|WikiProject Psychology||(Rated B-class, Mid-importance)|
- 1 General Concepts in Cognitive Ability
- 2 POV? - Statement regarding IQ in the section titled "Mayer and Salovey's Four Branch Model of Emotional Intelligence"
- 3 Suggestion
- 4 Criticism section
- 5 Article should be called Emotions and Intelligence
- 6 Clean up
- 7 Objective Clean Up
- 8 re: objective cleanup
General Concepts in Cognitive Ability
Many people have staunchly held objections to the idea of quantifying intelligence, and also objections to the idea that cognitive ability correlates with success. So this needs some discussion. In terms of measurement, there is survey data indicating what attributes people "think" qualifies as "success". So yes, "success" is merely a point of view. However it is a "point of view" that is demonstrably universally held across all cultures. Moreover, in terms of what qualifies as "success" we can only talk about measurable aspects. If there are other aspects that are not measurable, then that falls out of the realm of what a formal forum ought to discuss, especially since it would be pure speculation. Certainly, it is absurd to suggest that IQ is not the most important factor in a person's well-being in terms of ANY manner in which you might measure "well-being". This is because of the tonnage of evidence that correlates IQ with every conceivable positive thing across every conceivable culture. The idea that IQ is not highly correlated is an often-repeated media myth that deserves as much credence as the idea that the moon landing was fake.
Consider, if lead-poisoning was researched to show a negative effect on your child's IQ score --- you would not claim that such research was unimportant and then ignore warnings to keep your child away from lead. If marijuana permanently reduced an adolescent's IQ score, you would not then withhold your concern until an EQ test was administered. If you found that the average IQ of a death-row inmate was 75, then you would not make the statement that "most killers have high intelligence". If you found that people with IQ scores over 140 almost never have a car accident or perpetrated crimes of any kind you would not say "unintelligent people are more law-abiding". If you found that police officers with high IQs solved more crimes and made less false arrests, you would not say "I want my police to be honorable and not smart." All these correlations exist in the literature. Unfortunately there is a cultural bent in Western society that "wants to" undervalue cognitive ability. Certainly the media proactively lies about what the research reports, for instance ( http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20150413-the-downsides-of-being-clever ) which is a blatant falsehood --- in fact IQ is highly correlated with happiness and self-reported happiness.
IQ is measured using a Verbal and Spacial scoring on one of several standard tests used by psychologists. Verbal and Spacial scores are not exactly correlated, and are therefore reported separately. A century of data has demonstrated that all tests correlate either with Verbal or Spacial IQ scores. About the only exception are skills like musical ability and sporting+coordination abilities.
The idea of "emotional intelligence" is a fad created by one author, who represents the epicenter of this mythology. With EQ, came a new religion that holds faith in the idea that anyone can achieve anything, and that "being smart does not count". Actually it counts a whole lot.
The core scientific objection to EQ is that EQ does not measure anything different to the Verbal score of a standard IQ test. This means that a standard Verbal IQ test, as used by psychologists for the last 50 years, actually gives the same differential score as an EQ test. This means someone with a high EQ will have a high verbal-IQ, and someone with a low EQ will have a low verbal-IQ.
People often object to all this, by their keen observation that "I know someone who is really brilliant and is terrible with people". This is quite true -- there are many people who have the personality profile of presenting intellectualism to their peers, but until you measure their Verbal score with a standard IQ test, it is possible only to guess that they are really "brilliant". The large majority of high-IQ individuals are in high paying managerial jobs as is predicted by survey data. They are very good with people too. A person with a high Spacial score and a low Verbal score is probably not good with people and possibly fits the characterization of "brilliant and is terrible with people" -- you don't need EQ to work this out.
All this basically means that a person with a very low IQ score is extremely unlikely to ever earn a high salary, or make an extraordinary contribution to humanity. This is a very positive and empowering scientific observation because it means that we ought to do everything not to damage cognitive ability. This means protecting our living environments from toxins, and protecting children's brains from trauma, drug abuse, and protein deficiency. Anything that is known to cause cognitive damage should be avoided. However there is nothing that really substantially improves cognitive ability. You can become a little smarter with a lot of work, but not much smarter.
If you don't "like" these idea's then you are thinking as a child thinks, who cannot accept the reality and limitations of the physical world in which we live. Icecream melts in the sun, and short people can't run fast. And that is reality.
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?
- See above - General Concepts in Cognitive Ability
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)
This article would benefit with a section on documented methods on improving EI.
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.
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." 220.127.116.11
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.
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.
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.