Talk:Emotional intelligence/Archive 1

Archive 1

Subjective Self Promotion

This entire article presumes that there is something called "Emotional Intelligence" that it distinct from what ordinary IQ tests measure. Simply put: this is a lie. People that score high on EQ tests score the same on IQ tests. There is little difference.

Put another way, the number of people that score high on EQ tests and low on IQ tests (or visa-versa) is vanishingly small and there is no study that shows otherwise.

A few authors have tried to imply otherwise in popular commercial works, and the article tries to give the impression that the field of psychometrics has embraced the term Emotional Intelligence: this is also a lie.

Just one example of these lies can be found in the first line "The earliest roots of emotional intelligence...". The reference to Bar-On, if you read that article shows that this is purely Bar-On's personal speculation about how Darwin's ideas might vaguely have spoken about a similar theme. That article is referenced several times. Bar-On says things in this article like "based on my professional experience" and cites many of his own articles as his principle support, as well as articles from the 1920's. He then goes on to promote "The Bar-On Model". What a joke. His "study" does not even show a single graph! It does not even test the IQ of the sample as a Control comparison. As a scientist this is an unconscionable omission.

There is zero empirical support of the field of Emotional Intelligence by Darwin whatsoever.

I'm am going to reword this article to be less manipulative and represent the facts.

Will wiki authors who read Goleman please check his references. He is an self-promoting academic charlatan and you cannot take what he says at face value. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.185.176.225 (talk) 17:46, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

I have removed some cruft and added some references. This should be a lot better. I have specifically removed the prolific references to Bar-On, and some references from the 1920's. I assume we don't care about psy research that is 100 years old -- this pre-dates the Lobotomy! If someone else can check some these other "researchers" and remove the pseudoscience please, this would help. It can still be a good article about what information is out there, and what misguided researchers attempted and failed to conclusively establish. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paulsheer (talk • contribs) 04:29, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

This article sucks

I cannot, for the life of me, figure out why anyone is congratulating the people that 'cleaned up' this article. It sucks. The headings do not look professional whatsoever (ie: "Cannot be recognized as form of intelligence") and the whole article was obviously written by skeptics. This is about as biased as an article can be on Wikipedia without being removed. Almost every section seems to run on and on about how people disagree with this philosophy. I suggest making "Criticisms to Emotional Intelligence" a separate article to make it possible for people like me to actually learn about the idea. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.169.114.104 (talk) 02:55, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Simply put: there is no such thing as emotional intelligence. There should be no article on this in wikipedia at all because the concept does not exist. The fact that some charlatan has made money promoting this fictitious concept does not make it worthy of an encyclopedic entry. Put another way, if you compare the predictive power of a standard IQ test versus the predictive power of an IE test, there really is no difference. People that score well on one score well on both.

Let's make up a term "psychical intelligence" and write ten best-sellers about it. We can fake a whole lot of stats and research to make it look scientific.

Cool idea. Can I suggest a title/sub-title: "Psychical Intelligence -- the next level after Emotional Intelligence". Should capitalize well on previous best-sellers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.147.72.148 (talk) 23:13, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

The original comment made me laugh because, as a person who has conducted research in related fields, I thought this article was not skeptical enough of the claims of certain EQ practitioners. So when you have both sides outraged you must be doing something right (even though I still think the article is too lenient). 203.38.24.65 (talk) 08:12, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Undue negative weight ?

A large proportion of this article is given over to criticism of the emotional intelligence concept, see emotional intelligence#Criticisms of theoretical foundation and emotional intelligence#Criticisms of measurement issues. I think the article is unduely negative overall. It is a mainstream concept and has had rigorous serious study. Compare with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder which is probably an equally controversial subject, the criticisms are hived off into a separate article attention deficit hyperactivity disorder controversies with only a short summary in the main article attention deficit hyperactivity disorder#Controversies. I think that a similar arrangement would be appropriate to emotional intelligence, that is, have a separate criticisms of emotional intelligence or emotional intelligence controversies article. This article should be primarily about explaining the emotional intelligence concept not swamping it with criticisms of the concept.--Penbat (talk) 12:02, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

The separate hiving off into a criticism article is actually a disfavored practice here on Wikipedia, and should usually be undone in the cases where it has been done before. I'll have to check this article as I update other articles about human intelligence, but I would have to say as a first impression that the professional literature about human intelligence (as contrasted with the popular literature) is mostly not very favorable to the overall concept of "emotional intelligence," while still being quite favorable to the idea that conventional IQ tests miss important aspects of interpersonal functioning and self-regulation. In other words, feel free to find reliable sources that have a more favorable view of the topic and put citations to those here, with appropriate article rewriting, but I would much rather have this article be the place for reading about both the pros and the cons of the concept of "emotional intelligence." -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 19:50, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Sri Lanka

References to EI can be found in historical books from Sri Lanka.

