Emotional Intelligence

I honestly don't quite get why some potentially great discussions have to be completely derailed by people acting all high and mighty and getting into these petty arguments,

it’s funny how people usually act as a mirror for us,
where we end up venting about our own flaws
while we just sit back and admire their virtues,

so I suppose you might as well just vent at yourselves and admire your own greatness instead,

and regarding EI, I’ve never really been a huge fan of the term itself, because I tend to think that how we treat others and how we learn to recognize what someone else is feeling is more of a skill you pick up through life experience,
whereas intelligence feels like something more innate, you know, like a raw potential we're born with that we just have to work on developing over time...

wiredbison92 said:Intelligence is innate—a baseline potential hardwired into our genetics. Our job is simply to cultivate it...

👍

wiredbison92 said:I think how we treat people—actually recognizing what others feel—is something you learn. It’s built through experience.
Intelligence, though? That feels innate. Like a raw potential we're born with, and then it's up to us to actually develop it.

Why would those two types of intelligence be different? If they were the same, kids growing up together would all have the exact same emotional intelligence. We know that's just not how it works.

blueranger12 said:Why on earth would those two types of intelligence be different? Following that logic, kids growing up in the exact same environment should have identical emotional intelligence, which we all know isn't how the real world works.

But what does that actually imply?
If you look at twins raised in the same house, there's always some level of correlation when it comes to IQ. Is it 0.3 or 0.4? Who knows, but there's a positive link for both monozygotic and dizygotic twins. I know twins personally—one's a complete moron while the other is actually halfway decent. 🙂The same principle applies to the emotional side of things, generally speaking.

You'd expect to find that same correlation in emotional intelligence, though it really just boils down to how you choose to define it.

rowdyridge59👍

besides, I guess why would they even call their way of handling emotions "intelligence" in the first place?

isn't intelligence actually being able to solve a problem?? not just recognizing the same old ones over and over again??? 😕

quietdriver3 said:rowdyridge59 👍

Besides, why would you even call their approach to handling emotions "intelligence"?

Isn't intelligence the ability to actually solve a problem? Not just recognizing one. 😕

Once you recognize it, then comes the solution...

But how can you solve anything if you don't recognize it first? 😕 😉 😁

gentlecanyon92 said:once you recognize it, then comes the solving part...

but I mean, how are you even supposed to solve anything if you haven't recognized it yet? 😕 😉 😁

but if you actually do recognize it,

does that automatically mean you'll know how to fix it too?? 😉

I guess if you remember anything from high school math, you'd know that isn't really how it works. 😛

We could honestly turn this whole identification and troubleshooting thing into one massive, bloated debate if we wanted to.

Look, let’s take chemistry as an example—a subject where you actually have to use your brain and grasp the logic just to crack a single problem. After enough hours of grinding, I finally get why you follow one specific process over another instead of just guessing. But back when I started? I was basically just throwing spaghetti at the wall to see what stuck. I'd eventually stumble onto the right answer, sure, but I hadn't actually identified the underlying issue.

How are you guys going to interpret that?

Figuring out how to approach someone emotionally to get the best possible result is a massive challenge. Some people just get it—they can read the room instantly, understand why someone is acting out, and know exactly how to handle them. Then there are others who are totally lost, unable to tell if someone is actually angry or just stressed, let alone knowing how to fix it. If that isn't a real problem, I don't know what is. Some people are naturally gifted at this, others aren't. Thinking you can just take these social skills for granted is honestly foolish.

I haven't spent a ton of time reading up on it, but the core of the issue is pretty obvious to me.

quietdriver3 said:But if you can identify it,

does that mean you actually know how to solve it too? 😉

If you remember anything from high school math, you'll know that isn't the case. 😛

So we need to define whether EI refers strictly to recognition or both recognition and resolution..

Well?

blueranger12 said:Figuring out how to approach someone emotionally just to get what you want—that’s a massive hurdle too. Some people just get it; they can read the room, see why someone is acting out, and know exactly how to play it. Then you’ve got others who can't tell if someone is pissed off or just stressed, let alone why, or how to handle it. If that isn't a fundamental problem, I don't know what is. Some people are naturally gifted at this, some aren't. Thinking you can just take these skills for granted is pretty damn stupid.

I haven't spent a ton of time reading up on this stuff, but I can see exactly what kind of territory we're talking about here.

