Does that really have nothing to do with how we divide things up? I’ve always figured emotional intelligence was just one specific branch of social intelligence. There are so many different ways to categorize it. I’m actually working on my high school senior thesis about emotional intelligence right now, and there’s this whole group of researchers pushing for this massive breakdown of intelligence types. At first, they were claiming there were only seven distinct kinds, but then they moved the goalposts and started saying there are over twenty if you start counting all the subcategories...
How much of a difference is there actually between social intelligence and emotional intelligence? Are we talking about the exact same thing here, or just two concepts that happen to be neighbors? What’s the actual breakdown of the differences?
Thomas Martinez67 said:I really feel like success is such a subjective concept, isn't it? Because you can look like a huge success to everyone around you, while internally feeling like a complete failure—or at least, just not successful at all. Think about it: if someone lacks the basic awareness to realize they aren't grasping reality, yet they're convinced they're doing great, they’ll be perceived as highly successful. Doesn't that make their IQ seem incredibly high by default? On the flip side, you have people who are masters at selling snake oil. They can achieve massive success because, let's face it, people love buying into illusions. But that kind of success is fragile. Once they hit a wall of reality—some event that finally shines a light on the truth—everything collapses. It turns into a total disaster and a massive failure. Suddenly, that person who was supposedly so high in IQ turns out to have a miserable score. Of course, that doesn't always happen; some might stay successful until the day they die. Take history, for example. There have been absolute geniuses who were wildly successful despite being completely socially inept and having zero social intelligence. That’s why I honestly think this whole focus on IQ is just nonsense—it's all smoke and mirrors. It’s actually quite frustrating to see the little revolution happening here in America right now, where corporate recruiters and psychologists are obsessed with testing for this specific IQ metric during hiring processes. It’s an unmeasurable, hazy concept, yet it has the power to decide whether or not a person gets a job and how their entire life unfolds. Let me give you another example. For a significant portion of my life, I was extremely outgoing and sociable. And for another significant part of my life, I wasn't nearly as social at all. It all feels very murky, like a losing battle against something untouchable. But hey, maybe people will eventually realize how futile this is if they keep obsessing over it. Personally, though, I’m more inclined to believe that the real answers lie somewhere else entirely—deep in our genetics.
Look, maybe EQ itself is a made-up metric, but emotional intelligence is definitely a real thing. In my view, you can't measure it with some arbitrary score; it's more like a spectrum. You see it in how people actually interact with one another, or how someone manages to climb the ladder in a job that relies more on people skills than raw technical expertise.
Not counting this current post you’re reading right now, which one is my last post on this thread that you can actually see? I just submitted one, and it says my last post on this thread was at 00:48, but it's nowhere to be found. This forum is lagging like crazy again, so I refreshed and just sat here waiting for the site to finally catch up...
So, what, are the mods being assigned based on their IQ scores? Like, do you get stuck with certain subreddits if you're a genius, and others if you're a bit slow?😬
Well, if you're buying the boss a beer, then it’s not even that bad. Unless, of course, it had to come out of his account with four zeros on the end...
Alright, look. We’ve already covered this topic before, even touched on the literature side of things. Honestly, if you can't even manage to type "emotional intelligence" into Google, then this whole conversation isn't worth anyone's time. I'm actually writing my high school senior thesis on this right now, so I've already spent way too much time digging into it, and I'm still researching. There are hundreds upon hundreds of pages on Google packed with useful info because the term only really hit the mainstream about 20 years ago, and it's still incredibly relevant today.
Keith Thomas11 said:because other moderators believe they'll handle the job better than any regular user, while this person thinks they actually have the backbone and the patience to pull it off.
We're just going in circles here. My ex already explained how the whole process works.
No way, I wouldn't want to be a mod. Not a chance. Maybe on the Music board if the threads were actually a bit more "professional"—you know, instead of just endless talk about bands. I don't even spend much time on this music section because, honestly, most of it is just boring. I'm curious, though—what exactly makes someone worthy of being a mod on subforums like these? I mean, the ones where you don't really need any specialized expertise (like Teens, Men's and Women's Corner, USA, etc.).
I was talking about all the mods in general; I just used you two as a (fresh) example... I know why they are,for instance, Vojky, slycrane94, Mad Scientist, amberorca192, Niko and Nothing mods (or admins), because in most posts, they actually prove they know their stuff. Look, I realize I left out a whole bunch of other moderators who are also incredibly smart, but there are some where I honestly can't tell what makes them experts, and I think there might be better options out there. I'm intentionally not naming names... Probably nobody even gets what I'm getting at...🙄
Mr.Ex.President said:Basically,😁 when a current forum moderator realizes they need backup, or they're just burnt out, or whatever... they ask for a new moderator. They usually suggest someone themselves—since they know the community best—or they pick someone from the existing moderator team. Then we get all the potential candidates together and hash it out. Once a decision is made, we reach out to the candidate to see if they actually want the job. If they say yes, we just wait for the site owner to give the green light. It also happens that someone reaches out directly to a moderator or administrator via PM—the rest of the process stays the same (assuming it's determined that the spot actually needs filling, the current mod isn't against it, and the boss is cool with it).