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?

Regards, Martin of Sheffield (talk) 14:48, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

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)

Suggestion

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

Since EI does not actually exist a real, separate, measurable attribute of a person, the idea of "improving" EI makes no sense. Read "General Concepts in Cognitive Ability" above. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.173.61.239 (talk) 20:40, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Integrating content from this link will also be useful, it promotes the idea like IQ, EQ could also be acquired by training: http://ei.yale.edu/ruler/ruler-overview/

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.

Hi Julian. It's great that Goleman claims this. Disappointingly, one must also realize that Goleman is a popular author that benefits financially from his book royalties. The concept of "Emotional Intelligence" is more-or-less an invention of his own. Proper research cannot substantiate Goleman's ideas. This means that, long before Goleman, Psychology had produced many tests of personality and cognitive ability. These tests do just as well, or better, at predicting all kinds of performance. The purpose of science is to reduce an explanation to a minimum set of conceptual variables. EI has been debunked as being a superfluous concept. Further debunking of EI is a waist of good research resources. To be fair to the truth, the entire wikipedia Emotional Intelligence page should read one line: "A debunked alternative theory of Intelligence". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.254.4.13 (talk) 02:55, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

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

Yes, there is a great deal of criticism of Goleman's and other models. I added this in a brief sentence to the lead to summarize these criticisms within the body of the article.Charlotte135 (talk) 21:38, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

see also inclusions

I would like to delete some of these random inclusions of researchers names. They don't seem appropriate given the exclusion of a vast number of others. If anyone objects, please discuss here.Charlotte135 (talk) 22:42, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

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.

All of the above is simply a point of view that seeks to use a little evidence to impose a vast and definitive generalisation upon Humanity. Psychology really isn't like Physics; there are no Laws of Psychology. There are hypotheses that are validated to some degree by statistical correlation, but it is not and never will be true to present those hypotheses as "facts" about individual human beings, as universal "facts" analogous the Second Law of Thermodynamics or Evolution; they are correlations and do not apply to every human being, and to assert that they do is simply ignorance. 95.150.78.85 (talk) 09:46, 28 April 2016 (UTC)Martin

"little evidence" -- no, in fact there is no other evidence. If you have evidence that contradicts the views in this summary, please point to peer reviewed studies that you have read that contain actual data. There are no studies that show that IQ is less than 2/3 genetic, and there are hundreds of studies showing that IQ correlates with every measurable positive trait. On the other hand there are whole libraries are "arguments" against this summary with no good research to back it up. I urge you to investigate more deeply. There are no divisions in the research on this matter after you strip off the fraudulent misscharacterizations. This field has become like Young-Earth-Creationism vs Evolution. "do not apply to every human being" -- no one said they applied to every human being.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Emotional intelligence. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2014/01/the-dark-side-of-emotional-intelligence/282720/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160207093225/http://psychometriclab.com:80/Brody.pdf to http://psychometriclab.com/Brody.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:49, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

"scientific proof of the validity of EQ as a scientifically valid metric."

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

The articles cited for the claim that EQ has " scientific proof of [it being] a scientifically valid metric. " are terrible. I doubt they meet official standards for credible sources

50.207.105.170 (talk) 22:01, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Are you saying EQ is not a valid metric? If so, you are mostly correct. It is all quack except for a very few tests that actually predict something slightly better than Big5+IQ. The problem is getting a bunch of rational wikipedia editors on board to take aim at this garbage and kill it. Myself, I get no support and end up loosing the edit war each time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paulsheer (talk • contribs) 22:07, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

If you want to change content bring reliable sources. Am closing this per WP:NOTFORUM and will remove further comments that don't propose concrete changes based on reliable sources and the policies and guidelines.Jytdog (talk) 22:26, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Proposed merge with Reuven Bar-On

The Reuven Bar-On article is an orphan. Bar-On's work on an emotional intelligence quotient should be merged (in much briefer, less redundant form) INTO the existing Emotional intelligence article, rather than existing as a BLP. Also, this article (Emotional intelligence) contains a detailed time line of Bar-On's predecessors in developing an Emotional Intelligence quotient, whereas Bar-On's BLP says that Bar-On was the first to develop an EQ or EIQ.

