Talk:Daniel Goleman

Section Heading "Educational Innovation " implies non-neutral POV

Should this section heading be modified to reflect neutral POV? "Innovation" implies an opinion of Goleman's theories that they are correct, which may be a matter of debate. Objectivesea2 (talk) 19:36, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Empirical Evidence Not Found Here

Has anyone bothered to even inquire whether Daniel Goleman is a charlatan? I think the question deserves discussion. To me it all looks like quackery, the same kind of non-scientific fraud perpetrated by Sigmund Freud. Well, after all there is some discussion. Just not in this article, which looks all too suspicious as a PR piece for Mr. Goleman. http://eqi.org/gole.htm He's probably a nice guy. I enjoyed his book Emotional Intelligence. But I really doubt whether this Wikipedia entry is NPOV and encyclopedic. To me it looks like the typical promotional whitewash.

Maybe you should make some neutral improvements. Biography pages often glean hard facts from personal websites, and the tone of promotion can be carried into the prose through laziness. You can help us fix that. Zanglazor (talk) 09:12, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm concerned about this issue too. In particular there is a section headed "research" which I think is a misleading title. The section describes the content of the subjects books, but there is no indication of what sort of research the the author did to support his claims. I don't have a source for this off-hand, but I have the impression that academic researchers think that Goleman's bestselling book on EI makes unsupported and exaggerated claims about the importance of EI. It would be good to include some sort of summary of the academic consensus about his work.--Smcg8374 (talk) 04:21, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

The article says he studied, but seems to avoid saying *what* he studied or which *qualifications* he obtained. [PEC]

Untitled

Contrary to the article's ext as it current stands, Goleman's first book was not Emotional Intelligence. See http://www.mazon.com/s/002-0034420-3980813?ie=UTF8&tag=mozilla-20&index=blended&link%5Fcode=qs&field-keywords=goleman%20daniel&sourceid=Mozilla-search Mkapor 20:38, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Can somebody tell where he did his major, his masters, and what his Phd was on? I 've been searching the net and somehow I can't find any info on these issues, for some reason everyone's very hush hush about these? I wonder why. I any case a bio should definitely include them. 84.254.50.158 23:17, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Just thought I would share this link with you guys if you wanted a "critisism" column :) http://eqi.org/gole.htm —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.151.131.116 (talk) 00:13, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

This article needs expansion IMHO. Goleman is widely read, his perspective has some merit, but he is not a honest reporter about the underlying science. A criticism column is sorely needed.212.85.89.247 (talk) 14:12, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Folks, I added and today removed: "Steve Hein writing as the EQ Institute published a "Critical Review of Daniel Goleman"." and the HTML comment: "this link is spam cite web|title=Critical Review of Daniel Goleman|url=(link above in comment from 83.151.131.116)|publisher=EQ Institute|accessdate=July 12, 2012". Anyway I am going to write an article about the book Mr. Kapor mentioned above if there is still enough press about it (it was written in 1977 so there might not be much on the Web). -SusanLesch (talk) 02:25, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Criticism

This article seriously needs a criticism section. Here's just a quick note from me, after making a minor research about this guy. I came across one of his "concepts" about how emotions works, but it looked distorted considering the actual facts and research behind it (I wanted to refresh my memory about amygdala). I get the sense that this guy just writes about other people's research but in a distorted form (and sometimes just add his own speculative things to it). It seems to me that he takes credits for the research too since I first thought that what I was reading was his research; but on the other hand, he's some kind of journalist it seems. I'm sorry that I can't contribute right now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.250.79.202 (talk) 03:50, 22 July 2013 (UTC)