Avatar
Please consider registering
guest
sp_LogInOut Log In sp_Registration Register
Register | Lost password?
Advanced Search
Forum Scope


Match



Forum Options



Minimum search word length is 3 characters - maximum search word length is 84 characters
sp_TopicIcon
Emotional Intelligence
April 28, 2003
7:01 pm
Avatar
Anonymous
New Member
Members
Forum Posts: -1
Member Since:
September 24, 2010
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

Hit it, guest_guest +/or others...

April 28, 2003
11:37 pm
Avatar
Anonymous
New Member
Members
Forum Posts: -1
Member Since:
September 24, 2010
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

Emotionally retarded over here. It's why I never did well in school. Every single adult in my life has told me at some point or another that I have a "bad attitude." No further explanation.

So if someone can illustrate how to fix a bad attitude, I should be halfway home.

April 29, 2003
1:35 am
Avatar
Anonymous
New Member
Members
Forum Posts: -1
Member Since:
September 24, 2010
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

i'm working on it with Tez, he gave me a 7 page philosophical article, and I'm all dusty now becuase i was digging for instructions that i can directly apply.

the article is really good.. but i skipped to the part it gave the directions to fix "Fear Motivation" (thats what its called), if Tez allows me to share it here.

Here are the directions posted and we'll work on it more and try to implement this.
its not easy, but it can be done.
the article is not complete, please let me know if you want the whole of it, i can email it to you.
i'll read the whole of it when i have time, but for now, implementation is on my to-do list.

--------------------
If an individual took responsibility for every one of his or her actions in the moment of performing the action, not only would defence values of this kind be impossible, but a radical elevation of self-esteem would be inevitable. To appreciate the kinds of changes that would be inevitable if we were to take responsibility for our actions in the moment of perform-ing them, consider the following.

"Right now I am choosing not to do the work I promised my boss I would do, and I plan to alibi later - and I take responsibility for that.

"Right now I am choosing not to answer, honestly and directly, my wife's question and I take responsibility for that."

"Right now I am choosing not to deal with the look of pain in my child's eyes - and I take responsibility for that."

"Right now I am choosing to steal this money from my guest’s handbag - and I take responsibility for that."

"Right now I am choosing to stay home and feel sorry for myself rather than go out and look for a job - and I take responsibility for that."

"Right now I am choosing not to correct the job that I know I have done sloppily-and I take responsibility for that."

"Right now I am choosing to procrastinate rather than confront an issue with my friend/spouse/employee/employer/colleague that I know needs to be confronted and I take responsibility for that."

“Right now I am choosing to pretend a love I do not - I take responsibility for that.”

"Right now I am choosing to pretend that I am indifferent when the truth is I am hurting - and I take responsibility for that."

"Right now I am choosing to act tough when the truth is I want to reach out for help - and I take responsibility for that."

Obviously, it would be nearly impossible to talk to ourselves in this manner and go on performing actions we know to be inappropriate. Therefore, to the extent we learn to talk to ourselves in this manner, we irresistibly generate changes in behaviour - and thus we have the power to take a major step toward the rebuilding of damaged self-esteem.

More broadly, to the extent that we are able to step back from any of our defence values and ask ourselves, “Does this really make me good? Why do I think so?” we have the power to move toward placing our self-esteem on a saner and less precarious foundation. Even when we are afraid, this possibility is open to us. We can accept fear and then rise above it by taking unfamiliar but desirable risks in the service of our mind and life; we need not remain trapped at the level of poor self-esteem.
--------------------

so basically, we have to take responsibility for our actions and we have to say this to ourselves as we are going the wrong actions, and we have to really make an effort, otherwise it wont work.

April 29, 2003
6:09 pm
Avatar
Anonymous
New Member
Members
Forum Posts: -1
Member Since:
September 24, 2010
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

Here is a question for that........

If one does not posses the feeling of guilt towards wrongful acts or wrong doings, then would the above conditions still apply?

May 5, 2003
9:36 pm
Avatar
Anonymous
New Member
Members
Forum Posts: -1
Member Since:
September 24, 2010
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

Tracy, I don't know if wrong applies here. There is a choice, and responsibility for that choice. In a perfect world where every one practiced responsibility, they would have to take responsibility for their reaction to the other's choice.
I don't think guilt would exist ? Perhaps a lesson of consequence that comes from taking responsibility. where you might consider a different choice. Whewwwwwwww

May 6, 2003
3:11 pm
Avatar
Anonymous
New Member
Members
Forum Posts: -1
Member Since:
September 24, 2010
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

tracy, my answer is that there are VERY few people who dont have guilt for wrong things (is that right?), and so.. there are exceptions.

maybe one doesnt want to be responsible, maybe one is too lazy like i feel soemtimes but that isnt a choice, so i guess we'll just havta force ourself.

