|WikiProject Psychology||(Rated B-class, Mid-importance)|
- 1 POV? - Statement regarding IQ in the section titled "Mayer and Salovey's Four Branch Model of Emotional Intelligence"
- 2 Suggestion
- 3 Criticism section
- 4 Article should be called Emotions and Intelligence
- 5 Clean up
- 6 Objective Clean Up
- 7 re: objective cleanup
- 8 Sri Lanka
- 9 Self-esteem and drug use
- 10 Recognition not monitoring
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)
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." 188.8.131.52
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.
A claim this vague certainly doesn't belong in the lead uncited. — MaxEnt 21:57, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
Self-esteem and drug use
1) "Out of a sample of 200, 100 of which were dependent on cannabis and the other 100 emotionally healthy" - a bit pejorative perhaps? It reads as though cannabis dependency and emotional health are mutually exclusive parts of the universal set. Are there no emotionally healthy cannabis users or unhealthy non-users?
2) What is the point of the tests? Are they present as an example of the 2010 survey, the 2012 survey or as a reader self assessment? If the latter, where is the key or interpretation?
- This part of the article needs clean-up to source to reliable secondary sources in any event. Thanks for pointing this out. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 15:01, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
Recognition not monitoring
Not to cap on Pete and Jon Jon, as it's their theorized model, however the most significant mental differences that arise from Emotional Intelligence as compared to those with a lack of it, is brought about through accurate recognition of one's emotions, aka known as honest or truthful knowledge of themselves through understanding their feelings -- through accurate recognition of the nearly infinite number of emotion that an intelligent being experiences -- their theory was never about simply "monitoring" their emotions, as monitoring and recording every millisecond of emotion and giving it a name does absolutely nothing to boost one's emotional intellegence if the emotions are misindentified or in any way not correctly identified. Without the practice of honestly identifying your truthful emotions, monitoring your emotions can actually lower one's EI. As the truth of your emotions are often inconvenient, rarely does the average person hit a bulls eye of the target of truthfully admitting ones emotions. Most people go with a close enough attitude from which the growth in EI will inevitably come crashing down as it is built on a falsely calibrated identifying system. Such people have to halt all EI progress in order to not have their tower of bable come crashing down. It is the practice of honesty that allows for a Human to rectify or correct their recognition system and it is a system that cannot be mimmicked by artificial intelligence, because it is our emotions that give humans their high potential for intelligence. Dirtclustit (talk) 11:36, 30 September 2014 (UTC)