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

11–20 of 129 posts

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

#11

Post by factsaresacred »

ZenoArrow wrote: post #6
gaius wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, yes and no. Its a thing that makes sense for analyzing entire populations, not individuals - same as BMI. But agree there is no such thing as EQ.

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.

> They're both based on the same false assumption that you can describe mental capacity with a number.

IQ doesn't purport to "describe mental capacity". It assesses mental capacity and allocates a score. This score is information that can be used to deduce ability, and to the end it serves its purpose perfectly.

Decisions based on IQ is another thing entirely.

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

#12

Post by wdroz »

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…

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!

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

#13

Post by c06n »

wdroz wrote: post #12
c06n wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

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!

Yes you can greatly enhance it, here is a thorough review of the state of the art:

http://www.highiqpro.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/Morrison...

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

#14

Post by fpig »

placebo wrote: post #9

Wow, so many wrong things with this answer... Of course, it would not surprise me to learn that measuring IQ as a predictor for success (or at least what a measurer defines as success) is much more accurate than "measuring" EQ for the same purpose. It makes sense - IQ is demonstrably measurable while EQ is some vague concept "popularized by a journalist". However, to go from this to a broad statement that there is no…

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 someone's weight in kg and height in cm and saying that's their "physical score". This "physical score" is pointless even though we can measure both components accurately and measuring them is not useless in itself.

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

#15

Post by blfr »

placebo wrote: post #9

Wow, so many wrong things with this answer... Of course, it would not surprise me to learn that measuring IQ as a predictor for success (or at least what a measurer defines as success) is much more accurate than "measuring" EQ for the same purpose. It makes sense - IQ is demonstrably measurable while EQ is some vague concept "popularized by a journalist". However, to go from this to a broad statement that there is no…

The author goes on to point out that there are real, measurable, predictive personality traits like conscientiousness and they still don't come close to IQ.

It should also be noted that IQ is five or more times as powerful a predictor as even good personality trait predictors such as conscientiousness. The true relationship between grades, for example, and IQ might be as high as r = .50 or even .60 (accounting for 25-36% of the variance in grades). Conscientiousness, however, probably tops out at around r = .30, and is more typically reported as r = .25 (say, 5 to 9% of the variance in grades).

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

#16

Post by oskarth »

placebo wrote: post #9

Wow, so many wrong things with this answer... Of course, it would not surprise me to learn that measuring IQ as a predictor for success (or at least what a measurer defines as success) is much more accurate than "measuring" EQ for the same purpose. It makes sense - IQ is demonstrably measurable while EQ is some vague concept "popularized by a journalist". However, to go from this to a broad statement that there is no…

You can't just invent a trait. You have to define it and measure it and distinguish it from other traits and use it to predict the important ways that people vary.

EQ is not a psychometrically valid concept. Insofar as it is anything (which it isn't) it's the Big Five trait agreeableness, although this depends, as it shouldn't, on which EQ measure is being used (they should all measure THE SAME THING).

What precisely do you disagree with? Let's enumerate some possibilities. Feel free to pick one and argue your point:

1. You can just invent a trait.

2. You don't have to define a trait, measure it or distinguish it from other traits or use it to predict the important ways that people vary.

3. EQ is a psychometrically valid concept.

4. It isn't the Big Five trait agreeableness.

5. EQ measures shouldn't all measure THE SAME THING.

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

#17

Post by exo762 »

placebo wrote: post #9

Wow, so many wrong things with this answer... Of course, it would not surprise me to learn that measuring IQ as a predictor for success (or at least what a measurer defines as success) is much more accurate than "measuring" EQ for the same purpose. It makes sense - IQ is demonstrably measurable while EQ is some vague concept "popularized by a journalist". However, to go from this to a broad statement that there is no…

You've missed his point.

First. Its not that EQ does not describe certain personal characteristics. It is that EQ can actually be described as a combination of other existing, well established traits. Thus it is not an independent variable. EQ is just a bad design.

As for your "trust me, I'm an authority vibe" remark... OP has referenced a lot of papers to properly argument his point. And he is an actual authority.

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

#18

Post by placebo »

fpig wrote: post #14
placebo wrote: post #9

Wow, so many wrong things with this answer... Of course, it would not surprise me to learn that measuring IQ as a predictor for success (or at least what a measurer defines as success) is much more accurate than "measuring" EQ for the same purpose. It makes sense - IQ is demonstrably measurable while EQ is some vague concept "popularized by a journalist". However, to go from this to a broad statement that there is no…

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)

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

#19

Post by placebo »

exo762 wrote: post #17
placebo wrote: post #9

Wow, so many wrong things with this answer... Of course, it would not surprise me to learn that measuring IQ as a predictor for success (or at least what a measurer defines as success) is much more accurate than "measuring" EQ for the same purpose. It makes sense - IQ is demonstrably measurable while EQ is some vague concept "popularized by a journalist". However, to go from this to a broad statement that there is no…

You've missed his point. First. Its not that EQ does not describe certain personal characteristics. It is that EQ can actually be described as a combination of other existing, well established traits. Thus it is not an independent variable. EQ is just a bad design. As for your "trust me, I'm an authority vibe" remark... OP has referenced a lot of papers to properly argument his point. And he is an actual authority.

I'm aware he's an authority, which is exactly the reason I caution against blind acceptance.

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

#20

Post by mpweiher »

placebo wrote: post #19
exo762 wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You've missed his point. First. Its not that EQ does not describe certain personal characteristics. It is that EQ can actually be described as a combination of other existing, well established traits. Thus it is not an independent variable. EQ is just a bad design. As for your "trust me, I'm an authority vibe" remark... OP has referenced a lot of papers to properly argument his point. And he is an actual authority.

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.

Post reply on HN