There is no such thing as EQ (2016)

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?

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.

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 the concept does not exist or is worthless. I'm in no position to argue with a professional in psychology on psychology. What I'm saying is that psychology doesn't have a monopoly on defining what traits exist.

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 of particular non-human areas, although it is not impossible.

I believe people often neglect areas for intellectual achievement based on finding those areas difficult or their subjective feeling that those areas are not important or just not suited to them, thus some intelligent people may neglect math because they are "not good at math", and some intelligent people may neglect learning to understand people because they "just don't understand people", while other intelligent people may not care to read or understand poetry or programming because that stuff isn't important or is for a particular kind of person that is not the kind of person they are.

Time and intelligence being limited for any one person that person will in some way have to choose what they will use them for. I myself have devoted more time and intelligence to logic than most other people do, and I have found that in periods where I devote extreme energies to logical analysis that my skills with humans are diminished by a commensurate degree.

In conclusion, I agree there is no such thing as EQ in the standard formulation, but perhaps there is a usage of intelligence that would counterfeit it in practical experience.

Sort of reminds me of how it's actually impossible to accurately value real estate.

If you measure square footage, people will just fill the building with superfluous Hilbert curves.

If you try to measure number of bathrooms or number of bedrooms, people will just make apartment complexes filled with dollhouses.

If you try to measure profit(directly or from imputed rent), people will set up fake corporations and pay themselves outrageous sums of rent.

So all of these measures are worthless and it's impossible to value real estate, because they can each be gamed and so are unable to be used to make any predictions.