> The idea was popularized by a journalist, Daniel Goleman, not a psychologist.
Looking at Daniel Goleman's wikipedia page it's clear he was actually both a psychologist and a journalist: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel_Goleman
There is no such thing as EQ (2016)
121–129 of 129 posts
Re: There is no such thing as EQ (2016)
#122While 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 di…
I'm a psychologist whose research is close to this area. (Maybe in this area?) The Quora post is kind of a trifecta of topics that tend to elicit very internet-y types of controversies for lack of a better way of putting it. I can't speak for Peterson, to provide some context, I can understand where he's coming from. There are researchers of all sorts of backgrounds who spend a fair amount of time studying empiricall…
This seems to be the most sophisticated post here, so thank you for the context. Indeed MBTI is also pants. But what is grit? I've not heard of that.
Re: There is no such thing as EQ (2016)
#123Earlier quoted context omitted.
Nonsense. If A says "there's no such thing as red, because it's a human construct", and B says "there is such a thing as red, because human constructs are things", that disagreement doesn't stem from different premises about the world. There's no experiment one can imagine where A and B would predict different results. It's just two different ways of using the word "thing" - each as valid as the other. Either party c…
If one believe it's a human construct and the other doesn't and they decide to study science based on that they will end up with very different results. Furthermore depending on how you understand the world you will be encouraged or discouraged from pursuing various paths. So no it's not just about defining it differently it's about whether you believe red is "out there" or whether it's "in your mind" if you can't se…
> If one believe it's a human construct and the other doesn't and they decide to study science based on that they will end up with very different results.
Give me an example of an experiment they'll predict different results for and I'll believe you. ;) If there isn't one, then your belief isn't paying rent - and arguing whether red is "out there" is as meaningful as arguing whether Wulky Wilkinson is a post-utopian.
> http://lesswrong.com/lw/i3/making_beliefs_pay_rent_in_antici...
Re: There is no such thing as EQ (2016)
#124Earlier quoted context omitted.
> A gossip magazine will make statements that are often false but falsifiable. Hence strictly more scientific than statements about EQ So, are you arguing that people not following scientific method AT ALL are more "scientific" than people who are at least trying to produce scientific research in this area? I have a hard time taking that position seriously; I assume I must have misunderstood. Are you talking about re…
>So, are you arguing that people not following scientific method AT ALL are more "scientific" than people who are at least trying to produce scientific research in this area? No, that wasn't at all what i was arguing. For politeness sake, i'll assume its a misunderstanding, although that is a bit hard to imagine at this point, since i'm being extremely explicit. I wasn't attacking the scientific field, but people usi…
> For politeness sake, i'll assume its a misunderstanding, although that is a bit hard to imagine at this point, since i'm being extremely explicit.
By all means do things for politeness sake; I'm fine with that.
It seems you've assumed my discussion of "serious people working in this field" to mean something other than scientific researchers... and I've assumed your disrespectful remarks to include researchers, rather than just "people using the phrase EQ".
> It is you taking offense that suggests there may be overlap between these two groups, which is extremely worrying.
This fresh accusation relies on the assumption that I've misunderstood you but you understood me perfectly, which is clearly not the case. Slow down; I'll do the same.
..and FYI, telling you that you're being disrepectful is not the same as "taking offense".
Re: There is no such thing as EQ (2016)
#125Earlier quoted context omitted.
Wait, it that answer famous for completely ignoring the question and discussing about some completely unrelated problem in a caricature of the SO community, or is it the one famous by the "you can't parse HTML with regexes" line? Because if it is the one famous by that line, too bad. I always expected that to became famous as an answer about how to parse HTML, not one about how to decide the kind of a tag.
The answer is relevant, it answers the question and it is also famous. I don't know what are you talking about.
Just to add to chillacy's answer, regular expression are a perfectly valid and reasonable tool to do what I understand the question author wanted to do.
