Posts by gentlewolf10

placidwolf27 said:So, by extension, emotional intelligence implies the ability to reason through emotions and consciously modify one's behavior or exercise self-control...

But how exactly is that "understanding" achieved?
Is making a judgment about an emotion actually a cognitive process?
Are we using a specific type of "emotional intelligence," or are we simply applying standard cognitive intelligence to the subject of emotion—essentially treating the emotion as an object of conscious scrutiny to reach a logical conclusion?

In that scenario, are we utilizing one distinct form of intelligence, or two separate ones working in tandem?

Hmm, now that is a rather sharp question...
The whole foundation for this "emotional intelligence" construct actually traces back to Gardner's breakdown of intelligence into interpersonal and intrapersonal domains. Gardner defines interpersonal intelligence as having insight into the internal aspects of a person: accessing one's own feelings, recognizing the spectrum of emotions, the ability to distinguish those feelings, and eventually, naming them—seeking meaning within them and understanding the underlying causes of one's own behavior. This snippet comes from a paper by Professor Takšić and colleagues from 2006.
I'm not sure how much you've heard about Gardner, or if he's even on your radar. In short, he proposed a new structural model for intelligence. He argues there isn't just one singular type, but rather seven distinct, independent intelligences. You've got musical, bodily-kinesthetic, logical-mathematical, linguistic, interpersonal, intrapersonal, and so on. Based on his theories, EI would be entirely independent of traditional cognitive intelligence.
Which leads us to the inevitable question: can someone possess above-average EI while their cognitive intelligence remains below average? My humble opinion is no. There has to be a certain baseline of cognitive intelligence to even function within the realm of EI. That’s not to say they aren't distinct, though; a person could easily have an IQ of 150 and still be completely lacking in EI. They are partially overlapping, yet mutually independent constructs. As far as I'm aware, research hasn't shown any significant correlation between EI and standard cognitive intelligence.

placidwolf27 said:So, by extension, emotional intelligence implies the ability to reason through emotions and consciously modify one's behavior or exercise self-control...

But how exactly is that "understanding" achieved?
Is making a judgment about an emotion actually a cognitive process?
Are we using a specific type of "emotional intelligence," or are we simply applying standard cognitive intelligence to the subject of emotion—essentially treating the emotion as an object of conscious scrutiny to reach a logical conclusion?

In that scenario, are we utilizing one distinct form of intelligence, or two separate ones working in tandem?

No, self-control isn't the same thing as EI. Understanding—just like making judgments—is a cognitive process.
The original definition of emotional intelligence was centered on the ability to monitor one's own and others' feelings and emotions, and using that data to guide thought and action (Salovey and Mayer, 1990). That structural model involves assessing and expressing emotions in oneself and others, regulating those emotions internally and externally, and utilizing them for adaptive purposes.
Later revisions expanded this to include the actual processes of reflecting on those feelings. Under that framework, emotional intelligence encompasses the capacity for rapid perception, assessment, and expression of emotions; the ability to facilitate thinking by generating appropriate feelings; the capacity to understand emotions and possess emotional knowledge; and the ability to regulate emotions to foster both emotional and intellectual growth (Mayer and Salovey, 1999).

placidwolf27 said:Based on this description, the concept of EI refers to a specific set of skills and knowledge...

Naturally, these skills and levels of knowledge vary depending on the interplay between individual potential and environmental influence—though I suppose that goes without saying...

Still, we are left with the fact that the operational definition of EI is simply a collection of skills and knowledge...

So, where does the "intelligence" actually fit in? Did I misunderstand something fundamental here?
What is the generally accepted definition of intelligence these days, anyway?
Isn't intelligence defined as the inherent potential to develop skills and acquire knowledge? If so, shouldn't emotional intelligence be viewed as the innate or developed capacity to eventually master the aforementioned skills, depending on one's circumstances?

And how, exactly, is EI measured?
From what I gather, it's graded based on how productive a particular behavior or thought pattern is within a given situation... using criteria like career success or general life satisfaction, for instance...

In other words, when we measure EI, we aren't really measuring the ability to develop skills, recognize patterns, absorb knowledge, adapt to new conditions, or exercise critical thinking... instead, we are mostly just measuring an individual's adaptability and their level of behavioral functionality within a specific system...

Am I wrong?