May 6, 2003
6:52 pm
Avatar
Anonymous
New Member
Members
Forum Posts: -1
Member Since:
September 24, 2010
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

Emotional Intelligence:

Emotional intelligence is "... a type of social intelligence that involves the ability to monitor one's own and others' emotions, to discriminate among them, and to use the information to guide one's thinking and actions" (Mayer & Salovey, 1993: 433).

I would define emotional intelligence as the degree to which our emotional responses realistically indicate and/or predict the actual effects of external and internal happenings on our physical wellbeing and that of others.

The very old saying "sticks and stones may break my bones but names can never hurt me" is an example of what I mean. The emotions of someone with a high EQ are not emotionally disturbed by being called unpleasant names.

I think that people with low EQ are easily offended, often offensive to others and can be very unsociable indeed.

I believe that people with a high EQ are often very sociable, very considerate of and sensitive to the feelings of others and often are quite secure within themselves. If others are angry with them, far from becoming defensive, they would tend to be more concerned with relieving the suffering and hurt of the angry person. Unless of course the angry person is weilding a baseball bat. 🙂

My difficulties with EQ and IQ concepts is where the border between cognitions and emotions lie in relation to both of these artificial constructs.

People who feel no guilt when having committed some very antisocial act, would by my definition above have a low EQ. Equally so, someone who feels guilty every time someone takes offence at something she has done, no matter what the situation entails, has, in my opinion, a low EQ.

Mafia hitmen, by my definition, must have, as a prerequisite, a very low EQ; whereas good, caring doctors and nurses a high EQ.

But I'm open to criticism on the above. Personally, I'm very dubious about the very concept of EQ and the accuracy and reliability of its measurement. I have a low EQ. 🙂

May 6, 2003
9:01 pm
Avatar
Anonymous
New Member
Members
Forum Posts: -1
Member Since:
September 24, 2010
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

Namaste, Master tez.

A low EQ, eh?

Well, that would explain the seemingly thin skin and those blistering responses for which you have become noted on these boards.

A very cogent and insightful analysis.
Thank you.

Nikka

May 6, 2003
11:07 pm
Avatar
Anonymous
New Member
Members
Forum Posts: -1
Member Since:
September 24, 2010
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

I quickly scanned what you said Tez - seems congruent to what much of academia think.

Not directly related to EI, but interesting nonetheless. Apparently psychopaths have abnormal pain responses - as in they literally don't fear pain (which is perhaps what makes it easy for them to inflict pain on others as they don't understand the sensations?). There was some study conducted that tested the physiological responses of 'threats' of violence (eg electric shocks, beatings, death penalty etc) to psychopaths (in response to their crimes). Psychopaths did not register changes in physiological reactions when presented with this, in comparison to control groups. Possibly that would tie into your theory on Mafia hitmen etc, Tez. Anyway, I thought it was interesting.

Back to work for me :o)

May 7, 2003
12:01 am
Avatar
Anonymous
New Member
Members
Forum Posts: -1
Member Since:
September 24, 2010
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

tez, certainly not a low EQ, youre quite aware of feelings, others and yourself. ur just being modest :p umm. also, u cant say u have a low EQ and also say your suspicios of the EQ concept.

here's some EQ stuff from my paper.
EQ falls into 2 categories.
I think you all might not know that Sqeeuzles has a PHD in EQ :).
come on now.. form a line! heh. (for asking questions.. kidding)
-----------

Personal Competencies
- Self-awareness, including emotional awareness, accurate self assessment, and self confidence;
- Self-Management, including self control, trustworthiness, conscientiousness, adaptability, and innovation;

Social Competencies
- Social Awareness, including understanding others, developing others, service orientations, leveraging diversity, and political awareness;
- Relationship Management, including influence, communication, conflict management, leadership, being a change catalyst, building bonds, collaboration and cooperation, and team capabilities.
---------

so what do you think Tez. still got low EQ? IQ is just solving puzzles, adding numbers, this that, all that.

