31–40 of 129 posts
If I was marking this as a student paper, it would go back with demerits for plagiarism, faulty logic, poorly-structured rhetoric, and, to top it all off, bad grammar. ...Dude's a professor?
I think EQ was invented to make those with low IQ to feel better.
There is no such thing as IQ either its also a conceptual model. But agree there is no such thing as EQ.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Did you actually read the answer? Nowhere did he say that those traits don't matter, or even that they are too hard to measure (although he did say they are less predictive of success than IQ). He says the concept of EQ is worthless because it just bundles together measurements of completely different character traits in a pretty much random way and creates a less-predictive mess as a result. It's like summing someon…
I read the answer, and my response is to the repeated "There is no such thing as EQ" statements which are stressed throughout it. How is anything I wrote not related to that statement? (edited my reply to be more constructive)
Contrast this with intelligence, for which they they test something very specific which you can test even in children, and we know this ability, even though on the surface unrelated to any real-world skill, strongly correlates with how they will perform at many different things later in life. It is an actual trait, not just an average of how good you are at various things.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm aware he's an authority, which is exactly the reason I caution against blind acceptance.
Hmm...you realize that he (a) explains ad nauseam and (b) cites relevant research. So how is this "blind acceptance"? Whereas you don't appear to be an authority, made a fairly broad claim ("so much wrong..."), explained nothing and cited...crickets.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4557354/
The evidence that IQ predicts success is dubious, and certainly not settled.
I also consider him wrong about EQ, although for more anecdotal reasons:
I have known people who can read individuals and social situations with extraordinary skill, make astonishingly accurate predictions about social and personal outcomes, and manipulate both with extraordinary efficiency and effectiveness.
I've also known high-IQ individuals who were worse than average at all of the above, and who suffered poor social, political, and financial outcomes as a result.
So IMO EQ is a recognisable skill, and it's clearly not the same as agreeableness in the Big Five.
It may not have been well-defined or well-researched in psychology, and the original book definition may not be accurate either. (I haven't read Golman, so I don't know what he says about it.)
But it's nonsense to pretend it simply doesn't exist.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If you accept there's no EQ then why not apply the same logic to IQ? They're both based on the same false assumption that you can describe mental capacity with a number. It's not the same with BMI, which is about setting out guidelines for a healthy weight. That is something that's more appropriate to describe numerically.
IQ and BMI are strong predictors of income and disease. As the linked post describes, EQ is ill-defined, and lacks predictive power over any particular outcome.
There is no such thing as IQ either its also a conceptual model. But agree there is no such thing as EQ.
based jordan peterson
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Cool, so you can enhance your mental capacity by doing this test again and again. In less than a year I will be a genius!
Sort of reminds me of how it's actually impossible to accurately value real estate. If you measure square footage, people will just fill the building with superfluous Hilbert curves. If you try to measure number of bathrooms or number of bedrooms, people will just make apartment complexes filled with dollhouses. If you try to measure profit(directly or from imputed rent), people will set up fake corporations and pay…
Do you mean measure it accurately based on a single metric?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If you accept there's no EQ then why not apply the same logic to IQ? They're both based on the same false assumption that you can describe mental capacity with a number. It's not the same with BMI, which is about setting out guidelines for a healthy weight. That is something that's more appropriate to describe numerically.
> If you accept there's no EQ then why not apply the same logic to IQ? But that has been done, over and over again. By the established standard of "how to measure mental things", IQ is a very useful concept, while EQ is not. The argument Peterson (and a few others) are making is that there is no incremental validity of EQ compared to other personality traits. That just means that EQ cannot explain more variance than…
There you have it: A measure for mental capacity."
Not really. Almost anyone can get better at games like that without expanding their mental capacity. Here's a selection of well established tricks for enhancing memory recall:
http://lifehacker.com/top-10-tricks-to-boost-your-memory-and...
IQ isn't about skill, it's about capacity. Also, it's biased towards certain forms of intelligence. I happen to have a good memory, but that doesn't make me equally adept at all forms of human activity. EQ was an attempt to highlight this shortfall.