Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

There is no such thing as EQ (2016)

quora.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 129 posts

Re: There is no such thing as EQ (2016)

#61

Post by ThomPete »

bryanrasmussen wrote: post #24
ThomPete wrote: post #2

There is no such thing as IQ either its also a conceptual model. But agree there is no such thing as EQ.

The argument seems to be that there is no such thing as EQ because it is not a workable conceptual model whereas there is a thing like IQ because it is a workable conceptual model - definition of workable conceptual model that it can be used to make good predictions as one generally likes to do with conceptual models.

I understand that but it's not a thing it itself.

It's a concept which we use to describe certain abilities in humans but there is no IQ sitting somewhere. While EQ is definitely close to be "fraudulent" it's still sitting on a gradient with EQ being the best model we have when externally accessing someones mental abilities but it's not a thing, it's a human construct.

Re: There is no such thing as EQ (2016)

#62

Post by ralfn »

js8 wrote: post #42

I always had trouble with the term EQ or emotional intelligence, because it in my opinion confuses (at least) two things. One is empathy, our ability to read and perceive emotions of other people. The other is actual social intelligence, that is understanding of how other people are motivated, what to do in social situations, and so on. There are plenty good people who have lot of 1st one but little of the 2nd one, a…

You didnt have trouble with the term EQ because it tries to suggest it is like IQ? Eventhough one of them is science and the other is less scientific than a gossip magazine?

Re: There is no such thing as EQ (2016)

#63

Post by ThomPete »

c06n wrote: post #8
ZenoArrow wrote: post #6

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…

With regards to success I don't think it's a strong an argument as claimed. If you look at what people from Mensa are doing or look at how child prodigies often ends with not so successful adulthood it's pretty obvious that it's way more complicated to measure success in life than to look at IQ.

Most of the correlation with high income is because their skills are needed by society, but go back 300 years and you wouldn't find the same correlation going even further back it would matter even less.

Furthermore high IQ doesn't mean more likely to be entrepreneur or creator of new things.

So yes IQ is a very strong model but it's relation to success is much weaker.

Re: There is no such thing as EQ (2016)

#64

Post by richmarr »

js8 wrote: post #42

I always had trouble with the term EQ or emotional intelligence, because it in my opinion confuses (at least) two things. One is empathy, our ability to read and perceive emotions of other people. The other is actual social intelligence, that is understanding of how other people are motivated, what to do in social situations, and so on. There are plenty good people who have lot of 1st one but little of the 2nd one, a…

> it in my opinion confuses (at least) two things

There are several models of EQ, or EI, (e.g. Petrides 2001, Salovey/Mayer 2004, or Goleman's 1995 book) but none of them treat it as a single thing. Instead they treat it as an array of characteristics or skills.

Re: There is no such thing as EQ (2016)

#65

Post by richmarr »

ralfn wrote: post #62
js8 wrote: post #42

I always had trouble with the term EQ or emotional intelligence, because it in my opinion confuses (at least) two things. One is empathy, our ability to read and perceive emotions of other people. The other is actual social intelligence, that is understanding of how other people are motivated, what to do in social situations, and so on. There are plenty good people who have lot of 1st one but little of the 2nd one, a…

You didnt have trouble with the term EQ because it tries to suggest it is like IQ? Eventhough one of them is science and the other is less scientific than a gossip magazine?

Yes, incentives in scientific publishing, tenure, etc are messed up and have caused reproducability problems. That problem is systemic and will take a long time to fix.

There are serious people working on areas such as this; and they don't deserve the level of scattergun disrespect that you're displaying here.

Re: There is no such thing as EQ (2016)

#66

Post by clarabrooks »

richmarr wrote: post #65
ralfn wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You didnt have trouble with the term EQ because it tries to suggest it is like IQ? Eventhough one of them is science and the other is less scientific than a gossip magazine?

Yes, incentives in scientific publishing, tenure, etc are messed up and have caused reproducability problems. That problem is systemic and will take a long time to fix. There are serious people working on areas such as this; and they don't deserve the level of scattergun disrespect that you're displaying here.

Some months ago, my mom needed money to purchase our apartment but she couldn't afford to get a loan as her credit score was low and this was so painful but luckily enough, after explaining the situation to my friend he introduced me to a very good hacker who then assisted her in boosting her credit score. A problem shared is truly half solved so don't hesitate to contact him cybershiff@gmail.com

Re: There is no such thing as EQ (2016)

#67

Post by clarabrooks »

ralfn wrote: post #54
taneq wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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".

Some months ago, my mom needed money to purchase our apartment but she couldn't afford to get a loan as her credit score was low and this was so painful but luckily enough, after explaining the situation to my friend he introduced me to a very good hacker who then assisted her in boosting her credit score. A problem shared is truly half solved so don't hesitate to contact him cybershiff@gmail.com

Re: There is no such thing as EQ (2016)

#68

Post by skywhopper »

While I'm certainly willing to accept that "EQ" is unscientific claptrap, coming at this from outside the apparent controversy, this answer is off-putting to me partially because I don't have the context this author assumes (a context which includes enough technical jargon and name drops to make me wonder who exactly this response is written _for_, as presumably academic psychologists are not pursuing professional discourse via Quora).

All that said, his slavish devotion to "IQ is king" makes me seriously question the value of attempting to pursue understanding his point. IQ may well strongly correlate to societally normative positive outcomes, but elevating a single quantitative measure to this degree reveals a worryingly inhuman approach to the field.

I would not want to discuss my health with a doctor who ranted like this about BMI being the most important measure of health we have. And I don't really want to learn about the psychological aspects of emotional health and human interaction from someone who rants this angrily over the transcendent value of reducing human mental capacity to a number, either.

Post reply on HN