Well, yes, it measures the recognition of emotions (which is essentially what you called "patterns and causes"—identifying which emotions surface when and why, and knowing how to respond to others in certain emotional states). It also measures emotional literacy, or what you termed "knowledge acquisition." Then there's emotional regulation and using those emotions to facilitate cognition (for instance, you can’t focus on learning if you're spiraling from depression, whereas someone with high EQ will know how to regulate themselves to mitigate those states). People with high EQ are also inherently critical; they can pinpoint exactly which emotion is at play, whether in themselves or others, and factor that into their own reasoning and behavior. I hope that makes sense.🙂

placidwolf27 said:Based on this description, the concept of EI refers to a specific set of skills and knowledge...

Naturally, these skills and levels of knowledge vary depending on the interplay between individual potential and environmental influence—though I suppose that goes without saying...

Still, we are left with the fact that the operational definition of EI is simply a collection of skills and knowledge...

So, where does the "intelligence" actually fit in? Did I misunderstand something fundamental here?
What is the generally accepted definition of intelligence these days, anyway?
Isn't intelligence defined as the inherent potential to develop skills and acquire knowledge? If so, shouldn't emotional intelligence be viewed as the innate or developed capacity to eventually master the aforementioned skills, depending on one's circumstances?

And how, exactly, is EI measured?
From what I gather, it's graded based on how productive a particular behavior or thought pattern is within a given situation... using criteria like career success or general life satisfaction, for instance...

In other words, when we measure EI, we aren't really measuring the ability to develop skills, recognize patterns, absorb knowledge, adapt to new conditions, or exercise critical thinking... instead, we are mostly just measuring an individual's adaptability and their level of behavioral functionality within a specific system...

Am I wrong?

Well, there are established techniques for measuring EI. You have performance-based metrics using standardized tasks, or you have self-assessment measures. The first involves tests that indirectly probe various aspects of EI—things like understanding, labeling, assessing, regulating, or using emotions to facilitate thought. Think of emotion vocabulary tests, which are somewhat analogous to a verbal IQ test but focused strictly on emotional terminology. Or perhaps they show you photos of people in social settings and ask you to judge how that person feels or predict their next move. Then there are the subjective questionnaires, where the subject evaluates how much certain statements apply to them. For instance, "I can express my emotions effectively." You just rate how true that is for you...

placidwolf27 said:So, we are essentially talking about a structured body of knowledge—a set of skills involving learned self-control methods and psychological defense mechanisms.
It's a blend of various social competencies with a heavy emphasis on empathy.

Essentially, what's being developed is a conscious awareness regarding the rational management of one's own emotions.

If that's the case, why on earth is this labeled "emotional intelligence" instead of, say, "conscious self-regulation"?

Well, look, the word "intelligence" actually stems from the Latin *intelligere*, which essentially means to perceive or to understand. So, when we talk about emotional intelligence, we're really talking about the ability to identify and label emotions—both our own and those of the people around us. It’s about using those emotions to fuel thought, regulating them, and making accurate assessments... If you hold it up against standard cognitive intelligence—which is all about navigating new environments, grasping abstract concepts, learning from experience, and adapting—you start to see the parallel. They both fall under the umbrella of "intelligence." One simply focuses on the emotional spectrum, while the other deals with more traditional cognitive processes. At their core, they share the same foundation: understanding, applying knowledge—whether that's about logic or feelings—and the capacity for regulation and adaptation.

rustydrifter7 said:Exactly, so the end result would be a vector sum.
In my view, regarding how much it actually matters—the wider the angle between that resultant vector and the IQ vector, the higher the quality of life. 😉

I can't speak to "quality of life," but if my memory serves me right, the correlation between intelligence and general life satisfaction is incredibly low. It basically means that people with high or low IQs can all be equally satisfied or dissatisfied with their existence—it’s a wash.
What exactly did you mean by quality of life?

Essentially, my point is this: we should probably view EI as its own distinct form of intelligence, something entirely orthogonal to cognitive IQ. It plays a vital role in certain dimensions of how we function as humans, sure, but I don't see why we need to hyper-inflate its importance beyond reason.

Sure, you’ll find plenty of books claiming that EI matters more than cognitive intelligence. In my view, that’s a bit of a premature conclusion. It’s true that people with high EI tend to be more satisfied with life, possess better self-esteem, navigate social waters more effectively, and manage their emotions with ease... and so on and so forth. But does having a high EI quotient actually mean we can just toss cognitive intelligence out the window? Does emotional intelligence somehow compensate for a lack of raw intellect? Not quite.

Even Salovey suggests that within certain professional environments, individuals have essentially already been screened based on their intellectual capacity. Therefore, it stands to reason that once you're through that door, other factors take center stage, and EI becomes the focus. When everyone in the room possesses a high IQ, it isn't the differentiator anymore; success starts to hinge on something else entirely... and that something could very well be EI.

http://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/alopecia-areata/symptoms-causes/ds_00058271
Give this a read 😉