Finally, the Emotional Intelligence article is written NPOV, whereas the Bar-On BLP has overly promotional content and factually disproven aspects of emotional intelligence/emotional intelligence quotients. The latter are addressed in the Emotional intelligence article but contradicted by the Bar-On BLP.

In summary, Bar-On only seems notable for a BLP based on puffery language and unsourced claims. It would be more appropriate to include his work as part of the Emotional intelligence article instead. FeralOink (talk) 11:55, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Merge - Agree with FeralOink summary. - Mlpearc (open channel) 19:17, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

Ping Paulsheer and I had a conversation on the talk page of the Reuven Bar-On BLP , where he agreed to a merge of the Bar-On BLP into this article based on what I said there, specifically: "I spent some time reading about Reuven Bar-On, and agree that he is non-notable and that his BLP is promotional. I checked citation counts for him and his Emotional Intelligence Quotient, and they were nearly non-existent... I was thinking that one or two sentences from this BLP could be included in the Emotional intelligence article. That is what I intended by "merging"." If Paulsheer would be willing to confirm that he Agrees here, on the discussion page for the Merge proposal, that will be helpful in establishing consensus.--FeralOink (talk) 21:53, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

Ping FeralOink Yes, I agree. I did not see this msg till right now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paulsheer (talk • contribs) 18:13, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Excellent Summary

The summary at the top of the article as of 11 Feb 2017 is good and properly shows EI to be more-or-less a debunked Fad. Let's keep it that way please. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paulsheer (talk • contribs) 21:18, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

APA Citations

References Cherniss, C. & Goleman, D. (2001). The emotionally intelligent workplace. San Francisco, CA. Jossey-Bass.

Crowne, K. (2013). An exploratory study: Cultural exposure, emotional intelligence, and cultural intelligence. International Journal of Cross Cultural Management, 13, 5-22. doi: 10.1177/1470595812452633

Emmerling, R. & Goleman, D. (2003). Emotional intelligence: Issues and common misunderstandings. Issues of Recent developments in Emotional Intelligence, 1 (1), Retrieved July 27, 2017, from http://www.eiconsortium.org

Gunkel, M., Schlagel, C., & Engle, R. (2014). Culture’s influence on emotional intelligence: An empirical study of nine countries. Journal of International Management, 20, 256-274. doi: 10.1016/j.intman.2013.10.002

Gunkel, M., Schlaegel, C., & Taras, V. (2016). A global study: Cultural values, emotional intelligence, and conflict handling styles. Journal of World Business, 51, 568-585. doi: 10.1016/j.jwb.2016.02.001

Mohzan, M., Hassan, N., & Halil, N. (2013). The influence of emotional intelligence on academic achievement. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 90, 303-312. doi: 10.1016/j.sbspro.2013.07.0995

Shao, B., Doucet, L., & Caruso, D. (2014). Universality vs. cultural specificity of three emotion domains: Some evidence based on the cascading model of emotional intelligence. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 10, 1-23. doi: 10.1177/0022022114557479

Sunil, K. & Yadav, S. (2011). Culture: An integral component for emotional intelligence assessment. New Delhi, Delhi. Global Vision Publishing House.

Jenniferkvo (talk) 01:18, 31 July 2017 (UTC)Jennifer Vo, 7/30/17

Images

Hi! I'm opening up a discussion on behalf of my student Amitc008. She's been trying to add images and they've been repeatedly removed from the page. I was wondering if there were any suggestions for the images or for potential captions that would help show how they pertain to the article. Here are the images with my thoughts for the captions:

Possible captions

• 
  Emotional intelligence also reflects abilities to join intelligence, empathy and emotions to enhance thought and understanding of interpersonal dynamics.
• 
  The ability to perceive emotions of oneself and others is often seen as a part of emotional intelligence.