At the end of the day, emotional intelligence is basically just a measure of how much social interaction you've had over time. The more you pack into a shorter window, the higher your EI is. I mean, if you've been holed up inside for twenty years, of course you're going to be socially stunted and wouldn't recognize a pulse, let alone actual human emotion.

gentlecanyon92 said:We really need to nail down if EI just means recognizing emotions or if it includes actually handling them too...

So?

This makes zero sense. Recognizing something is part of solving it, right?! I mean, come on.

rowdyridge59 said:So, by that logic, emotional intelligence is basically just how much social interaction you pack into a certain timeframe. The more you cram in, the higher the EQ, I guess. If you spend twenty years locked away in some room somewhere, obviously you’re going to be socially stunted and won't recognize anything, let alone read a room.

I mean, if we assume actual intelligence is something you're born with, then maybe we shouldn't even call emotional intelligence "intelligence" at all. It's more like... I don't know, maybe just emotional experience?

blueranger12 said:This makes zero sense. Recognition is part of the solution, right?! For God's sake.

I agree, but clearly some people don't see it that way. 😛

rowdyridge59 said:So emotional intelligence is basically just how much social interaction you pack into a certain timeframe. The more you cram in, the higher the EI. If you spend 20 years stuck inside four walls, obviously you're going to be socially stunted and won't recognize a basic human gesture, let alone actual empathy.

Look, I’m arguing that emotional intelligence comes down to both genetics and practice. Just like everything else. I felt like I had to point that out because this whole debate is circling the drain. 😁

quietdriver3 said:So if intelligence is just something you're born with, then we can't even really call emotional intelligence "intelligence," right? It’s more like... I don't know, just some kind of emotional experience.

Exactly. An emotional experience. Intelligence would just be the speed at which you pick up that experience.

Debate over. Now let's get back to talking about dicks.
I have a dick. 😢

Here is how the architects of the concept defined emotional intelligence (Salovey and Mayer):

"A form of social intelligence involving the capacity to monitor one's own and others' feelings and emotions, to discriminate among them, and to use this information to guide one's thinking and action."

Mayer and Cobb identify the following "mental abilities" that constitute EI:

1. Identifying, perceiving, and expressing emotions.
2. Understanding how emotions influence thought processes—this includes linking emotions to external stimuli and how they impact problem-solving.
3. Comprehending emotions.
4. Managing and regulating emotions.

As for whether EI is innate, the matter is quite complex. When it comes to the realm of emotion and learning how to respond, environment—specifically upbringing—plays a massive role. It might even carry more weight than it does for standard IQ.
Ultimately, raw potential doesn't matter much. That potential is unmeasurable anyway, at least for now. What matters is how a person develops it.
Our emotions are fundamental; they stem from deeper, evolutionarily older parts of the brain. We often react emotionally before we ever process things cognitively. While everyone experiences basic emotions to varying degrees, it is up to one's upbringing to provide direction—to teach a person how to react and how to recognize and respect the emotions of others. Upbringing also teaches the art of manipulating emotions, both our own and those of people around us.

Mad Scientist said:I mean, our emotions are pretty basic stuff, right? They come from those deeper, older parts of the brain—evolutionary things, I guess. Often, we react with emotion before our cognitive side even kicks in. Everyone experiences these core emotions to some degree, but I think upbringing plays such a huge role in how someone learns to handle them, or how they learn to recognize and actually respect what others are feeling. Upbringing kind of teaches you how to navigate emotions, too... both yours and everyone else's...

so, maybe it’s more about experience and how you were raised rather than just raw intelligence??

which is sort of what we were just talking about, I guess 😁

Dr. Frankenstein said:Look, innate potential doesn't really matter—it's unmeasurable anyway. What actually counts is how someone develops that potential.
Our emotions are pretty primal stuff. They come from those deep, evolutionary parts of the brain. Usually, we react emotionally before we even process things cognitively. Everyone experiences basic emotions to some degree, but parenting is what directs a person. It teaches them how to react and how to recognize (and respect) what others are feeling. Plus, upbringing also teaches people how to manipulate emotions—both their own and everyone else's.

Basically, parents are about 95% responsible for who their kid turns out to be. That honestly scares me.😢
It also implies all kids start out basically the same when it comes to social interaction. I just don't buy that!

Melancholy Beaver said:So we're saying it isn't about intelligence, but rather experience and upbringing?

As we touched on just a moment ago, 😁

Actually, intelligence itself is simply the result of innate capacities being shaped by environment and education.

Think of intelligence as a phenotype—it is an observable trait with the potential to be measured.
And a phenotype is always a product of both genetics and environment.