Calling Conformity "Intelligence"
and Confusing Skills with "Intelligence"

I just re-read something which helps us understand the way Jack Mayer, Peter Salovey and David Caruso view the concept of emotional intelligence. Below you will see a quote from a July 2005 article co-authored by Peter Salovey. In a previous editorial I said that Mayer and his colleagues have started calling what is normal "intelligent." Here we see that a strong case could be made that they are also calling conformity "intelligence", and we see just how they do it. On their test, which they, MHS and others call a test of emotional intelligence, they say that the most common answer is the "correct" answer. Therefore, if someone answers the questions on their test "correctly", they are called emotionally intelligent. Here is the direct quote:

"Intrinsic to the four-branch model of emotional intelligence is the hypothesis that emotional skills cannot be separated from their social context. To use emotions in a useful way, one must be attuned to the social and cultural norms of the environment in which one interacts. Therefore, the model proposes that correct answers will depend highly upon agreement with others of one's own social group. " (Source)

This is one fundamental problem with the Mayer et al concept of EI. Another is their original view of EI. I recently re-read their 1990 paper and this jumped out at me:

This article presents a framework for emotional intelligence, a set of skills hypothesized to contribute to the accurate appraisal and expression of emotion in oneself and in others, the effective regulation of emotion in self and others, and the use of feelings to motivate, plan and achieve in one's life.

I put the word skills in bold to draw attention to it. From this we see that the researchers started out by back in 1990 by confusing intelligence with skills. There is a big difference between intelligence and skill. A young child, even a baby, can be highly intelligent, but unskilled.

I still believe that there is something we can call "emotional intelligence", but I am afraid the leading researchers have led us (and Dan Goleman) in somewhat the wrong direction.

I urge other researchers to correct this with new work -- work which views emotional intelligence as an intelligence and not what is either:

(A) a "set of skills" which one might or might not acquire during one's life experiences or
(B) what is simply "normal".

S. Hein
Salta, Argentina
June 5, 2006