Home | Problems
with Mainstream Concept of EI
* under construction
Emotional Intelligence and Conformity
Something else I respect him for is because in all the pictures I have seen of him, I have never yet seen him wearing a tie. Please think about that for a moment. He is meeting with other foreign presidents this week in Europe. There are pictures of him with all the other presidents. Among the male presidents, he is the only not wearing a tie.
This brings to mind a question I have asked many people here in South America:
quickly say no. Adults, on the other hand,
often have to think about it, and often hesitate or
cant give me a definite answer. Now let me
"tie" this to Jack Mayer, David Caruso and
Peter Salovey, the authors of a test they and MHS (the company marketing and
The other day I looked at Jack Mayer' website. I saw that he is making new claims about emotional intelligence. I felt discouraged by this. He used to be very careful about making claims. But now he seems to believe the test he and his colleagues have created is really a test of emotional intelligence, so he has now joined the bandwagon of making claims about emotional intelligence, without cautioning us that it might not really be emotional intelligence that his test is measuring.
Just because Jack, David and Peter and the marketing folks at MHS started calling the MSCEIT a test of emotional intelligence does not meant it would not be more accurate to call it a test of emotional conformity. If we look at MHS's track record for honesty in terms of the Reuven BarOn test, we see that it leaves a lot to be desired.
I suggest that the BarOn test would be better called a test of emotional coping ability, or "well-being" if they want to call it that, as Reuven used to call it. But these names don't have the sales appeal that emotional intelligence does, so it is unlikely MHS will change what they are doing unless they are legally forced to, which I personally hope they are.
As for the MSCEIT test, let's go back to Evo and the other presidents. Lets say we develop a test and call it a test of intelligent dressing. Then we have questions on the test like If you are going to an international meeting of presidents of countries, would it be more effective to wear a tie or to not wear a tie?
Then we give the test to a lot of people and we let them select the best answers. (This is exactly what Jack, David and Peter did, by the way.)Then we decide, based on these other peoples answers, that the best answer is it would be more effective to wear a tie.
Then we say that if you answer our questions correctly you are an intelligent dresser. Then we looked at the pictures of presidents and we saw that most of them are wearing ties. So then we say that our test of intelligent dressing predicts who will be presidents.
So then we say that if you dont score highly on our test, you are not an intelligent dresser, you are not likely to be a president, etc.
But would it really be fair to say that our test is a test of intelligent dressing? Or would it be more accurate to call it a test of dressing conformity?
Other EQI.org Topics:
|Now, I can predict the
reaction of Jack, David and Peter. They will probably say
that the word intelligence is a special word.
They will say that in their discipline of psychology the
word intelligence has a special meaning. They
will say it has to do with cognitive skills, for example.
So they might say that choosing what you wear
doesnt require any form of cognitive skills.
And I might not argue with them on that.
Or, then again, I might.
Since this article is getting a bit long I will let you choose to keep reading about why I might argue with them. If you want there
is a link below to that.
|The other day I took a
look at Jacks website and I read a recent article
co-authored by Peter. I feel discouraged and
disillusioned by what I saw. I feel less respect and
admiration for them now. Basically, they seem to be
closer towards what I might call a conformists definition of emotional intelligence.
On Jacks website he describes what he, David and Peter think of as an
emotionally intelligent person. They say things like, according to
them, an emotionally intelligent person gets along with everyone
and doesnt do anything unhealthy like smoke or use drugs.
I feel personally offended by this, not because I smoke or do
drugs, but because, first, I dont get along with everyone and I dont think this means I lack EI. I believe instead that to get along with everyone means you have to be either emotionally dishonest or emotionally out of touch with your own true feelings something which could occur for several reasons.
Also, I personally know people who do many unhealthy things, such as using drugs, who I consider to be very emotionally intelligent. Sometimes they are even suicidal. Yet they are all very intelligent and very sensitive. They are just in extreme emotional pain from living in emotionally unsupportive and invalidating environments, within the larger context of a world where cruelty and killing are commonplace, things which are virtually ignored or justified by less sensitive and I would say less humane, people.
I personally feel offended by the implication that these people are not emotionally intelligent. Some of these suicidal people have been among my very best friends and among the most emotionally understanding, caring and supportive people I have ever met.