His proposal was buggy (he misses a single situation), and I would use something more than pure regexes myself, but it's perfectly reasonable to use them to detect opening HTML tags.
Re: There is no such thing as EQ (2016)
#126Earlier quoted context omitted.
>So, are you arguing that people not following scientific method AT ALL are more "scientific" than people who are at least trying to produce scientific research in this area? No, that wasn't at all what i was arguing. For politeness sake, i'll assume its a misunderstanding, although that is a bit hard to imagine at this point, since i'm being extremely explicit. I wasn't attacking the scientific field, but people usi…
> For politeness sake, i'll assume its a misunderstanding, although that is a bit hard to imagine at this point, since i'm being extremely explicit. By all means do things for politeness sake; I'm fine with that. It seems you've assumed my discussion of "serious people working in this field" to mean something other than scientific researchers... and I've assumed your disrespectful remarks to include researchers, rath…
I've understood what he's said just fine, richmarr, and you're definitely coming across in the way he's interpreting. You _seem_ to have a problem that you're struggling to define, other than a nebulous issue of "respect" which, as he's pointed out, should have absolutely no bearing on how scientifically legitimate something is. (Indeed, objections such as that are often an alarm bell.)
So: he hasn't assumed that you mean people other than researchers. If there is actual research happening then cite one example (as he already asked). He's also explained that any serious researcher wouldn't give two hoots about respect, and would only want to discover the truth, whatever it may be. Do you agree with that?
Re: There is no such thing as EQ (2016)
#127Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 mo…
The final straw was Jobs trying to oust John Scully. John Scully said me or him. Board went with Scully. The point is that a lot of his actions that directly let up to that made him a dick. In Jobs case, his destructive behaviours didn't help the bottom line. Being a dick screws over motivation, colleague happiness/satisfaction, increases turnover, etc. These things have an economic cost. Being a dick can cost your w…
This is all rather pointless when Scilly drove Apple into the ground and Jobs subsequently sent it into the stratosphere. I'm no Jobs fan at all, but that much is obvious.
Look at how badly Jobs treated his subordinates and family for an actual criticism of him.
Re: There is no such thing as EQ (2016)
#128Earlier quoted context omitted.
> For politeness sake, i'll assume its a misunderstanding, although that is a bit hard to imagine at this point, since i'm being extremely explicit. By all means do things for politeness sake; I'm fine with that. It seems you've assumed my discussion of "serious people working in this field" to mean something other than scientific researchers... and I've assumed your disrespectful remarks to include researchers, rath…
I've understood what he's said just fine, richmarr, and you're definitely coming across in the way he's interpreting. You _seem_ to have a problem that you're struggling to define, other than a nebulous issue of "respect" which, as he's pointed out, should have absolutely no bearing on how scientifically legitimate something is. (Indeed, objections such as that are often an alarm bell.) So: he hasn't assumed that you…
Goleman, Petrides (2001), and Salovey/Mayer (2004) all "make statements about EQ" so would all fall into ralfn's defined group "people making statements about EQ" that he accuses of being "less scientific than a gossip magazine".
But, as ralfn already clarified, he did not intend to draw actual researchers into his dragnet, so the point of dragging out that misunderstanding is what?
Re: There is no such thing as EQ (2016)
#129Earlier quoted context omitted.
The final straw was Jobs trying to oust John Scully. John Scully said me or him. Board went with Scully. The point is that a lot of his actions that directly let up to that made him a dick. In Jobs case, his destructive behaviours didn't help the bottom line. Being a dick screws over motivation, colleague happiness/satisfaction, increases turnover, etc. These things have an economic cost. Being a dick can cost your w…
This is all rather pointless when Scilly drove Apple into the ground and Jobs subsequently sent it into the stratosphere. I'm no Jobs fan at all, but that much is obvious. Look at how badly Jobs treated his subordinates and family for an actual criticism of him.
No it isn't. If Jobs wasn't a dick and alienated 90% of people with his behaviour, he would have had more sway.