May 7, 2003
2:39 am
Avatar
Anonymous
New Member
Members
Forum Posts: -1
Member Since:
September 24, 2010
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

Guest_guest. Heh! Make that TRYING to get a PhD in EI. My second study isn't moving very far *mumble grumble*

What model are you looking at guest_guest? An ability model or self-report model? I prefer ability myself. You look like you're favouring a self-report model? BarOn's (1997) or Goleman (1995)?

PS EQ was 'invented' by BarOn (1997) to denote 'Emotional Quotient' which is meant to be synonomous with 'IQ' (ie Intelligence Quotient). It's not really meant to equate to Emotional Intelligence, which is a theory (with EQ being the way BarOn - but not everyone - describes level of EI).

May 7, 2003
8:31 pm
Avatar
Anonymous
New Member
Members
Forum Posts: -1
Member Since:
September 24, 2010
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

yes i recognize goleman, hes everywhere. we just copied stuff from here and there 🙂 and i dont even know there are 2 models. ours was a simple paper.

can u post the other model so we can compare?

May 7, 2003
9:03 pm
Avatar
Anonymous
New Member
Members
Forum Posts: -1
Member Since:
September 24, 2010
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

It seems to me that we are emotional animals that have an overly developed cortex. Thus we have similar emotional systems but higher cognitive abilities than other species.

An animal with a high EI would tend to have a much better chance of survival and thus passing on his/her genes. Those with a low EI would tend I would think to not survive long.

Though once, I'm sure that it did, I'm not sure that this selectivity applies to our human species any longer. Thus, if I am right, we are now probably passing on low EI genes that once would have been eliminated by 'natural selection'.

The one big hope of the human species is the development of our cognitive abilities to the point wherein those with low EI, as measured on some commonly recognized and accepted EQ scale, can recognize 'false emotional alarms' and effectively override the animalistic emotional responses that so often lands modern humans in trouble through breach of 'social norms'.

I guess that the 'law of Karma' features centrally in all this.

May 7, 2003
10:31 pm
Avatar
Anonymous
New Member
Members
Forum Posts: -1
Member Since:
September 24, 2010
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

Tez, I am with you, but do you think that environment and a continued stimulus can change things ? Perhaps born with a certain level, and after time it changes, up or down ?

May 8, 2003
1:51 am
Avatar
Anonymous
New Member
Members
Forum Posts: -1
Member Since:
September 24, 2010
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

guest_guest:

There are two trains of thought -

Ability - which views that emotions may be used as an ability (use emotions to make intellectual decisions - essentially to enhance survival) and that basically some people are better at doing that then others (similar to how some people are intellectually smarter than others).

Mayer and Salovey have been particular proponents for this (along with most others actually - it is considered the most 'scientific' view).

Components of M and S's ability model are:

Perception - ie people who can perceive emotions correctly are more able to use this information (ie it is 'socially appropriate' to ask someone if they are OK if they look sad etc).

Use - ie use of emotions - whether and how people use their perceptions and whether these are effective.

Knowledge - emotions are complex. There are things called 'pure emotions' ie sad, happy, angry etc (Ekman etc suggest that there are 6 or so 'universal emotions' - ie each culture in the world can recognise these emotions) and 'blended emotions' which are more complex emotions and constitute parts of the pure emotions eg nostalgia. Having knowledge about information greatly enhances the ability to perceive emotions and thus use them.

Management - EI involves not only managing your own emotions (eg if you're upset at work but it will be detrimental to be seen that way, you might try to stifle expressing those feelings in that situation), but also the management of others emotions, which is important in interpersonal interactions (ie if you're trying to be friends with someone, your aim is generally to make them happy so you will act in ways to make them happy rather than sad etc).

This is opposed to (what Mayer and Salovey call) 'mixed' models, which essentially combines a variety of cognitive and personality attributes etc, for instance BarOn's model which is:

The Components of BarOn’s view of Emotional Intelligence

Intrapersonal Components

Emotional Self-Awareness
Assertiveness
Self-Regard
Self-Actualisation
Independence

Adaptability Components

Problem Solving
Reality Testing
Flexibility

General Mood Components

Happiness
Optimism

Interpersonal Components
Empathy
Social Responsibility
Interpersonal Relationship

Stress Management Components

Stress Tolerance
Impulse Control

These types of models are generally not favoured as it is viewed that they are really personality traits, something which has been studied in Psychology for 100+ years, so there is no need to keep researching it as it is nothing new.

The distinction between these two models is: Ability models can be measured similar to an IQ test (ie you answer questions with only one correct answer - the more correct answers you get, the higher your EI). This is different to 'mixed' models which use 'self-report' assessments (ie saying how similar different characteristics are to you). Criticisms for this are: Self-report is inaccurate, self-report EI measures are highly correlated to personality measures (which means that if we EI has practical applications you may as well examine personality only - something which there is already a long research tradition in).

