There's a lot of stuff to unpack in all of that. I think, for instance, that Buddhism also prizes 'subduing the passions' - particularly sexual attraction, craving for possessions and the like. But at the same time, there's also an emphasis on compassion, in terms of empathy for others, rejoicing in others' well-being and sympathy for their plight, which is hardly 'unfeeling'. — Wayfarer

Yes, as of recent, I've been interested in finding a way to portray Buddhists or Stoics, as emotionally more mature, and by definition of 'emotional intelligence' if one is aware of one's emotions, then technically doesn't that render them more emotionally intelligent than other people, by professing what you raise above?

I think the answer is, yes.

Are emotions really irrational? — Shawn

And, then you have one of the greats, saying

"...reason is the handmaiden to the passions."
-Hume

Go figure!

Not 'some strange reason'. Part of 'the Enlightenment'. You'll actually find many cogent criticism of that in 'critical theory' - Adorno, Horkheimer, Fromm, Marcuse. One Dimensional Man. How capitalism is only intrested in exploiting reason for instrumental ends. — Wayfarer

But, it's really strange, that emotions we're already effectively stipulated a long time ago in some conceptual framework that is Aristotelianism or Epicureanism and even Stoicism, by the ancients, and to this day people and some professionals think emotions are irrational.

Are emotions really irrational?

Humdrum.

Going a little off on a tangent, I think that virtue ethics in the US and Europe are significantly more important than other ethical theories, and think the revival of Stoicism in modern thought is important due to people feeling some similarities with Christianity.

Of course it might as well just be a fad; but, if you look at people committing to Stoicism, it usually doesn't need to be repeated that being indifferent towards circumstances out of one's control is a great way to live a life without too many issues.

Notice the emphasis in those texts in 'subduing the passions'. You never hear about that in modern psychology. — Wayfarer

Are you sure the profit motif is related to this, or were these teachings simply (for some strange reason) disregarded or done away with.

I mean, if you really think about it, virtue comes first, not deontology.

We're not emotionally educated along those lines because there's nothing in capitalist economic theory that recognises such a concept. — Wayfarer

So, you really think it's due to economic theory. I see the point here about relating this to some conception of economics dominating the importance of, perhaps, exploitation rather than obeying norms.

I think Jules Evans is a relevant source in this context. Have a look at his Philosophy for Life and Other Dangerous Situations, if you haven't already. Some of the books in the See Also carosel underneath, which look pretty sensational also. — Wayfarer

Thanks for the book, I know very well about the revival of Stoicism in modern day ethical thought. Yet, if one prods a little deeper, is it perhaps due to these very things about taming one's emotions rather than expressing them in healthy ways?

However, I still think that 'psychology' is mostly a Western school of thought encompassing Europe and the US.

I agree that there are all kinds of notions and that the subjective slants often get in the way. However, that is not to try to simply look to objective descriptions which rule out the subjective entirely. — Jack Cummins

Just pointing out when nonsense arises, and possibly as to why it does also. Wittgenstein talks a lot about this.

Not really that much to argue about, but, yes there's something to the notion that I attest to being true that the US and Europe stand out in raising the youth by adherence to certain behaviors.

I'm just wondering if those behaviors include affective reactions to situations or even ailments, as per the OP.

Historically, there's a lot of things that incorporated into the understanding of 'reality', such as souls, the mind, spooky action at a distance, and other phenomena.

Speaking surjectively about 'reality' leads to idling engines like "is reality solid" and some such.

Yes, however, on a broader scale do adolescents and the youth in the West get educated about emotions?

It seems to me that behaviorally they can be directed, and even parents don't educate youth or young adults about how to become, perhaps, more wise about how to deal with emotions?

What about prejudice as bias?

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.

relative empathy — skyblack

What's that?

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.

Wondering what are thoughts after a very successful large scale UBI plan during COVID-19, and even smaller scale permanent UBI plans going into effect in my state of residence?

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?

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?

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.

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?

Alain Badiou - who takes set theory to be the best description of ontology that we have - makes a similar point but with an opposite conclusion. — StreetlightX

Why is it the best description of ontology?

Yessssss! — ArguingWAristotleTiff

How do you see the issue from your perspective?

Again, you realize how low that bar is? For example, a group of Hamas operatives go into a coffee shop and do some research. Days later, Israel blows it up killing a bunch of innocent civilians. They could use that excuse word for word. +There is usually no evidence provided to back up their claims. — Baden

Well, the reason for decimating a news station where Al Jazeera and the AP were is not up for disclosure. Yet, these tactics have been demonstrated by Hamas in the past, so, I think that counts.

Shawn, Israel has bombed civilian infrastructure, including media outlets, simply because they claim Hamas at some point, used that building. The bar is so low a dwarf wouldn't be able to limbo dance under it. They don't feel they even need the excuse of actively being attacked from there. — Baden

I believe that those building were being utilized by Hamas to launch or gather intelligence. I don't really know all the details but, they were identified as housing weapons or intelligence gathering activities towards the end goal of launching rockets against Israel.

