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

91–100 of 129 posts

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

#91

Post by fenomas »

ThomPete wrote: post #61
bryanrasmussen wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

This is a bit like saying there's no such thing as the color red, it's just an arbitrary label for certain wavelengths of light. Why claim "there's no such thing as" something just because it's a human construct?

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

#93

Post by fenomas »

ac2u wrote: post #84
jgh wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I edited my comment above to make my point more relevant.

I don't see how it's more relevant at all. The posted submission simply makes the argument of invalidating EQ while showing the rigor behind IQ as a general predictor. You decided to turn that into "some horrible people use this to back up some horrible beliefs, therefore this guy is one of them", and then in your edit you went "here is an example of one of those horrible beliefs". Not to mention the fact that he spe…

If it makes things any clearer, the author of the quora comment is apparently a figure in various culture wars, so I imagine GP's opinions about him are coming from things he's said elsewhere, not just what's in TFA.

(I only know this because there was a brief furore about him the other day - he got locked out of his youtube account, purportedly for his conservative views, or somesuch.)

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

#94

Post by ralfn »

coldtea wrote: post #74
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?

There's nothing much or more scientific about IQ than EQ. IQ is on the gossip magazine level itself.

Research around IQ can reliably make predictions based on the measurement of IQ. So, that means two things:

- the research is well defined enough that you can do an experiment to disprove it

- most of the research has not been successfully disproved, even though many tried

Now, whether that means that IQ exists and what it means for things to exist is a different discussion. It terms of philosophy of science, it is the distinction between relativistic empiricists and absolutistic empiricists. Just because you found a correlation, does that also inform you about the true nature of things? If formula's pretending the world is made out of strings correctly predict what would happen to some extend, does that mean the world is made out of strings?

In the case of EQ, it doesn't even qualify as a scientific theory. For that, it would need to be formalized to such an extent that it would make a objectively measurable prediction. Which we can then all try to disprove by measurement. If we don't even have the chance to disprove it, it's not a scientific theory in the first place.

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

#95

Post by ac2u »

fenomas wrote: post #93
ac2u wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't see how it's more relevant at all. The posted submission simply makes the argument of invalidating EQ while showing the rigor behind IQ as a general predictor. You decided to turn that into "some horrible people use this to back up some horrible beliefs, therefore this guy is one of them", and then in your edit you went "here is an example of one of those horrible beliefs". Not to mention the fact that he spe…

If it makes things any clearer, the author of the quora comment is apparently a figure in various culture wars, so I imagine GP's opinions about him are coming from things he's said elsewhere, not just what's in TFA. (I only know this because there was a brief furore about him the other day - he got locked out of his youtube account, purportedly for his conservative views, or somesuch.)

Personally, I'm aware of the debates that he's been engaged in outside of the scope of the EQ/IQ topic. However, even taking that into consideration, you have to take an oceanic leap to get from that to branding someone a "white nationalist".

Also, through self-admission: not to mention any time I hear about Jordan Peterson it's in the context of alt-right nonsense.

...their opinions have more been informed by what they've been told to think about him rather anything they've claimed he's said or done.

My passioned response to this is to call-out the behavior of how trivially people like to lob these accusations without any empathy as to how it could easily be done to themselves.

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

#96

Post by ralfn »

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.

> they don't deserve the level of scattergun disrespect that you're displaying here.

You really consider their feelings more important than protecting actual scientific facts from something akin to trademark infringement?

The public perception right now is that IQ and EQ are similar in the level of scientific backing. In world where people stop vaccinating their kids, ignore global warming, etc. i really don't consider the feelings of any particular group of people in any field important enough to not, every chance i get, fight for clarity on just what are reliable scientific facts and what are not, because it is scientific method itself that is under attack.

And if these 'serious people working on areas such as this' are not full of shit, working in service of science, i expect them to have the exact same priority as me.

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

#97

Post by ac2u »

jwdunne wrote: post #45
oskarth wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Have you ever actually met any of these people in real life? Reading headlines about famous people doesn't mean you actually know them.

There is enough evidence out there to show they treated people they worked with less than well. Are you saying that Steve Jobs wasn't a dick to his staff and to the board? Are you saying that trying to stage a coup in the workplace isn't a dickhead move?

I think you're arguing past the point a little. From what I've read, what got him booted out was Apple hemorrhaging money and the board wanting to keep the Apple II gravy train going and Jobs disagreeing.

My point is that questionable behavior didn't oust him initially compared to it being a fundamental disagreement over the direction of the company.

I'm sure the behavior didn't help, but if they were still making money hand over fist, the board wasn't going to turn around and say "you're too much of a dick so we're ousting you".

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

#98

Post by fenomas »

ac2u wrote: post #95
fenomas wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If it makes things any clearer, the author of the quora comment is apparently a figure in various culture wars, so I imagine GP's opinions about him are coming from things he's said elsewhere, not just what's in TFA. (I only know this because there was a brief furore about him the other day - he got locked out of his youtube account, purportedly for his conservative views, or somesuch.)

Personally, I'm aware of the debates that he's been engaged in outside of the scope of the EQ/IQ topic. However, even taking that into consideration, you have to take an oceanic leap to get from that to branding someone a "white nationalist". Also, through self-admission: not to mention any time I hear about Jordan Peterson it's in the context of alt-right nonsense. ...their opinions have more been informed by what t…

Fair enough, just checking. I don't think the guy's very widely known, but from what I saw the other day people who have opinions about him seem to have very strong ones.

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

#99

Post by blablabla123 »

bryanrasmussen wrote: post #28

There comes a point in these things where someone always comes in with their thoughts on what the term under discussion must mean. If there were a thing such as EQ I would suppose it is just intelligence with a focus on understanding other peoples, their feelings, goals and how to get them to work together. Often this use of intelligence is not found in people who have focused their intelligence on technical mastery…

Well yeah, Psychology is an almost empirical science, EQ 2.0 is a hands-on approach. When you read it, you may acquire skills that otherwise a Psychologist might teach you.

As you might guess, I read the book. I went through some difficult experiences in my life, that made it at some point really difficult to make new friends, feel happy or reasonably successful at work. That book helped me a lot. It's not answering all questions to life, rather it gives you a set of tools. You can decide by yourself whether you want to use some of them and which.

Anyways, this book falls into the category business books / self-help. I assume they are competing with Psychologists except it's not so stigmatizing maybe. Maybe... if you tell someone in the face which exercise you are doing from this book, the person will probably think you are completely insane... ;) But yeah, it's great that non-Psychologists are allowed to write such books.

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

#100

Post by blablabla123 »

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…

Luckily only very few people are true psychopaths, less than 1% actually - which doesn't mean they cannot learn to be empathic in some way. Unfortunately many people lack social intelligence which can make it difficult to interact with them, let it be in the workplace or in the private life.

I mean it's somehow a big topic in the IT world. People don't talk too often about it, but sometimes make jokes about it. However, I think that it's a thing also outside of the IT world and there people get away with it much more easily. In the normal world people with low "EQ" (or whatever name people prefer) are considered annoying or as*, within IT they are considered incompetent.

Post reply on HN