That’s pretty much the gist of it. If anyone needs more specifics, feel free to ask.😁
Word on the street is there might be other ways too, but who knows.😬
Thanks for the straight answer... But I'm curious about the actual impact. What kind of good things have specific mods actually accomplished lately? For example, those new mods over in the Teens subforum?
wiredpilot30 said:The whole setup is you pay $67 into Anderson's account and you get a week of moderating rights. If you play your cards right and it works out for both sides, you stay on the team and split the ad revenue. Based on merit and "seniority," obviously.
Just shoot Anderlon a PM and he'll give you the details. Good luck. 👍
So let me get this straight: you pay him so that he can pay *you*? Why on earth would anyone hand over cash just to get a job that people are literally fighting to do for free? And then you're supposed to share the ad revenue too? 😵 Then why aren't you a mod yourself?
If I had known... Seriously though, is this thread restricted to just moderators, super moderators, admins, and people who actually have something intelligent to contribute?
I’m asking because I’m genuinely curious—what exactly did certain moderators do to get picked in the first place? Are we talking about rock-solid credentials and major contributions, or were they just slightly better options than everyone else during the selection process? 😕 Sure, some of them have proven they’re absolute experts in their niche, and they really know their stuff, which is why they usually end up getting the shout-outs in the Most Fair Moderator thread. Some of them handle the day-to-day grind—banning users, cleaning up threads, moving things around, and all that—but I still want to know: how did they actually earn their status?😛
Desperado said:Look, I’m a rock fan, but I’m not some wild junkie (I’ll leave that third part alone 😉 )
I listen to a huge variety of stuff—since I went to music school, I was forced to sit through everything from classical to jazz, though I actually enjoy it (so don't go thinking I only listen to mindless pop trash), and I also appreciate country music, both our local Nashville style and what we hear from our neighbors. Just because I might dig some country doesn't mean I've lost my mind. I'm educated, I'm not some degenerate, and when I have a few drinks, I'm not looking for a fight—if things get rowdy, I'm the first one heading for the exit. If being a rock fan doesn't automatically make you a drug addict, then those tired old stereotypes about country fans aren't worth the paper they're printed on either. Amen.
I’m still sticking to my guns here: trying to find some universal pattern among people who listen to country music is a total waste of time. It all comes down to where you are and what kind of environment you're in. Besides, if you ask me, rockers, metalheads, and punks are way more problematic than any country fan—and I’m talking about the real deal, too. Why? Because whenever people talk about rockers, they’re always painting them as these wild, drug-addicted lunatics. With country fans, the complaints are always just about them getting rowdy or drinking too much at a bar. So, which group is actually the bigger headache?
Disperadun said:Look, I need to weigh in here because there are so many idiots on this thread I’m starting to feel nauseous. Generally speaking, judging someone's intelligence based on their music taste is just plain stupid. 🙂
But I've seen some posts in here—like the ones from Talia—claiming certain country pop hits are actually "high quality" music. 😕 Based on my own deductive reasoning: no one with actual musical training is going to tell you that mainstream country or trashy pop-country is high art. Most of it is churned out using the exact same rhythmic templates and smoothed over with just a handful of basic chords. There is zero musical complexity! You don't get those original solo sections where an artist actually expresses themselves uniquely. Everything is just mass-produced to the same formula.
Furthermore, traditional American folk music has absolutely nothing to do with modern country radio fluff. And honestly, nobody should be ashamed of the music of their ancestors. For instance, I personally love traditional bluegrass quartets—and let me tell you, those are incredibly high-quality, complex vocal performances that are actually difficult to pull off.
Also, regardless of how offended anyone might feel by my observations, I’ve come to the conclusion that people who listen to cheap country radio fluff tend to be more primitive—though not necessarily less intelligent!
You made a lot of valid points. I agree that most of that mainstream stuff is made using a cookie-cutter template, but that definitely DOESN'T apply to every single artist in the genre. There are a few exceptions, and those exceptions almost don't even sound like typical country, though there could probably be more of them. Of course, there's also the absolute garbage that's genuinely unlistenable. I don't have anything against folk music either, but I have to ask: Do you have a problem with our local country staples like Dražen Zečić, Pejaković (he's one of ours, right?), and the like? They aren't exactly masterpieces, but they're decent enough for any occasion... 🙄
Disperadun said:😂 Oh, please! Give me a break. I’ve been to plenty of weddings down south where they didn't play any cheesy country music, and they were absolutely perfect... so watch your mouth...
Look, listen... I'm not from the South, and I haven't been to a single wedding down there. Honestly, saying there's no wedding without those cliché hits is a bit of an exaggeration, but if you don't play some fast-paced crowd-pleasers, you just won't get that real energy going. You might have a point regarding how things work in the South, but up here in the North, it's pretty much exactly what I was saying.👍