What does everyone think? I wanted to discuss this here and get some advice - I think that the images are good, but could use better captions to show where they specifically relate to emotional intelligence. If the student is willing, ideas for other images is also very welcome. Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 20:32, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

• Rather than use typical image formats, I tried using the gallery template - it's not really working for some reason. I'm also going to ping Jytdog and Natureium since they removed the images, to get their input and advice. Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 20:34, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Thank you. I am just sincerely confused as to why these were taken off. When I made them, I tried hard to display the meaning of emotional intelligence. I am just trying to contribute..Amitc008 (talk) 20:46, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

• I am sincerely confused why you think that such images add anything to a encyclopedic article. The topic under discussion simply has no image that would add any kind of clarity because it is not physical. BTW, I am curious of you explained to your student that EI essentially does not exist and was promoted by fraudsters? The first few lines of the article should make that clear. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paulsheer (talk • contribs) 20:58, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

• I removed them because they don't add anything to the article. One is a photo of a man's face and the other is objects strangely photoshopped over a woman's breasts. What are they demonstrating that can provide clarity on the subject of emotional intelligence? Maybe this subject would benefit more from a chart of some kind rather than a photo. Natureium (talk) 23:44, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

• Paulsheer is wrong to say that images in general don't add anything to a encyclopedic article. In fact, the presence of images is one of the six good article criteria, but the images must be relevant to the topic and have suitable captions. The manual of style section on image relevance states: Images must be significant and relevant in the topic's context, not primarily decorative. They are often an important illustrative aid to understanding. When possible, try to find better images and improve captions instead of simply removing poor or inappropriate ones, especially on pages with few visuals. However, not every article needs images, and too many can be distracting. I agree with Natureium that the two images displayed above do not add anything to the article. More relevant images would include, for example, a photo of Daniel Goleman in the "History" section and illustrations of the phenomena in the "Interactions with other phenomena" section. Biogeographist (talk) 12:43, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Biogeographist i am talking about these kind of "middle school interest images". Obviously i do not mean ALL images. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paulsheer (talk • contribs) 14:50, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

@Paulsheer: If it was so "obvious" that you do not mean ALL images then why did you revise your comment by inserting the word "such" after I responded, as if you needed to clarify your meaning? If it were so obvious, you should not need to edit your comment. By editing your comment, you validated my interpretation of your original comment. Thanks for correcting your comment after I pointed out that it was incorrect. Also, please consider signing your comments in the future. Biogeographist (talk) 15:08, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

it was obvious that i had left out "such" by accident, because i excluded physical things. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paulsheer (talk • contribs) 15:12, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

@Paulsheer: Your intended meaning was "obvious" to you because you knew what you wanted to say but you didn't say it clearly (see Curse of knowledge). It was not obvious to everyone else because your first sentence was stating an opinion not explicitly connected to your subsequent sentences. Mere proximity of one sentence to another does not logically connect them. When you comment on a talk page, you should sign your comments by ending your comment with four tildes: ~~~~. See WP:Signatures. Biogeographist (talk) 15:39, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

over analyzing mr bio. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paulsheer (talk • contribs) 16:24, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Not "overanalyzing", Paulsheer, simply refuting your false statements. Don't claim that something is "obvious" when it is not—when, in fact, exactly the opposite is true. Biogeographist (talk) 12:09, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

• Thanks for these suggestions! Pinging Amitc008 - here are some good suggestions for images you could add. Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 14:18, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
• MOS:LEADIMAGE is relevant. As that says and as others have noted, there might be no appropriate image for an abstract topic like this. Diagreements about lead images are common as dirt and the student should not be disappointed that the suggestions so far have been rejected. Jytdog (talk) 14:24, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Need for expert/scholarly attention

This article’s lede and History section poorly represent scholarly views of this subject, overstating the intellectual contribution of the journalist and popularizer Goleman, ignoring the origin in the Social Intelligence concept of Thorndike (1920s), shortshrifting the antecedent and seminal Salovey and Mayer, misrepresenting the contribution of Gardner and the Harvard School (in the lede, first published in 1983 and not 2004), etc. Please have someone with academic understanding review this content, so that it might be accurate to the social science, rather thsn to the web’s bias toward the popular and self-promoted. A poor web source presenting these accurate underpinnings is here [1]; better sources are available to anyone with university social science library access. Leprof 7272 (talk) 14:36, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

