who had a series of bad experience over let's say eating spaghetti.

Let's say in this scenario a Dietitian agree with this assessment due to the high sugar content in pasta but does not know the background story on why this person hates spaghetti. Than unintentional reinforcing the belief that all spaghetti is bad.

Than this person who believes that all spaghetti is bad one day encounters a foodie (Someone who studies gastronomy) and these two individuals get in a debate on whether spaghetti is good or bad.

Not knowing the emotional motivators that lead to one's thought process can be an obstacle to understand the other in why someone would think that. Than the truth or knowledge (however you want to phrase it) becomes more of a blurred grey area.

Are you rationalizing this idea based on emotional trauma and/or personal experiences. Is this thought based on logical assessment and data? And can you differentiate the two when it comes to decision making and thought?

In my opinion, a question can result in an emotional answer, logical answer and a hybrid of both which may present many different results.

Also it become exhausting because now you need to be mindful of the question and how the question is presented. If the question is to vague than you invite other factors and different interpretation of the question. Than it creates what I call a snowball effect where numerous serious of sub questions would arise like...

Was this person abused by someone serving him spaghetti?
Was he obese and got fat eating to much spaghetti?
Are we even talking about the same thing?
Doesn't he understand the question?

Than it becomes what I call a rollercoaster of trivial questioning that do not apply to the original question you asked.

So understand emotional motivators and how it relates to rational thought may help in understand the purpose of thought and thinking.

Wiki defines emotional intelligence as "Emotional intelligence (EI) is most often defined as the ability to perceive, use, understand, manage, and handle emotions." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emotional_intelligence

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

I don't agree with the breakdown of your question because it uses the term "epistemology" as somehow being the study of the purpose of thought or alternatively as having something to do with deciphering IQ. I see it simply as the academic study of how we know things about the world.

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. If we want better bridges, I'd prefer the high IQ person even he's prone to temper tantrums. If I want a better neighbor, I'd prefer the high EQ person, even if he can't think his way out of a box. Ideally, we want both, where the person is both smart and civil, but if we're left with a choice of one or the other, I'd probably want a society of smart people. Agreeableness is boring, although maybe a really high EQ person would be quirky and edgy, just for me.

My cat is clever, but her EQ is piss poor. My dog is pretty stupid, but a gentler, kinder creature there's never been. Maybe this comes down to cat/dog people traits. I go with cats, but, you know, having a slap happy tail wagging dog can be a good thing too.

My cat is clever, but her EQ is piss poor. — Hanover

How do you figure? Because she's not obedient?

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

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.

:up: