Talk:Emotional intelligence

Lacking Face?

I think there is a word choice problem here. "The ability-based model has been criticized in the research for lacking face and predictive validity in the workplace." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kmorris1077 (talk • contribs) 14:47, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

But could this be exemplified, I wonder? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.134.105.21 (talk) 14:38, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

You couild say lacking face validity as well as predictive validity —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.54.124.177 (talk) 16:20, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

E.I.

E.I. has become the entry into an unbelievable technology for effective brain usage by including the ability to not be effected by undue emotion and ego. All previous thought is then easily ignored allowing for only totally new perceptions, creative thinking and direct contact with the incredible powers of the subconscious by intuition. While the philosophers were arguing about whether it was dynamite or not, it exploded. All previous ways of 'thinking' are mostly regurgitations of what we have already thought. This explains how we have always gotten bogged down in over intellectualization and kept civilization down to a snails pace. Direct manipulation of thoughts and pictures from the subconscious gets incredible results that the left brain either cannot see or very dimly. They will not figure out the ramifications by all their 'thinking'. Gaining that ability is more from something you do rather than reason on. It must be done and then understood, but that doesn't sell books. Our feelings are made up of the same garbage our thoughts, are made up of, isn't that the truth? Right brain thinking sees things that pure or predominantly left brain thinking will be another 20 years figuring out. Emotion appears to be free energy which is negative when connected to a negative thought and positive when connected to positive thought. Otherwise it is neutral. Therefore our feelings can be readily moved to a positive thought changing depression almost instantly into insight and normalcy and happiness. Objective thinking requires ignoring any previous feelings or thoughts on a subject and observing the output of the subconscious which has already calculated in all our thoughts and feelings. By dealing with the subconscious directly we can refine and clarify it's output and bypass the confusion, the middleman with an agenda and our own agenda. It is said that only man has this capacity to observe himself. An objective analysis from a right brain position or the image in our mind of observing our self or the sense of observing or being outside the self, yields incredible insights. The brain operates in pictures and concepts that hold a lot more information than we can handle consciously so we only have to handle the concept. Who would want to text message all our thoughts, a picture is worth many words. We cannot and need not manage so much, but only the output, which is in words and pictures. The pictures are full of symbols which the right brain interprets or we have a sense of their meaning. In that mind set we see how the brain solves the question while we answer it. It is the only way I know to manipulate large amounts of data. Again, the brain does it for you and you can process the results. EI is an entry into the Conceptual Age and no amount of confusion will close the door. 4.249.45.139

There is a problem with this article: it presents Goleman's work as is, without saying anything about the tons of criticism on his publications and the fact that it is not considered a scientific work.

Goleman's book is basically a confusing and incoherent collection of scientific work, augmented with the writer's own personal, unverified, opinion. Something should be added about this.

 -- Sela

Could somebody fix the citations? It looks confusing with so many (Miller, XXXX) and the like. -- Shadikka 22:02, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

POV? - Statement regarding IQ in the section titled "Mayer and Salovey's Four Branch Model of Emotional Intelligence"

I noticed the following sentence, and have a couple of NPOV concerns:

"It should however be noted that adult income, completion of high school, attainment of higher education, avoidance of dependence on welfare, avoidance of criminal conviction, and several other factors normally considered aspects of a "successful" life correlate very strongly with IQ"

The concerns are:

1) Is it a non-NPOV to suggest that the listed criteria are normally considered aspects of a "successful" life?

2) Is it a non-NPOV to suggest that the listed criteria have a strong correlation with IQ?

One thing I am not clear on is whether or not these are statements made in the referenced work or whether they are opinions of the contributor (they read like the latter).

Does anybody have any opinions on this? TigerShark 00:29, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

All the phenomenon listed above have been shown to be correlated with IQ. I do think they are popularly considered to be indicators of success. But aren't there tests of EI, for example the marshmellow test, provided by Goleman, that have been shown to be predictive of future success indicators, such as standardized test scores?--Nectarflowed ^T 22:51, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Link removed

I am the site owner of EQI.org. Sannse removed the link to my site under external links. My site has been the number one site on emotional intelligence for much of the past few years. Recently Rob Emmerling, the webmaster of another site on EI, the EI Consortium site, started a campaign to discredit me. He evidently wrote to Sannse and she removed my link. When I asked her if we could discuss this she wrote back something like "There is nothing to discuss." This struck me as a very authoritative response, and while I am new to Wikipedia, it doesn't seem to reflect what the Wikipedia vision is. Therefore I would like to start a discussion of this.

Also, with respect to Dan Goleman, I suggest those who are interested in seeing a critique of him visit my page "http://eqi.org/gole.htm". It is the most comprehensive criticism of him on the web, and probably the reason that Rob Emmerling decided to try to discredit me since Dan Goleman is basically Rob's boss at the EI Consortium.

Steve Hein http://eqi.org

Hi Steve, I read over the review link you added, and I can't say there's much there that makes it a useful link for this article. It's just your personal notes on the book, used as a platform for attacking your rival Goleman (in the foreword review) and as a vehicle for advertising (asking readers to buy the book through your site so you can pick up $7.50). If you are an expert on EI then neutral contributions to the article itself would be greatly appreciated, but I don't think this particular link adds much. silsor 20:01, Apr 19, 2005 (UTC)

I should also add that people are generally discouraged from adding links to their own sites in Wikipedia articles. silsor 20:04, Apr 19, 2005 (UTC)

I removed [this link]. Firstly the content doesn't appear to be that useful, more of a personal essay than anything else. Secondly, I'm not too happy with some of the other content of the site, it doesn't seem to me to be one we want to link to. We had a complaint about this link in an email to the Foundation, and I thhink the writer was right, this isn't the best site to give our readers -- sannse (talk) 23:22, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I think that this was appropriate, yes. I think that the content isn't quite up to snuff, and contains some worrying diversions.

James F. (talk) 10:01, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

I recently found Steve Hein's site via Google as it's currently the top result for the term "Emotional Intelligence" and found it to be exactly what I was looking for, particularly in regards to Goleman. I don't know if it's been revised since these initial comments but the current site is very thorough, includes tons of valid references, and shares a colorful albeit lengthy commentary on Goleman's work and his publication hijinks. I'll agree some of the opinions shared on his site are extremely biased POV that would never be considered for inclusion directly into a wikipedia article, but it's still a nice resource that manages to showcase both sides of the debate. I was never a fan of the Goleman / Hay Group so maybe that has something to do with it. Anyways.. there's still plenty of links to the site in the article refs so I'm guessing this issue has been resolved, if you get a chance I'd recommend checking out Steve's gole.htm collection .. I found it to be a great read and to be honest I didn't even notice any advertising.

http://eqi.org/eitoc.htm This is a direct link to the page on EQI.org EI, thus readers can avoid the other topics if so desired. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.96.85.167 (talk) 14:49, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Daniel Goleman

The recent changes by User:2004-12-29T22:45Z have significantly changed the tone of this article. Claiming that Goleman 'kidnapped the concept' is inflammatory and not NPOV. This article now appears to be an attack on Goleman. I am not defending Goleman, but I think that the criticisms should be worded in a more neutral fashion.

Pburka 01:23, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

This is correct. We must maintain objectivity. Corrector5 (talk) 11:15, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Removed section

I've moved the following section here:

== Emotional Intelligence Quick Book ==
Latest emotional intelligence book [1] , released in June of 2005, which reviews research with 500,000 people worldwide and measures EQ using Daniel Goleman's model via The Emotional Intelligence Appraisal test. [2] Major findings from the book:

• Women average 4 points higher than men in emotional intelligence.
• CEO's have the lowest emotional intelligence in the workforce, with middle management scoring the highest.
• Emotional intelligence tied to physical health via the impact of stress upon the body's immune system.

brenneman^(t)(c) 02:10, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

Tag

I'm not sure, but aren't tags supposed to be placed in the Talk page, and not the article itself? Or does this only apply to some tags? Is there a list of tags, and WHERE they should be put?

{NPOV} and {cleanup} tags are the two most common tags, and both go on the articles themselves. NPOV tags go there to warn readers of the dispute. Other tags that address issues that are more exclusively for editors of the page, such as {controversial} get placed on talk pages. There is probably a guide somewhere to tags, but I don't know where it would be offhand. The help page would probably be a good place to start.--Nectarflowed ^T 02:30, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

I added some criticism from H.J. Eysenck. Does this help the neutrality/balance problem?

Paul Magnussen 16:08, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

Describe his position and link to the source, but don't copy and paste his criticisms into the article. As it is, it's hard to tell whether they are his opinions or those of the author of the article. TaintedMustard 05:13, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

Removed NPOV

I have attempted to provide a NPOV to this article; and removed the NPOV tag. However, the article is still heavily about Goleman and his work. Steven McCrary 17:47, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

To be honest, I think it's okay that much of the article is about Goleman and his work. He is probably the leader in research on EI, and most of what is believed about EI comes from him. Even though there has been other research, it only makes sense that the majority of the article would be about the most well-known aspects and researchers of EI. --Cswrye 05:46, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Deleted text

Greetings,

The article underwent substantial reorganization by User:68.185.91.32 without explanation. I have reverted some of those edits.

I am especially concerned about moving the definition of emotional intelligence to the end of the article.

If there is a problem with the text, please discuss it here. Thanks, SteveMc 18:47, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Merge emotional intelligence tests into this article

This article covers almost all the tests in emotional intelligence tests. I don't see why we need a redundant article. The invention and discussion of emotional intelligence seems to hinge on its measures, so shouldn't that be a central theme of this article, not a separate one? Kslays 16:17, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

• agree: urge merge. Pete.Hurd 17:16, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

I have a concern about this -- the tests are mostly produced by for-profit companies that seem to be using wikipedia to promote their tools (e.g., Emotional Intelligence Appraisal). If there is discussion of tests, should be broader or analytical or not list any individual assessments.... that said, it makes sense to me that assessments be a section of this article rather than it's own.

The tests should be in this article with a clear statement of their for-profit goal. The WAIS, other Harcourt Assessment tools, and PAR tests are for-profit. The biggest difference appears to be that their measures are now traditional and monopolistic, whereas emotional intelligence tests are new, there is competition between the measures, and some are used for business hiring. The measurement of emotional ability is the basis for this article, so the tests shouldn't be in a separate one. Kslays 14:33, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Jargon (TMMS and SEI)

These acronyms were introduced to the article without introductions. Does SEI simply represent "Self-report EI" Dozens 17:12, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

SEI is for Six Seconds Emotional Intelligence Assessment

Suggestion

This article would benefit with a section on documented methods on improving EI.

Criticism section

Shouldn't the topic on "Nancy Gibbs on emotional intelligence" be moved to the criticism section?

Or, perhaps there should be a History section. here is a history with input from many of the leaders in the field. Or, here is a history from an interview with Daniel Goleman.

Added link to publisher

While it is clearly a for-profit company, Multi-Health Systems does include resources and references on its website for the EQ-i and MSCEIT.Trevorl 14:29, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Could user 24.30.139.241 please explain why they removed the link that I put up. If it is an objection to the company being for profit, then I wonder why they added a link to TalentSmart, another for profit company. Please explain in discussion page.Trevorl 14:29, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Why no "Books on Emotional Intelligence" section ?

It seems a very odd omission. --Penbat 18:59, 3 October 2006 (UTC)ving

Definition?

Why no detailed definition? There is lots of discussion about the history and specific books, but I was hoping to find out what emotional intelligence actually *was*, and haven't really found it here. I suggest that the article could be much improved and made more useful with a good definition. markgaz 23:06, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Article should be called Emotions and Intelligence

Emotional intelligence does not appear to be one thing, but rather it appears to be a combination of three things. Personality, General overall cognitive ability (IQ), specific socially oriented cognitive ability (Theory of mind). Coatchecker

Nope, the subject actually is "Emotional Intelligence" .. which in it's current form could almost be considered some type of holistic mental therapy that liberally incorporates random scientific facts to make it appear more authentic. Apparently a dynamic EQ was originally propose to be "the answer" to offset the fixed potentials of IQ to cash in on the stigmatic limelight surrounding 'The Bell Curve' (a hot topic at the time). I might go as far as to call EI a pseudoscience, but there is quite a few factual academic studies in the field. Although the peer reviewed journals in no way over glorify "emotional intelligence" in such an exaggerated manner as the New York Times bestseller that shares the same name. If anything the scholars have spent more time cleaning up the mess that Goleman made than making actual progress in this area. These views are my opinions. Anyways, the title is correct, the information does seem to be an odd amalgamation, but as one might say, "that is the nature of the beast." 74.97.109.162

Promote knowledge, not products

It bothers me that the article keeps ending up with numerous links to a couple of particular publishers. So I have 2 challenge for anyone editing this page: 1. Any time you edit ensure you are providing information, links, and references to your own work, ensure you do 3x that for others' work, and 2. If you are referencing your own work, sign your edits with your real name.

A related question -- at one point I added links to two resources that seemed particularly important for people learning about this topic: comparison of emotional intelligence tests and interview with Goleman on origins of EQ

I am not going to put them back in myself, but if some neutral party sees them as important to this entry then please do.

- Joshua Freedman Jfreed 16:39, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree, much of the article is about hawking (often second-rate) commercial products. The article needs to focus a lot more on scientific debate and research.

Anyone interested in genuine comparisons of tests should do well to read research papers not commercial websites.

The standardization link for MHS is bang out of order in an encyclopeadic entry and someone should remove it.

A number of consultancies are logging on and ruining the page in order to promote their (generally suspect) services. Chief among them: Multi-Health Systems, Trevor Bradberry, and Six-Seconds. Is this how you guys understand science, research and encyclopaedias?

--

If you "agree with me" then I would appreciate it if you actually do what I asked: if you are going to throw stones, please sign your name and take responsibility for the criticism. At Six Seconds we work very hard to promote the concept and value of emotional intelligence and not denigrate other models and practitioners. In fact, we are the only organization who has ever created conferences on the subject where we've invited ALL the "competitors" to be at the same table, and at least the entries I've put into this article have been cited based on published research and, I believe, up to the standards of Wikkipedia. See my note on "Commercial" below. Jfreed 00:20, 15 October 2007 (UTC) COO, Six Seconds

Ho ho ho! So you have invited in your 'conferences' anyone from trait emotional intelligence or Daniel Goleman? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.108.163.50 (talk) 16:06, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Clean up

Hi, I'm trying to clean up this page.

It's the first time I've tried to clean up a wikipedia page, so have patience with me. It's just that there are a lot of areas that really need to be clarified, just on a grammatical / sentence-structure level. As someone familiar into EI, I'm also adding a bit of info here are there, although I'm trying to do this in separate entries. Chime in if there are any objections. -Kerrjac

--Ok, now I think that most of the article reads pretty well & objectively. I had edits for just about every section. Most of them were grammatical / styllistic bits (e.g., putting terms in italics rather than quotes), with a bunch of new internal links (among others, reliability, mediation, regression, confound, self-report, case study, social desirability). Most content changes were in the assessment / criticism section: For the former I rearranged the order, to take the emphasis off of the commercial scales, and also added info on the Schutte inventory; and for the latter, I further clarified the comparison to IQ, and I created a new section for criticism against Mayer. I also temporarly took out that section on neural circuits (see my note in text, I think the info doesn't below in the criticism section).

Perhaps we can take off the 'needs cleanup' tag in a few days. I think we just have to make sure that the reference section is updated with the content. We might also want to elaborate on some of the the information a bit, particularly the assessment area.

-Kerrjac

Objective Clean Up

The first apparent thing I notice when reading this article, is that the critisism spans at least 1/3 of the article.

Apart from that little notice, I've also found contradicting sources. Not to mention that Daniel Golemans books(the very "author" of modern emotional intelligence) are not referenced at the end of the article. Although Daniel Goleman has his own sources, which I must admit I do not remember personally, I am pretty sure that they are not listed there.

His sources claim that Emotional Intelligence is a better predictor of student performace than IQ. Not to mention the many other cases, where EQ is far superior to IQ in determining the life outcomes of chidren.

Therefore I can only advice you to alter the following text on the beginning of the critisism pages:

"On the whole, emotional intelligence is not accepted as a part of standard intelligence, as is IQ. Consequently, EI does not have a "benchmark" to set itself against. In contrast, the IQ is one of the best predictors in modern psychology research, strongly correlating with variables such as school grades, and, more recently, the psychometric g factor. This has left EI researchers to create their own, albeit controversial, criteria, in order to justify the usefulness of EI."

This part is especially contradicting:

"in contrast, the IQ is one of the best predictors in modern psychology research, strongly correlating with variables such as school grades,"

Not to mention the "negatively colored" ending:

"This has left EI researchers to create their own, albeit controversial, criteria, in order to justify the usefulness of EI."

The very semi-sentence "in order to justify the usefulness of EI." is ignorant and incorrect. Since it implies that the many EI researchers(many of which are psycologists) are trying to defend it or the like.

To ensure the neutrality and objectivity of wikipedia, please edit this article correctly.

Thank you.

- Julian

re: objective cleanup

I've changed those opening 2 ppgh's. There's such a variety of models of EI that it's difficult to talk about them all in one breath. I see how the words "this has left" is too negative. I also tried to change in to sound less like EI researchers are defending their construct, however it should be remembered that in a sense, whenever a new construct is introduced, it does need to be defended. And one way to defend it is by establishing such criteria.

As a "fan" of EI myself, so to speak, I was also surprised that the criticism section was so long. I thought a lot of the criticisms needed to modified, but I tried not to change too much material. However, I've read much of the scientific literature (especially regarding Mayer & Salovey's model), and the skepticism portrayed here really is reflected in the literature. EI does have a lot more speculative and unempirical articles, even within the scientific publications, than most constructs I've come across; its lack of empirical evidence has been critisized heavily. I would argue that downplaying the vast amount of skepticism would be unhealthy for the future growth of the construct.

Regarding Goleman, nothing in the article states that he's the "author of EI". I don't think that he is. In fact, it might even be worth it to elaborate on Goleman in the section, "Claims for the Predictive Power of Emotional Intelligence are too Extreme", because his references that EQ has more predictive power than intelligence have been heavily bombarded by scientists. I think I even heard that he published a correction on this statement.

But if you disagree, feel free to suggest / add more modifications.

One possibility would be to distinguish different models of EI more, and then elaborate on their pro's & con's within subsection. You can see that most of the criticisms are only aimed at specific models. However, I only have sufficient knowledge to do this for Mayer's model, I wouldn't be able parse the info for other models.

a serious clean up and more

I took the challenge of updating this article, and this is the result. This is the summary of the content changes:

I expanded the history section, making the flow a bit more natural and the structure more proportioned (for instance, I included the subcategory about the Time article in a more detailed descprition of the context of the term's appearance)

I elaborated on the current models, and the measurement developed for each one. Now the criticism is more balanced with the rest of the article- including the scientific debate and research. (someone wrote it took 1/3 of the article and he was right)

I deleted the Schutte inventory paragraph, it was unbalanced- it claimed It is one of the only inventories based on Salovey and Mayer's (1990) four-branch model which is not true and contradicts the part about the MSCEIT.

On the criticism section I reviewed the major models and the criticism against each one, I think now its more NPOV. I didn’t organize the references for the " Self report measures are susceptible to faking good" paragraph, since I have no idea where they came from.

And of course, I added references to every argument. I could also add a section with some empirical findings in a while- depends on how long my changes will last…

StutSon 23:17, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

latest change

the latest change is problematic, not referenced, and i would say also NPOV, especially the last sentence: "Although promoted as an ability test, the MSCEIT is most unlike standard IQ tests in that its items do not have objectively correct responses. Among other problems, the consensus scoring criterion means that it is impossible to create items (questions) that only a minority of respondents can solve, because, be definition, responses are deemed emotionally 'intelligence' only if the majority of the sample has endorsed them. This and other similar problems have led cognitive ability experts to dismiss ability EI as a genuine intelligence"

First, I already mentioned this in the criticism section (see:Ability based measures are measuring conformity, not ability). second, the fact that a test doesnt have objectively correct responses doesnt mean the theory is flawed ("dismiss ability EI as a genuine intelligence"' it only means there is a problem with the construct validity of the test. StutSon 15:48, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm afraid that when the "theory" is synonymous with the (commercial) test, the criticisms apply to both. Perhaps you could enlighten us by citing other tests of "ability" EI that actually have construct validity. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikikoo (talk • contribs) 10:34, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

This theory is no more and no less valid than the other theories presented. I think this article should convey to its readers knowlege of the controversy surrounding the EI concept, and not claim one model is better then the others (which is the same as writing 2 models' basic assumptions have been dismissed, and not writing anything about the third model). StutSon 17:33, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Reliable sources

I do not think Harper's Magazine fits Arbcom's definintion for "reliable sources" for scientific vs. pseudoscientific articles. See:*Arbcom roposed decision/Appropriate sources. Is this considered scientific article or pseudoscience or what? --Mattisse 12:05, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

sources

In this case, the article was mentioned in the context of the the social intelligence history - who were the first to mention its existence or question the predictive validity of IQ alone. I'm not sure about the wikipedia sources policy, but this quote about Thordike has apeared in several articles (for example, Petrides , Frederickson and Furnham 2004, Dulewicz and Higgs 2000 and more. ) StutSon 17:28, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Alexithymia

Moved paragraph away from 'Origins' section because there was no mention of how it contributed to the evolution of EI (I am aware that it has played a significant role, but this needs to be detailed). It can rest for the moment in its present position while editors suggest appropriate re wording and placement. Suggestions can be made here to gauge editor consensus before altering. Soulgany101 10:07, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Commercial?

In the edits, wikkioo wrote, "The 6-seconds stuff is commercial like tons of other stuff. Stick to the scientific literature)" -- Six Seconds [3] is a 501(c)3 not-for-profit organization, the first and largest organization in the world promoting the concept of emotional intelligence. Six Seconds has trained hundreds of thousands of people, our network members have published numerous scientific articles, and the Six Seconds' management team has also published several scientific articles, and the advisory board includes some of the pre-eminent scientists in this field. Six Seconds organizes the NexusEQ Conferences, the largest and furthest-reaching conferences on emotional intelligence in the world. And there are now Six Seconds offices in six countries - all of them doing exceptional non-commercial work improving the lives of people.

Given the organization's broad reach and serious impact on this topic, I'm not sure how you can justify removing the description of Six Seconds' emotional intelligence model as "commercial."

There is an inherent challenge that when an organization publishes an assessment it becomes "commercial" -- this is true of all the models and assessments described in the article.

Because I am clearly biased, I am the COO of Six Seconds, I am not going to add the references back myself. However, if someone is going to remove "commercial" references they need to do so with an even hand.

Jfreed 00:12, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Jfreed, I agree this at least merits discussion and consideration for re incorperation into the main article. If it is indeed a non-profit organization and its members and advisory board include pre-eminent scientists I see no reason why you cannot reinset a link immediately. Or perhaps for other editors Wikkioo can explain his/her reasoning for labelling 6-seconds "commercial". If no other editors chime in here withing the next two days I vote you go ahead and reinsert it as a link at minimum, as 'we' are consensus. Anyone else? 121.222.133.213 22:02, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

tag removal- discussion

This article has been tagged since May 2007 as "may require cleanup to meet Wikipedia's quality standards". can the tag be removed already?

StutSon 00:07, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I noticed recent editors had been doing an overall clean-up, but forgot to remove the tag. As several of the problems have been weeded out now, I have removed the tag. If anyone still has a particular line they feel needs further tidying they can mention it here for editors to work on. 121.222.133.213 03:42, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Extensive Comments about the Wikipedia page on Emotional Intelligence

• [http://www.eqi.org/wiki1.htm —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.96.85.167 (talk) 14:46, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Interventions to develop emotional intelligence and secondary sources

I am restoring the section on "Interventions to develop emotional intelligence." It is paraphrased from a seondary source: a textbook chapter written by Salovey and Mayer (the same Salovey and Mayer who published the first definition of EI) and their colleague. I think that insistence on accepting only primary sources (peer-reviewed journal articles) is unreasonable. An encyclopedia article should be aimed at non-professionals (i.e., the audience of a textbook), not at practicing researcher (i.e., the audience of peer-reviewed journal articles).

I think that the EI article needs a section on applications of EI. If someone wants to modify or replace the "Interventions to develop emotional intelligence" with other material on EI applications, I welcome his/her modifications or contributions.--Dr.enh (talk) 18:05, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

I think what is unreasonable is to have every random person who chanced upon a chapter in some book, 'contributing' to encyclopedic entries. The said 'contribution' comprised three empty links and one which -surprise, surprise- led to some 6-second commercial stuff. Do you seriously believe that an encyclopedia would include stuff like that in an EI entry (or in any entry for that matter)?

It has taken too much effort to remove the pop-psyc nonsense and commercial advertisements from this page and if you want to go back to when all the entries were from the 'scientists' at 6-seconds, MHS, etc. etc. be my guest.

You are obviously unaware of what constitutes peer-reviewed research if the best you can point to in your 'contribution' is a chapter from some book. Are we to accept as evidence of the veracity of your 'contribution' the fact that it's based on a chapter by Salovey and Mayer? Have you any idea whatsoever what the research literature has to say about the "first" (according to you, who is blissfully unaware of Thorndike, 1920, Gardner, 1983, Payne, 1985, Greenspan, 1989) definition of EI? Should we start introducing sections based on such 'pioneering' contributions as the 'first formal definition', the 'first published test,' 'the original best-seller', the 'most super-duper website'? Encyclopedic entries are about facts and science, not marketing blurb. Last, but not least, try reading before writing -it helps.Wikikoo (talk) 12:46, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Wikikoo, if you believe that you are more of an expert on what belongs in s summary of EI than Salovey and Mayer, then you are so clearly full of yourself that it is not worth my time to argue with you. BTW, you might want to remove "The first published attempt toward a definition was made by Salovey and Mayer and (1990) who defined EI as 'the ability to monitor one's own and others' feelings and emotions, to discriminate among them and to use this information to guide one's thinking and actions.'" (emphasis added) from the EI article and replace that sentence with a paragraph on your profound contributions to the peer-reviewed literature on EI.--Dr.enh (talk) 16:22, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

I have no interest in removing the quote because very quickly another ignoramus will reinstate it (like much of the other nonsense in the entry, which has neverthless been slowly improving over the last year). For your information, there is a paper on EI by Leuner published in 1966, an entire dissertation by Payne published in 1985, and a chapter by Greenspan published in 1989, all of them before your "first published definition". Of course, the ideas (i.e., contents) of these definitions are simply paraphrases of Gardner's personal intelligences (1983), which in turn paraphrased Thorndike's social intelligence (1920). The reason why these are not well-known is because they did not happen to be mentioned in Goleman's book, which is the only reference most people have (half-)read. 81.100.178.122 (talk) 09:09, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Proportion of criticism

This article seems to have a disproportionate amount of criticism of its theme. Hgilbert (talk) 17:37, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

I see this entirely the other way around. (Obviously, I may be reading a very different article by now.)88.77.156.108 (talk) 02:13, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

It keep changing all the time! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.248.96.31 (talk) 07:33, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

It's true - more criticism that actual content! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.85.1.5 (talk) 15:48, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Eysenck quote

On the critisim section there is a quote from Eysenck, said to be written in 2000. That is highly improbable as the guy died in 1997. I don't know where the quote is from but I suggest the contributor correct it. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.80.178.1 (talk) 15:42, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Steve Hein's anti-research, anti-scientific "eqi.org" site

Twice now I have removed from the external links section Steve Hein's "eqi.org" site, on which I did quite a bit of reading to evaluate. I'm usually quite tolerant with such things, because I believe external links provide readers with valuable information. But I concluded that Steve Hein's "eqi.org" site is a well-intentioned but anti-research, anti-scientific site which prefers his own idiosyncratic approach to that of the scientific method. As such it is quite unencyclopedic, and has no place here, in spite of the fact that it has some enthusiastic supporter who keeps adding it. -DoctorW 04:39, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

--

Hi Doctor W.

Could you please explain in more detail to the Wikipedia readers why you are calling the EQI.org site "anti-research"? Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.143.100.253 (talk) 10:21, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

--

There is a user, "Wikokoo," who has been editing this page, but when I click on the user name it says "User not found". This seems a bit suspect. Anyone else agree?

--

I kind of agree that we're sick and tired of you struggling to promote your silly webpage and your boyfriend. You have made not a single worthwhile (research-based) contribution to the entry and all you do is keep adding your URL to the external links and changing the order and description of the entries there. As someone said, get a life! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.134.12.240 (talk) 10:58, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

-- —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.143.100.254 (talk) 11:46, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

There are several pages being spammed with this link. A discussion on this issue is in progress here. Polyamorph (talk) 14:08, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

edit of April 3rd re: criticism

It is a fact that Mayer, Salovey and Caruso (researchers highly identified with the EI concept) wrote an article in the flagship journal of the American Psychological Association, saying that the term is too broadly defined and arguing that it should be reserved for their ability based model. It is an important statement and an element in the criticism of EI. My edit was undone by someone signed in with an IP address only. Please explain why this edit should be deleted. Thanks. Pgm8693 (talk) 16:38, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree that this entry has no encyclopedic value. All it says is that Mayer, Caruso, and Salovey believe that the Mayer Caruso and Salovey model of EI is the best. WalterBuck (talk) 20:04, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

• It is a valid criticism of the model, presented in a scholarly journal, documented with a review of the literature and argued in terms of a research agenda. If this is of no encyclopedic value, then how are any of the other criticisms of value? They are defending the concept of EI by saying that by saying that there is a core research agenda and that it should be limited to valid constructs. They were responding to the criticism of Locke. I think it is worth noting, and I could frame it more as a response to this particular criticism. Pgm8693 (talk) 21:40, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

• You are missing the point. There is no "concept of EI" because different theorists talk about different EI concepts. The point of the entry is to present the main models and their broad strengths and limitations as well as to mention a number of general issues and concerns that have been raised in the literature - it is not to paraphrase bits and pieces of journal articles promoting one view or the other. WalterBuck (talk) 23:06, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