You seem to be implying that the people that edit this article are a group, and that you are not part of it. Both those sentiments are wrong. Note that ultimately EI is not an academic subject since EI does not actually exist; much in the same way that N_rays don't exist. Those who understand that EI is a scientific fraud tolerate the bulk of the article as long as it is generally clear that EI is merely a popular fashion that has been scientifically debunked. I think the article does make this clear, mostly. If I were to rewrite this article I would put in only a very long history section and a debunking section, and leave out all the rest. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paulsheer (talk • contribs) 18:17, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Other types of intelligence

I think the lede should mention the other types of intelligence by name. I forgot what they were and couldn't find them in the lede. (I still can't find them by just scanning the article.) Example: "Emotional intelligence can be juxtaposed with A and B and C." ➧datumizer  ☎  22:47, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

Daniel Goleman and his best selling 1995 book are mentioned 22 times

This is excessive. His name is wikilinked at least 10 times which is incorrect per WP:MOS. Also, he is referred to as "best-selling author Daniel Goleman" repeatedly, along with the name of his book. The references include another 11 separate linked sources to this guy. This needs to be cleaned up.--FeralOink (talk) 08:53, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Improving General Emphasis

My reading of Emotional Intelligence in the academic literature is that it has been thoroughly debunked as a better predictor of outcomes than Big5+IQ(g)+IQ(spatial) (which has been the standard for 40 years). In other words, one cannot find a credible peer-reviewed paper that shows EQ to be more useful than the industry standard. The only exception I could find was that it was slightly better at predicting certain deviant behavior like criminality. Yet this Wikipedia page gives priority to protagonist sentences by placing them first. I believe this article could give a more honest impression by leading with the conclusions of decades of research. Those conclusions are clear: EQ is bunk. To illustrate this, consider that one could easily "invent" any kind of new test based on a subset of the Big5 personality question battery and call it XQ and try to promote it. Everyone who edits this page needs to consider this "let's invent" thought experiment to hone their objectivity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 45.30.78.118 (talk) 17:45, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

I concur. This article is pseudoscience. It is misleading and substantively incorrect.--FeralOink (talk) 03:45, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

I came to this topic without a solid opinion on the scientific validity of the concept, but have found two meta-analyses which seem to indicate that there is plenty of evidence for it (and buy-in from the scientific community). My recent edits reflect this. That said, I'm far from an expert here, and will be happy to be shown that I'm in error. Generalrelative (talk) 22:52, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

I agree with the other two editors that this article is skewed and not an accurate representation of what the sources actually say. These editors are correct in saying that the concept of EQ is already covered by personality theory and the Big5 personality factors. I agree that one could take a particular primary or global personality trait and call it a measure of a new concept or construct not yet imagined. Harrow1234 (talk) 23:08, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

It's fine to hold that opinion, but what about the cited meta-analyses? I count 5 cited in this article:

