I must not have been as clear as I hoped, so I will have another try at it. When discussing Intelligence as measured by IQ I am not much talking about individuals. As I have mentioned before, the success of any one individual is dependent on many things, and I have listed many: resilience, emotional self-control, charm, and diligence, for example. IQ is better at making group predictions. If you send 100 people with an IQ of 120 to med school, compared to another hundred with IQ 130, and another 100 with IQ 140, there will be a difference in success. There may be some washouts in the 140 group or remarkable successes in the 120 group, but the general trend will be that success, both at school and in careers, will be greater as the IQ goes up. This will be at least partly true for all fields as well. Waiting tables does not require as much intelligence as electrical engineering, but it requires some, and more is better. Memory and focus are both components of measured intelligence.
This is similar to my analogy to basketball prowess and height. Take a hundred players who are 6-1, another hundred who are 6-5, and a hundred who are 6-9, how far they go in the game will show a trend favoring height. I could have picked speed, and that would also show a trend, but less dramatically, just as I could have picked foreign language grades in high school as a predictor of college success and seen some trend as well. Just not as strong as IQ, which is the strongest single predictor.
Yet somehow the conversation always goes to individuals we have known or have read about who have high IQ's but did not do as well as some other people we have known or read about who have some advantage in social skills. I don't know why we can't shake that, but it is largely irrelevant to the overall discussion of IQ and intelligence. Individual lives have too much variance. Opportunity differs, wisdom differs, health differs. Yet these average out over large numbers, and we can measure what qualities are good to have.
There is also a continuing assertion that what IQ measures is not really intelligence, though there might be some association. This is not so, not unless we switch what we mean by "intelligence." The informal category of smart is usually more encompassing and includes some social skills, and wisdom is immediately recognised as a better thing to have and includes judgement, self-control, and perspective. I have no problem with that. Yet if you put all of us in a fourth-grade class for a week and asked at the end who the most intelligent six kids were we would have very similar lists. And...they would be the kids with the best test scores. We would all see who was picking up new math concepts, new vocabulary, and science information more quickly and putting it to some use. We would notice the other attributes - which were charming, or musical, or diligent. I include a caveat to this. It would just kill some people not to "reward" one of those children with other attributes with a higher ranking, because they just liked the more charming or hard-working ones better. But if you held their feet to the flames and insisted they stick to intelligence, there would be agreement.
This would happen again at every level: later in school, training someone to be an EMT or fireman, bringing in new software that has to be used for the job. We would all generally agree who were the most intelligent of the last hundred trainees we had, and that list would correlate with IQ. We might miss a few in either direction because their enthusiasm was so great or so terrible that it disguised ability. And again, it would just kill some people not to rate someone who was a favorite higher than deserved or another who was an arrogant jerk lower, but you can usually find objective measures of some sort.
Finally, there is the continuing matter of EQ. I thought I had been clear and even repetitive that individual people skills, or social skills, or emotional skills were valuable, often more valuable than raw intelligence. Yet somehow there is some impression that I am devaluing these things because I don't think EQ is real. Let me try again. There are many social skills, all of which have some importance and in some instances critical importance. Yet these do not measure well. There might be rating systems based on responses from hundreds of independent evaluations that could somewhat identify wisdom, or charm, or evenhandedness, or tact, or kindness, and each of these might leave a trail of some type of success in any profession that we could try to evaluate, but with each of these, levels of evaluation, whether letter grades or numbers, are going to be uneven and difficult. We would have to say by the objectivve measure of being elected president that both Donald Trump and Barack Obama must have a great deal of charisma. Yet there are those who are repelled by either (or both) of them. So what's the charisma score going to be?*
If the objection comes that we aren't really talking about a score of any kind, just an informal acknowledgement of some ability, then I will ask why you are bringing in Quotients, or why you feel the need to call the virtue you prefer by that name. Does the implication of prestige or power attached to the mathi-ness of the term seem too much of a gift to one ability at the expense of others you like better? I confess I don't quite get it.
Next, these various people skills are not strongly associated. There is some association between leadership and followership in that people who understand those roles can apply different skills at different times, but one can see that those two skills will just as often be offsetting. Is being easygoing a good social skill? Well, very often it is. An easygoing surgeon may not be setting a good example for his team, though. Charisma and tact may conflict. Self-confidence and humility are imaginable in the same person, but we can see how they might not coincide. Friendliness and kindness would seem to be general goods, but sometimes they distract from getting work done, or from justice in the workplace. All these attributes of emotional wisdom don't cluster into some general category. They don't measure well individually, so they certainly aren't going to measure any better by lumping them together and trying to extract a number from that. There's no quotient or any other mathematical term that's going to fit in the least for a general category of people skills.
So there's no such thing as EQ. If all you mean is "people skills are important," then I have never objected. But I think what folks are saying is closer to "IQ tests don't measure social skills, and I admire social skills, so we should stop paying attention to IQ scores." Eh. The tests never pretended to measure anything other than candlepower. But they are very good at measuring that. Yardsticks don't measure speed, but they measure height very well.
* 3d6 plus bonuses