• • If there is no "concept of EI," then perhaps the first sentence in the article ("EI ... describes a concept") and the first section heading ("Origins of the Concept") should be changed. And also, if that's the case, the history included in the "Origins of the Concept" should more accurately describe how it emerged from being a term, to a theoretical construct (Mayer & Salovey 1990), to a popular concept with permeable boundaries (Goleman 1995) that was then given a journalistic rendering (Gibbs 1995) that became it's public face. That's the point. Perhaps the second sentence in the article ("Because it is a relatively new area of psychological research, the definition of the concept is still being developed") should be changed to say: "Because it is an appealing and evocative term (POV), a struggle exists as to how it should be used and how it should be defined." This is not a case in which there are simply different models for the explanation of an underlying phenomenon. The EI field is one in which different authors and theorists are competing to control the use of the language. That is what the encyclopedia should tell people, rather than suggesting that there is some underlying phenomenon for which different models have been proposed. The gist of the 2008 Mayer, Salovey & Caruso article was: "hey, we laid claim to this term, and then these other guys came and stole it!" ... and it's a reasonable assertion. Which is not to say that there is any validity to Mayer & Salovey's original construct. If this is to be an encyclopedic entry, it should tell the truth and simply say that it is a term that people are fighting over. It is a term that refers to no specific construct. I didn't want to get into the whole argument, so I gently edited the criticism section. Perhaps bold editing is in order; right now, this article is substantially POV. Pgm8693 (talk) 04:41, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

• • • I agree with much of what you are saying about restructuring the entry. The problem is doing so objectively rather than with a view to supporting one model or other. The entry is far from perfect but it is (at last) relatively balanced and informative and provides pointers to those who wish to look deeper into the issues. In fact, it is currently a very good entry for such a controversial topic. With respect to your claim that it is "a reasonable assertion" for Mayer et al. (2008) to lay a claim to the field or its terms, I suspect that most would disagree. First of all, as the Wikipedia entry finally points out, the term was certainly not 'coined' by Salovey and Mayer (1990) [not Mayer and Salovey], so it is not theirs to control (it wouldn't be theirs to control even if they had coined it - this is psychology not copyright law). So, like everyone else, they will have to provide hard data in support of their models and methods, something that (if you are familiar with the literature) many feel has not been forthcoming (including the very distinguished Edwin Locke, but many others too). Second (if we, as you seem to want?, choose to act as marketing executives concerned with brand names and trademarks rather than psychologists concerned with facts and data), you will find that most specialists are alarmed by the way the term intelligence has been hijacked by the multiple "intelligences" brigade and not by who coined which multiple "intelligence" first. WalterBuck (talk) 08:08, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

• • Walter: I think Salovey, Mayer et al have produced some hard data, but that for their approach, what is lacking is construct validity. Whether or not it predicts or correlates, it is not theoretically sound. I think Edwin Locke is right on target. What I want is not to help them protect their brand, but to make it clear that rather than being a "concept" or relating to any underlying phenomenon for which there are different theories or models, EI is simply a term that people fight over (I think because it just sounds so cool) and that as you say, has been hijacked by the multiple "intelligences" brigade. Professor Locke explained it by saying that EI is about "egalitarianism: redefining what it means to be intelligent so that everyone will, in some form, be equal in intelligence to everyone else." I think that is what's missing in this article in the criticism section. I don't think the article should say at the outset that it lacks adequate definition because it is a relatively new field of study. I think it should say at the outset that there is no consensus on whether or not EI has a sound theoretical foundation. I think the following provides a useful discussion: Emotional Intelligence? I'm not feeling it. ... Pgm8693 (talk) 17:42, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

• • I agree with this. Perhaps you could take a stab at amending the entry along those lines? WalterBuck (talk) 08:18, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

edit of April 10th re: criticism

The reference used for this edit is an article that is a comment on Mayer, Salovey and Caruso's September 2008 American Psychologist article and that also references and quotes from Locke 2005.

I think that under criticism, the EI article would also benefit from the inclusion of another quote from Locke 2005 under criticism: EI is about "egalitarianism: redefining what it means to be intelligent so that everyone will, in some form, be equal in intelligence to everyone else." Pgm8693 (talk) 19:33, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Definition

There seems to be a bit of a conflict over whether a particular definition should be included. It is clear, relevant, helpful and supported with a citation. There is no reason why it needs to conform to the introduction; if anything, the introduction should be modified or expanded to include the full range of accepted interpretations. hgilbert (talk) 16:55, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

"enjoying considerable support in the literature and have successful applications in many different domains"?

Is the following statement from the lead section an uncontroversial statement? Does it require a citation or two? It smells like POV to me, but I'm no expert on this topic. I would think that, unless this is truly an uncontroversial statement, that at a minimum removing "considerable", "successful", and "many" would make it read more like a neutral statement.

...the ability EI and trait EI models (but not the mixed models) are enjoying considerable support in the literature and have successful applications in many different domains.

• Nobody had anything to say here so I went and removed the unnecessary adjectives. SlubGlub (talk) 23:23, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

MORE RECENT EVIDENCE ON THE ASSOCIATION BETWEEN EMOTIONAL INTELLIGENCE (EMOTIONAL STABILITY) AND PERFORMANCE ON IQ TESTS.