• Harms and Credé (2010) found "a significant relationship between measures of EI and transformational leadership", but also point to "a potential concern within the EI literature as a whole" because "When ratings of EI and leadership came from two sources (e.g., self-ratings of EI and follower ratings of leadership) the relationship between the two constructs nearly disappeared." (See [2]; summary text quoted from [3]) We can go ahead and count this one in the negative column, though not for the reasons presented above.
• Joseph and Newman (2010) sought to address a "lack of theoretical clarity regarding (a) the relative roles of emotion perception, emotion understanding, and emotion regulation facets in explaining job performance; (b) conceptual redundancy of EI with cognitive intelligence and Big Five personality; and (c) application of the EI label to 2 distinct sets of constructs (i.e., ability-based EI and mixed-based EI)." They proposed then meta-analytically tested "a progressive (cascading) pattern among ability-based EI facets, in which emotion perception must causally precede emotion understanding, which in turn precedes conscious emotion regulation and job performance", finding that "EI positively predicts performance for high emotional labor jobs and negatively predicts performance for low emotional labor jobs". (See [4]) This predictive power speaks to the construct validity of the concept (if not the idea that it's unequivocally beneficial in all career paths). Note too that, according to Joseph et al. (2015), this study's findings "suggest mixed EI can robustly predict job performance beyond cognitive ability and Big Five personality traits" ([5]).
• Martins et al. (2010) proposed to update an earlier meta-analysis by Schutte et al. (2007) which "indicated that Emotional Intelligence (EI) is associated with better health" by expanding to include "(1) studies published after the date considered by them; (2) non-English studies; and (3) a cumulative meta-analysis to check for the sufficiency and stability in the history of this research domain." They reported that their "results globally support previous findings" and "the cumulative meta-analysis indicated that this line of research has already reached sufficiency and stability. Overall, the results are encouraging regarding the value of EI as a plausible health predictor." (See [6]) In the interest of fairness I'll count these two meta-analyses as a single finding, so +1 more for construct validity.
• O'Boyle et al. (2011) classified EI studies into three streams: "(1) ability‐based models that use objective test items; (2) self‐report or peer‐report measures based on the four‐branch model of EI; and (3) “mixed models” of emotional competencies." It found that these "three streams have corrected correlations ranging from 0.24 to 0.30 with job performance. The three streams correlated differently with cognitive ability and with neuroticism, extraversion, openness, agreeableness, and conscientiousness. Streams 2 and 3 have the largest incremental validity beyond cognitive ability and the Five Factor Model (FFM)." This meta-analysis concluded that "all three streams of EI exhibited substantial relative importance in the presence of FFM and intelligence when predicting job performance." The authors also note that "Publication bias had negligible influence on observed effect sizes." (See [7]) Seems like another straightforward case for construct validity to me.
• Joseph et al. (2015) set out to address theoretical problems raised by Joseph and Newman (2010) and O'Boyle et al. (2011), specifically "the paucity of evidence and the questionable construct validity of mixed EI measures themselves". The authors stated that their findings "help to establish the construct validity of mixed EI measures and further support an intuitive theoretical explanation for the uncommonly high association between mixed EI and job performance—mixed EI instruments assess a combination of ability EI and self-perceptions, in addition to personality and cognitive ability." (See [8]) This one also seems pretty straightforward to me. Note that this meta-analysis is mischaracterized in the article at present, and this will need to be fixed (the mixed-EI/job-performance relationship only drops to nil when controlling for factors including ability EI). So that's one more unequivocal result for construct/incremental validity.

So in total we have four out of five meta-analyses supporting the construct validity of EI, with three of these explicitly supporting its incremental validity even when controlling for IQ and personality. According to WP:MEDRS, meta-analyses like these should hold sway when determining the state of scientific understanding. So am I missing something here? Generalrelative (talk) 01:16, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

I realized, after the fact, that Generalrelative and I were editing the article at the same time, or in close sequence the other day. I regret any confusion that caused. Regarding Generalrelative's comments on those meta-studies: I read the studies as most were available as open access. I made the changes to the article based on the various study findings, which primarily used correlation coefficients and statistical significance. The strength of these tests of validity for emotional intelligence, other than in certain contexts such as leadership, were weak to non-existent. The articles stated this in the abstracts and the bodies. I would need to go back and read each article again, in order to challenge each of Generalrelative's detailed comments above. I do not wish to do this, as I spent many hours on the article earlier, and don't want to go through each research paper in a second time.

This article is VERY lengthy, redundant sometimes in triplicate between different sections, and there's no getting around the fact that Emotional Intelligence has been widely discredited as a fad. First, it is based on self-assessment. Secondly, there is no widely accepted metric for measuring emotional intelligence.--FeralOink (talk) 08:01, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

As I mentioned in my comment below just now, I thank you for your work cleaning up much of the dross that had cluttered this article. Some work remains but you've made a great dent in it. That said, I'm not seeing the evidence that Emotional Intelligence has been widely discredited as a fad, nor that The strength of these tests of validity for emotional intelligence, other than in certain contexts such as leadership, were weak to non-existent. As I pointed out in my discussion of the 5 meta-analyses above, evidence for the validity of EI appears to be rather robust. Generalrelative (talk) 16:55, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