Does that explain it further? Or was that just WAY too much information?!

May 8, 2003
1:51 pm
Avatar
Anonymous
New Member
Members
Forum Posts: -1
Member Since:
September 24, 2010
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

had to read it a couple of times and i was lucky to get it even then.

so what parts of the mixed model are cognitive?

i agree with you now that the ability model seems more pure for EQ, beucase it deals strictly with emotions, and atleast the "problem solving" part of the mixed model is cognitive which comes automatically once emotions are healthy and taken care of. but, i'm not aware of other cognitive things in the mixed model.

i read some bad criticsm of Goleman somewhere, where some person was really thrashing him around and saying that Goleman just regurgitated what was already there, and fooled the masses by trying to create something "new".

even then our paper was based on a lot from him, since we were too lazy to find something else 😛 (his stuff on EQ is found easily).

you said, some of the mixed model stuff is just personality traits, so it means the mixed model just renames the 'personality' intelligence as emotional intelligence. i see.

i agree the self-reports are always misleading.. they should NOT be taken in as reliable data, i dont know why how they've been able to find their way in educational stuff, since they dont make sense.

is the ability model gaining mode popularity now, and is it more sucessful and will it overtake the mixed model?

May 8, 2003
1:53 pm
Avatar
Anonymous
New Member
Members
Forum Posts: -1
Member Since:
September 24, 2010
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

typo in last line: "gaining *more* popularity"

May 8, 2003
8:25 pm
Avatar
Anonymous
New Member
Members
Forum Posts: -1
Member Since:
September 24, 2010
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

The ability model has always been the 'most' popular from a scientifc/academic aspect. It is the most widely accepted definition of EI. Within popular culture (lay ie non psychology readers) the mixed models have been seen to be most popular as they are generally written in a more engaging style and have been heavily promoted to the public (as opposed to ability models which are mainly published in academic journals etc).

Mixed models include the basis of ability model PLUS a whole bunch of other stuff. Basically Goleman lumps ANYTHING that is important to life success (work place, academic, relationship achievement etc) into EI. So for instance he claims impulse control is a part of EI and therefore claims that EI is a useful construct as it can predict academic achievement on the basis that if you have higher impulse control, you are more likely to stick to certain activities (ie education) and not give up. The more education you have, the more academic achievement you have etc. All seems reasonable, right? BUT impulse control is a PERSONALITY trait. You want to know how impulsive people are? Give them a personality measure that assesses it. Why bother developing a NEW test measuring "EI", when you can just give them the old personality test?

Besides if you include ALL factors that contribute to academic achievement it gets to the ridiculous stage. Hunger influences performance on academic tests. Tiredness influences performance. Time of day influences performance. Are all these 'EI' constructs? NO! Well it would be ridiculous to characterise it as such.

The criticism of these types of EI measures is that you can't define a construct based on what it is NOT. You need to define it on what it IS. If you include EVERYTHING into a constuct, then you have no scientific validity - you can't test the construct to determine if it is scientifically valid as there are too many variables, such that it becomes too unweildy.

If you want to assess how important EI is to 'life success' then you need to factor out the influence of intelligence and personality as these factors have been shown to influence performance/achievement. This is what my research is looking at. So far I've found that the EI measures I'm using don't contribute much above and beyond what is predicted by IQ and personality.

Yes, Goleman has been heavily criticised for his work. The fact is the foundations for EI have existed for over a 100 years (Social Intelligence Theory - Thorndike, 1921; Thurstone, 1950s), Interpersonal Theories (Gardner, 1983), Practical Intelligence (Sternberg, 1990s). The first mention of EI was in 1989 by Wayne Payne, but he didn't conceptualise it as a 'construct' - that was only done in 1990 by Salovey and Mayer. The thing that has bothered people about Goleman's books is that he doesn't even mention S and M's name until pg 41 or something and basically presents his argument as though he 'invented' it, when in fact what he did was take other people's theories and reformulated them and came out with his own theory. His book has also been criticised as it doesn't readily acknowledge resources, which is important in literature so that sources can be checked.

