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?
He's writing like how he speaks, it's not a paper.
There is no such thing as EQ (2016)
51–60 of 129 posts
Re: There is no such thing as EQ (2016)
#52Well, if you're a dick, there's gonna be an upper limit on how far you go with your intelligence. I don't think there's value in quantifying that with some hokey quotient. Take, for example, Shkreli. Major dick but pretty clever by the looks of it. Now found guilty of fraud. Bill Gates was a major dick. Made tonnes of money but yet reviled and found himself in the dock because of it. Steve Jobs. Really intelligent bu…
Shkreli currently has a 'bit' of trouble with the law.
Jobs died because he was too stupid to realise that cancer can not get treated by magical thinking.
Gates got quite positive popularity due to his charity.
I don't think your examples work too well...
Re: There is no such thing as EQ (2016)
#53He quotes an interesting sounding stat - "In fact, if you could choose to be born at the 95th percentile for wealth, or the 95th percentile for IQ, you would be more successful at age 40 as a consequence of the latter choice." Does anyone know the source?
I was curious as well, as it smells made up and rather unlikely to be true given current wealth distribution. Where you are born (e.g. developed vs developing country) is a very strong causal factor in how much wealth you get during your life, much higher than IQ.
Re: There is no such thing as EQ (2016)
#54Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
If you know Bob is a genius coder, but is guaranteed to creep out a potential client, you're making a prediction based on your assessment of Bob's EQ.
If Bob doesnt like talking to customers being extra rude or creepy is a sign of intelligence.
The article wasnt stating that people dont have more or less or different social skills. But that they currently arent measurable in a scientific way (and likely never will be).
The phrase EQ is therefor completely and intentionally fraudulent. Like the word "scientology".
Re: There is no such thing as EQ (2016)
#55Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
You are right regarding my broad claim - I stand corrected. You are also right regarding my lack of authority, but experience shows that authority (professional or otherwise) is not always backed up by a broader understanding. If I'm wrong I'll be the first to admit it. The professor is saying there is no such thing as EQ. What I understand he means is that there is no such thing as EQ in psychology, and therefore th…
He explains this in more detail in the comments.
Re: There is no such thing as EQ (2016)
#56Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
You are right regarding my broad claim - I stand corrected. You are also right regarding my lack of authority, but experience shows that authority (professional or otherwise) is not always backed up by a broader understanding. If I'm wrong I'll be the first to admit it. The professor is saying there is no such thing as EQ. What I understand he means is that there is no such thing as EQ in psychology, and therefore th…
[deleted]
Re: There is no such thing as EQ (2016)
#57Well, if you're a dick, there's gonna be an upper limit on how far you go with your intelligence. I don't think there's value in quantifying that with some hokey quotient. Take, for example, Shkreli. Major dick but pretty clever by the looks of it. Now found guilty of fraud. Bill Gates was a major dick. Made tonnes of money but yet reviled and found himself in the dock because of it. Steve Jobs. Really intelligent bu…
Shkreli currently has a 'bit' of trouble with the law. Jobs died because he was too stupid to realise that cancer can not get treated by magical thinking. Gates got quite positive popularity due to his charity. I don't think your examples work too well...
Shkreli hasn't yet learned. Perhaps his financial analysis videos were a movement in the right direction.
Jobs apparently calmed down after his ousting at Apple post-coup attempt, learning better how to lead. He refused to listen to the experts on his health, paid the price.
Gates did not have a great reputation at the helm of Microsoft. Reports from employees, well, the whole "I could write this in a weekend" shit is an example. Gates has spent a shit tonne of time helping the world and being the opposite of a dick. He is now seen in a positive light.
The examples described dickhead behaviour by generally intelligent people and how it held them back. The last 2 examples show they did better once they relaxed the dickhead attitude.
Re: There is no such thing as EQ (2016)
#58Earlier 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…
Researchers then introduce societal factors to explain away why high IQ individuals don't succeed.
Things like IQ and personality assessments (which IMO are really what EQ is a proxy for) are guideposts, but their predictive power is only effective in context and understanding the accuracy of the assessment.
When people use these as gatekeepers it's problematic.
Re: There is no such thing as EQ (2016)
#59The "THERE IS NO SUCH THING AZ EQ....." part reminds me of the famous "you can't parse html with regex" answer on StackOverflow: https://stackoverflow.com/questions/1732348/regex-match-open...
Re: There is no such thing as EQ (2016)
#60He quotes an interesting sounding stat - "In fact, if you could choose to be born at the 95th percentile for wealth, or the 95th percentile for IQ, you would be more successful at age 40 as a consequence of the latter choice." Does anyone know the source?
Restricting your analysis to the US, research indicates that IQ is actually more beneficial than your parents socioeconomic status in determining future success. Here's some small articles touching on the subject
http://spartanideas.msu.edu/2015/04/04/income-wealth-and-iq/
https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2013/12/would-y...