A different but related matter: Let's jump back to the standards for WP:RS and WP:NPOV. I am going to remove Huffington Post fluff opinion pieces when there are already two or more reputable sources for the same content referenced. Mentioning some guy's thesis is a primary source, and given its lack of notability, kind of detracts from the article's legitimacy. It certainly doesn't deserve its own paragraph. I similarly removed a Google ngram that was in the lead in an effort to demonstrate the notability of emotional intelligence. There is also content such as "Answer these 5 questions to see if you're emotionally intelligent!" from popular magazines and similar opinion pieces from Harvard Business Review sprinkled throughout the article. That doesn't establish notability. Some is promotional spam for various books the authors are trying to sell. I removed these sources but perhaps Generalrelative added them back as part of the larger revert described above. (Note that the point of citing sources is not to show how many pop culture articles mention "emotional intelligence", but to include references confirming that emotional intelligence has prominence in pop culture. Prior editors had trouble with this concept--note that this article was written as part of a student project. I am NOT casting aspersions or responsibility for this on Generalrelative.)

In closing, this is not a subject I wish to spend more time on. I will leave it to others.--FeralOink (talk) 08:04, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

@FeralOink: Thanks for the good-faith communication. You're absolutely right that much of this article is a mess and I appreciate all your efforts at cleaning it up. I honestly didn't wish to spend much time on it either, but then I did get sucked in a bit looking into those meta-analyses. My apologies if I was responsible for re-adding any of the junk you described. You were right to cut it. My best, Generalrelative (talk) 16:50, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Hi there, @Generalrelative:! I'm glad that you didn't misconstrue my prior grumpy-ish comments. I observed an excess of Goleman best-seller book cruft and maybe promo content, as I noted in a later section of this talk page. I think I'll clean up and consolidate those 22+ duplicate wikilinks and repetitive corresponding phrases prior to departing for my next WP project work. BTW, this is the second article we've both worked on recently, though not simultaneously; hope to see you around again! Best wishes with EQ, and don't let it turn into a massive time sink unless you want it to!--FeralOink (talk) 18:49, 23 January 2021 (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?

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)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Amitc008. Peer reviewers: Glafl002.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 20:31, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 24 August 2020 and 18 December 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Emilymanuel65.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 20:41, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Edit reverted

A few days ago, I added a citation from SmartCompany, claiming that EI is an inborn trait, but SmartCompany claims it is a misnomer. I have linked the citation here: https://www.smartcompany.com.au/people-human-resources/professional-development/is-there-such-a-thing-as-emotional-intelligence/ Unfortunately, @Generalrelative reverted this, claiming that the source was not appropiate for the context, and better analyses could be found. Can you explain why?

Sincerely, 49.192.44.178 (talk) 01:18, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

Read Wikipedia:Reliable sources. If there are is good reason why we should consider a book review blog in an online publication catering to "Australia's entrepreneurs, small and medium business owners and business managers" to be a reliable source on emotional intelligence, I cannot think of it. Just some random guy's opinions on a book... AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:30, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

Should I remove the statement that EI is inborn, since my effort to prove it was reverted, and the statement is difficult to verify?

Sincerely, 49.192.44.178 (talk) 01:49, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

The article doesn't state that EI is inborn. It states that some researchers claim it is. And from what I can see, the article seems to be citing sources which make this claim. Note that it isn't generally necessary to provide citations in the lede for statements which are later discussed and cited in the article body. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:56, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Media and Culture Theory - MDC 254

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 29 August 2022 and 9 December 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Jacobfogelman (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by Jacobfogelman (talk) 19:25, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

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.

It's like fighting fires: the more one edits the truth into this page, the more worms crawl out to add bogus references and misread research. EI is a complete bunk theory made popular by one man in his desperate attempt to win royalties on more books. Even decades later, EI fails to have any practical application or predictive power or utility for corporations or psychotherapists or career councilors. We cannot make excuses for this articles bias by saying, "well the criticisms are stated". The scientific criticisms of EI are MASSIVELY UNDER EMPHASIZED by the page. It's an embarressment. Like the flat earth theory. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paulsheer (talk • contribs) 00:29, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Adult Development Fall 2023

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 11 September 2023 and 11 December 2023. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Yellowpotato12333 (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by Jskalski (talk) 22:50, 7 November 2023 (UTC)