May 9, 2003
7:22 pm
Avatar
Anonymous
New Member
Members
Forum Posts: -1
Member Since:
September 24, 2010
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

why is the current understanding of EQ just based on what one man (Goleman) said? if he didnt make sense and just copied stuff from here and there, its amazing he has reached the name he has. why doesnt the psychological society rise and do something, for example, research on it and define EI as to what it should really be.

i find it disappointing as to how he found his way into so many articles as a reference, when he was just copying stuff.

May 11, 2003
6:52 pm
Avatar
Anonymous
New Member
Members
Forum Posts: -1
Member Since:
September 24, 2010
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

Well primarily because he wrote a book which reached a popular audience (people who haven't studied psychology). Have you read his book? It is written in quite an engaging style (no big words, lots of stories, facts that aren't weighed down by a lot of references etc). That kind of writing appeals to people who don't have a firm scientific background as they can readily understand it. The audience it was aimed at (parents, teachers etc) and the way it was written meant that a lot of people read it and that it got written up as a good book to read and as such it became a best seller and everyone was convinced of his ideas BEFORE it became apparent that his work wasn't as wonderful as he says it is. People have been saying since it was published that his ideas aren't as strong as initially believed - it is widely known in academic circles - but that information isn't given to the general public, because that kind of work is scientific and people don't want to know that, they like Goleman's easy style. Within the academic world, Salovey and Mayer are the people in the know in regards to EI.

May 12, 2003
2:21 am
Avatar
Anonymous
New Member
Members
Forum Posts: -1
Member Since:
September 24, 2010
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

i see.. i guess Goleman still helped to advance the work towards EQ, beucase he has made people more aware of it (even if on the wrong path). it will help in its research and growth becuase now learned people and scientists feel the need to define exactly what it is and make people aware of it, os i guess its all good.

May 12, 2003
2:53 am
Avatar
Anonymous
New Member
Members
Forum Posts: -1
Member Since:
September 24, 2010
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

Yeah absolutely.

So what sort of stuff did you focus on in your paper?

May 12, 2003
8:51 pm
Avatar
Anonymous
New Member
Members
Forum Posts: -1
Member Since:
September 24, 2010
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

Ahhhh - the dance of the amygdala and the cortex. But who will lead?

May 12, 2003
11:15 pm
Avatar
Anonymous
New Member
Members
Forum Posts: -1
Member Since:
September 24, 2010
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

Namaste, Tez.

One suspects that there is a bit of amygdala even in the most refined cortex.

Nikka

Namaste, Squeezles.

Did I understand your contention properly? I rather think I must have read your statement in a fashion you hadn't meant to convey.

I thought you said that 'scientific' means that a work must perforce be unreadable to someone not trained in the jargon of 'the field' and have an unending supply of footnotes. Please explain my error.

Nikka

May 13, 2003
8:41 pm
Avatar
Anonymous
New Member
Members
Forum Posts: -1
Member Since:
September 24, 2010
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

Nikka - I didn't mean to imply that 'lay' people are UNABLE to read scientific literature, merely that Goleman's very popular book on Emotional Intelligence is more easily ACCESSIBLE to a greater audience (hence why it has received so much popularity). It is more accessible for a number of reasons: It is written in an engaging style (as in it can be read as a 'novel', without feeling as though you are reading a text-book, it dispenses with most scientific formality (ie References within the text) - which clutters up the work and decreases the 'flow' of the writing and it is readily available - Goleman's books is available in bookshops, university libaries and public libaries. My point is thus that as Goleman's book is easily obtainable by the general public (if you want to read an academic journal - where much of the work on EI is published - you have to go to a University library, rather than pop down to the local bookshop), his ideas have become the most prominent, even though they aren't the most accurate.

Does that clarify?

Forum Timezone: UTC -8
Most Users Ever Online: 349
Currently Online:
24
Guest(s)
Currently Browsing this Page:
1 Guest(s)
Top Posters:
onedaythiswillpass: 1134
zarathustra: 562
StronginHim77: 453
free: 433
2013ways: 431
curious64: 408
Member Stats:
Guest Posters: 49
Members: 111006
Moderators: 5
Admins: 3
Forum Stats:
Groups: 8
Forums: 74
Topics: 38567
Posts: 714294
Newest Members:
nickbor34, finistratbob, Knewhervel, waylanmarx, rydesk, Castano
Moderators: arochaIB: 1, devadmin: 9, Tincho: 0, Donn Gruta: 0, Germain Palacios: 0
Administrators: admin: 21, ShiningLight: 572, emily430: 29

Copyright © 2020 MH Sub I, LLC. All rights reserved.
Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Cookie Policy | Health Disclaimer | Do Not Sell My Personal Information