Much of this thread has discussed this matter as though it is necessary to decide who is in the right. Hamas or Israel? When the only sensible answer is that they're both in the wrong. Even many of the critics of Israel seem to think we need to justify Hamas, an Islamic terrorist organisation, otherwise, we can't condemn Israel properly, this is not the case. — Judaka

Yeah, but, taking the tenants hostage in your house isn't often mentioned when using it as a launching base for mortars and rockets towards Israel.

Define "using" as a human shield? If it extends to someone from Hamas entered your house therefore Israel has a right to kill you just to get at him then you may want to do a thought experiment of how you;d view the situation if a guerilla operative decided to use your home as shelter. I have a feeling though you are not trying. Try harder. — Baden

I don't think the comparison is appropriate with regards to "invading a house".

I was under the impression that Hamas was utilizing buildings in their sector to launch attacks where civilians lived in also and hadn't evacuated in time before their bombing.

I'm looking it up.

Israel doesn't use its civilians as human shields; but, I've heard Hamas does.

Are you claiming that the stories we tell each other never become dogma? — Janus

Without context they, even worse, become some kind of proselytizing or propaganda. Within the framework of their thought, then it's nothing but a contextual statement. No?

It was a question, not an assertion of my own belief. The point was, as I already stated, that isms becoming nothing-but-isms when they claim to be absolute, or independent of particular perspectives or domains of inquiry. Narrative becomes dogma; that kind of thing. — Janus

The last sentence doesn't follow. How does narrative become dogma?

I find it absurd to state that EQ is 'made up'.

Though the cause of its measure is seemingly related to experience and emotional disorders (in my case) that had to be dealt with rather than simply 'putting up with them'.

As said, I believe that if EQ is related to measures of emotional tranquility or learned behaviors, then it would be harder to measure than something like a general coefficient like the 'g' factor.

Sorry don't see how this is related to EQ.

Clinical psychologist Jordan Peterson (whatever you make think of Lobster Man) says EQ is a myth and maintains that the kinds of behaviour reported above can be explained by where people sit on neuroticism and extraversion. Presumably those high in these two traits are unable to 'read' others and reflect upon the role emotion plays in their own and other's behaviour. — Tom Storm

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?

Is emotional intelligence a real thing? Or is it shorthand for something more complex? Perhaps it is how people manifest the big five personality traits. There is a vast literature on this. — Tom Storm

I'm not sure if personality traits are related very much, but I could be wrong.

Here's what a psych-today article reads:

Emotional intelligence refers to the ability to identify and manage one’s own emotions, as well as the emotions of others. Emotional intelligence is generally said to include a few skills: namely emotional awareness, or the ability to identify and name one’s own emotions; the ability to harness those emotions and apply them to tasks like thinking and problem solving; and the ability to manage emotions, which includes both regulating one’s own emotions when necessary and helping others to do the same. — Emotional Intelligence

I think they are. — counterpunch

What makes you say so?

In what sense? Do you mean such responses are rude to others - and so unempathetic? Or is it that they express the emotional state of those who use them, and that's indicative of low EQ? — counterpunch

I think it was a poor example, yet I also think it expresses as much as the word "dam", "fuck", or "this sucks", does. Does that mean anything? Perhaps, or perhaps not.

What do you put this down to? Too much screen time not enough social interaction maybe? — counterpunch

I don't really know. I sometimes grow tired of English language, or perhaps something else. But, in general I think it has to do with some kind of phenomenon of the current times.

You take care too Shawn, and I'm sorry, for trying (unsuccessfully) to make you express any emotion at all. I can only apologise for my conduct, and assure you I had the best of intentions - initially, to understand what you mean by emotional intelligence, but later I became concerned by your apparent absence of emotion. A healthy individual would be calling me names by now. — counterpunch

It's a safe-safe. I hope everyone is comfortable.

Are you calling me a pest? Do you want to kill me? Is that it? Do it then, you coward. — counterpunch

Nuu, none of that. I'm just wallowsome. Sorry!

Take care.

:eyes:

Yes, I'm absolutely furious about it. That's what makes me fine. You, I'm worried about. — counterpunch

Don't worry. Be happy. I already read Silent Spring.

If EQ is quantifiable like IQ, the question is an empirical one. You just compare today's numbers to yesterday's. If EQ is a nebulous concept dressed as a scientific one, then that's the bigger problem with EQ. — Hanover

I see, or think I see the problem. So, it's made up or something?

BTW, I don't think it is the 'equipment' that is the problem -- the cell phones, pads, laptops, desktops, gaming consoles, television. — Bitter Crank

Then where does the problem begin with? Instead of it being a manifestation only apparent with the 'equipment'?

No, I'm fine. — counterpunch

But, we don't extract precious minerals from sea-water. We don't have geothermal utilized as much as it should be given its LCOE, and we definitely don't have enough nuclear power plants from cheap Ur232 from seawater extracted. We haven't made efforts to extract tritium from sea-water or Lithium-7 and Lithium-6 from seawater for fusion. Why is this all happening, when these are very rational and cheap things for the economy.

Doesn't this make you angry or at least frustrated?

What does wallowsome mean? — counterpunch

It just means that one sort of wallows around, a comfort behavior whenever needed. Eat, sleep, do what you want.

So you're surprised? Is it a good surprise? — counterpunch

Well, what about you? Do you struggle with depression or other malady of the mind, emotional or otherwise?

I'm just wallowsome, as I've said.