I have written slightingly about EQ in the past, not because I think emotional skills are unimportant, but because I see no evidence that leadership, followership, sympathy, empathy, being firm but fair, listening, kindness, knowing when listening should be over, seeing when kindness is cruelty and all the other emotional skills correlate with each other, and thus an aggregate concept like Emotional Quotient is not a real thing. IQ as a concept was developed because the researchers found that people who did well on Skills A, B, and C also did well on L, M, and N, so there was some underlying factor that was more present or less that was common to them, and it would be interesting to know what that was. Emotional skills are individual, and real. EQ is not. It is the sort of placating concept ("Hey, what you do is just as valuable to this company...") that people with some of those emotional skills like to use to keep people going, keep them motivated, keep folks happy. I have some objection when they are using it to encourage other people, because vague and unrealistic compliments are ultimately not that much real help to people. They get seen through. they expire. They do not sustain. Still, I think it is well meant and has some value.
But I think it is dangerous when people are using it to comfort themselves, because it ultimately means they will not see the real value, whether cognitive, social, or emotional, of other people's abilities. They will prefer a lie.
For the rest of what I think, the more I looked at the posts at the link the better I liked them and decided I could not easily improve upon them. So go there. And as a bonus, my commenters really outdid themselves on a couple of those posts. Doubleplusbonus, there was an extended discussion of dice of various numbers of faces, and how some strange possibilities might be accomplished. James won the thread.
But I think it is dangerous when people are using it to comfort themselves ...
ReplyDeleteI think possibly part of the reason people do this is because intelligence has been over-valued in our culture.
Cultural heroes today are portrayed as smart rather than strong, and when strong it is typically not worked for but inherent, e.g., Superman never goes to the gym. Physical strength and athletic ability is often seen as a sign of lack of intelligence; jock OR nerd, never a strong, physically capable nerd, nor a super-smart jock. We push everyone to go to college because brain work is seen as more virtuous than body work.
Speaking of virtue, I think another issue is that people confuse intelligence with moral virtue; the idea commonly seems to be that smart people will be more likely to do the right thing. That's absurd, I think. Satan, I'm sure, is quite smart. But this is the unspoken assumption behind technocracy. Technocrats are smarter (commonly framed as "expert") and so they are naturally more virtuous than (or morally superior to, however you want to say it) normal Joes and Janets and should run their lives for them.
Since our culture places such value on intelligence, people want to be intelligent, or at least be seen as intelligent. So, EQ and multiple intelligences, etc., get brought in to bolster the self-esteem of those who doubt their IQs.
I see a lot of it as the idea that "I may not be as smart as other people, but I am valuable, too," which from the Christian angle is absolutely true. People with low IQs are made in the image and likeness of God just as much as people with high IQs. Our society, though, doesn't treat people that way.
Now, I think this is being replaced by the idea of equity. We're seeing more that what is seen as righteous anger is more valuable than intelligence, and so more people want to be righteously angry than smart. I don't think that's an improvement over EQ, but no one asked my opinion.
I agree that our unwillingness to value wisdom, honesty, and generosity, or skills such as emotional control, discretion, and contributes to the overvaluing of intelligence, real or perceived. I think beauty, athletic and musical ability, and humor are well-valued, and everyone knows that perseverance isn't very sexy but is important. We like training and experience.
ReplyDeleteIntelligent people may overvalue intelligence more, and as they are often in better jobs they have outsized cultural influence. But athletes overvalue athleticism and musicians overvalue their strong suit as well. The experienced overvalue that.
The "Cult of Smart" may come from the marketplace, then. Though a marketplace of sorts exists in every tribe, so there's not much getting away from it.
You make a very good point in that first sentence that I'll have to think about. The Critical Drinker had a video where he discusses the values movie heroes have lately compared with the values of movie heroes a generation ago. He points out a generation ago they were much more likely to show these other traits. Yes, you've given me something to consider.
ReplyDeleteOn your second sentence, I agree, but there's a catch. Broadly speaking, our culture casts these other traits as either-or with intelligence. A woman is either beautiful or intelligent; a man is either athletic or intelligent. Beauty and athletic ability are valued, but get one put in a box separate from smart. (Obviously, this is wrong-headed, but it's what I've seen in our culture.)
When it comes to the average workplace, though, being beautiful may be a negative. It may bring unwanted attention and jealousy. Being athletic is neutral; no one cares whether you're a great athlete or a couch potato. Being smart is always valued.
Also, when it comes to power, it seems that generally only smart counts. As you suggest, though, that may come from the marketplace. However, that doesn't necessarily conflict with my idea that it is cultural; the marketplace and culture do interact, after all.
I agree there's not much getting away from it, although we could tell different stories in movies, books, songs, etc. We might move away from it, though not get entirely out of it.
I am going to shamelessly steal the phrase "Cult of Smart."
Here's the Critical Drinker episode about the values movies are teaching. It's about 11 minutes. He does have a foul mouth, and often the video is oddly unconnected from what he's saying, but he makes his point through comparing older and newer movies.
ReplyDeleteIt also isn't connected to the discussion of the Cult of Smart, except it talks about those other values, like perseverance.
@ TD - "Cult of Smart" is a recent book title by Freddie deBoer, a rare leftist hereditarian.
ReplyDeleteInteresting. Thanks for the reference!
ReplyDelete