There has been quite a bit of evidence in more recent years, that performance on cognitive tasks involving what is known as Executive functions (EF), is sensitive to changes in individual emotional state. It is more commonly becoming suggested within the field of cognitive science, that the ability to solve problems requiring higher loads of abstract reasoning (higher g), depends on the suite of skills that EF encompasses, just as much, if not more so, as it depends on IQ. It is unfortunate, however, that the vast majority of conventional IQ tests overemphasize problems with the lowest properties of abstraction, that rarely require a subject to either activate long-term memory in search of useful analogical substrates....or to shift between, multiple, local items. Basically, the solution algorithms to problems on conventional IQ tests, are given to the subject (the subject is told how to 'solve' the problem), and the subject simply applies the algorithm through their faculty of Short term memory. Thus, the greater the STM capacity, the higher the IQ score. And this is expected, but the convenient assumption which has long been utilized: that solving a problem, simply requires the ability to apply freshly granted solutions, tends to over-rate the faculty of Short term memory, and grossly under-rate "intelligence". So in reality, alternative intellectual 'constructs' (in all fairness to IQ proponents), may describe intelligence as being something quite temporally dynamic, as it would be prone to the influences of internal (personal), emotional responses, and which would require more tools than just STM......a favorite of the psuedo-logicians, and fire-and-forget children with ADD. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.22.31.252 (talk) 23:52, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Intelligence Citations Bibliography for Articles Related to Human Intelligence

You may find it helpful while reading or editing articles to look at a bibliography of Intelligence Citations, posted for the use of all Wikipedians who have occasion to edit articles on human intelligence and related issues. I happen to have circulating access to a huge academic research library at a university with an active research program in those issues (and to another library that is one of the ten largest public library systems in the United States) and have been researching these issues since 1989. You are welcome to use these citations for your own research. You can help other Wikipedians by suggesting new sources through comments on that page. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 02:59, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Introduction

Please see Wikipedia:Manual of Style (lead section). The lead should mention notable controversies. Also, WalterBuck/Wikikoo, please stop mark all your entries are minor.Miradre (talk) 14:55, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Furthermore, why are you deleting the template?Miradre (talk) 15:05, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Miradre: I'm sure you don't want to end up with an entry that has a one-line explanation of what the concept is and 3 lines about controversies that are discussed in detail in the main entry anyway. I agree there should be a note about different definitions, but you seem to be proposing an intro that focuses solely on limitations, disagreements, problem, controveries. In fact the whole entry is unbalanced like this with little mention of all the positive findings and constant repetition of controversies. There needs to be a bit of balance, no? WalterBuck (talk) 15:07, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, there need to be some balance by mentioning that there is criticism. Currently none is mentioned. Why was the template removed? Miradre (talk) 15:11, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

The IQ template was removed because there is disagreement about whether EI is ability or personality. So what was happening in the past is that some people were adding the ability template and then others would come and add the personality template and there would be a constant mess. So finally sense prevailed and it was agreed that the links to personality and ability would go under the 'see also' section. As regards the introduction, I have tried to redraft it to take your point into account. Would you be happy with the text below?

Emotional intelligence (EI) is an ability, skill or, in the case of the trait EI model, a self-perceived ability to identify, assess, and control the emotions of oneself, of others, and of groups. Various models and definitions have been proposed of which the ability and trait EI models are the most widely accepted in the scientific literature. Criticisms have centered on whether the construct is a real intelligence and whether it has incremental validity over IQ and the Big Five personality dimensions. WalterBuck (talk) 16:35, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

That sound find to me. I think we should see if someone objects to the template. If we do not have the template on the article, then EI should not be on it either.Miradre (talk) 22:56, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

OK Miradre, why don't you upload the revised introduction, since you're OK with it and also remove the neutrality contention (which I thought was too harsh anyway since this was a stylistic disagreement more than anything else)? I suggest we keep the IQ template out of it or otherwise incorporate the IQ, personality, and emotions templates which will make the entry too cumbersome. Overall, I think it would be a good compromise to change the introduction along the lines you suggested and leave the templates out. I hope that works for you and perhaps you could also help with other parts of the entry if you have time? WalterBuck (talk) 09:53, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Done. I do not see any other template that is appropriate for emotions or personality but I do not feel strongly about including the template. I will remove EI from it. If I have the time I will contribute more to the article.Miradre (talk) 14:18, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Bullying and emotional intelligence

Ive started a sandbox with the hope of doing an article some day on "bullying and emotional intelligence" to explore the relationship between the two - User:Penbat/bullying and emotional intelligence--Penbat (talk) 18:12, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

First to talk about emotional intelligence: Darwin or not

Someone just inserted a disagreement in a reference, claiming Darwin is not the first to mention this topic. Could someone look into this further? Thanks. Dodoïste — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.218.24.92 (talk) 20:37, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

(Self-reply) Well, no reply, and I couldn't find any obvious reference to support this statement. So I removed it for now. Dodoïste (talk) 00:16, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Can you redirect to Empathy please

That financers do know what they're talking about. No pun intended. --fs 02:35, 17 February 2012 (UTC)