4 ms·

Wow, so many wrong things with this answer... Of course, it would not surprise me to learn that measuring IQ as a predictor for success (or at least what a mea

Wow, so many wrong things with this answer... Of course, it would not surprise me to learn that measuring IQ as a predictor for success (or at least what a measurer defines as success) is much more accurate than "measuring" EQ for the same purpose. It makes sense - IQ is demonstrably measurable while EQ is some vague concept "popularized by a journalist". However, to go from this to a broad statement that there is no such thing as EQ is just silly. You could just as well say that there's no such thing as beauty because there is no accurate test to quantify it. For a simple demonstration that EQ is an important quality for prediction of "success", just think of all the successful people you know and ask yourselves whether you think they would be as successful if they had the emotional makeup of an 8 year old. This Quora answer has too much of a "trust me, I'm an authority" vibe to it edited: ok, removed stuff that upon reflection does not contribute to the discussion - my apologies for that. The main point however stands. The repeated claims of no such thing as EQ should be qualified with "in the field of psychology" - in that case, I have no objection to the answer.

fpig 9y ago
Did you actually read the answer? Nowhere did he say that those traits don't matter, or even that they are too hard to measure (although he did say they are less predictive of success than IQ). He says the concept of EQ is worthless because it just bundles together measurements of completely different character traits in a pretty much random way and creates a less-predictive mess as a result. It's like summing someone's weight in kg and height in cm and saying that's their "physical score". This "physical score" is pointless even though we can measure both components accurately and measuring them is not useless in itself.
- placebo 9y ago
  I read the answer, and my response is to the repeated "There is no such thing as EQ" statements which are stressed throughout it. How is anything I wrote not related to that statement? (edited my reply to be more constructive)
  - fpig 9y ago
    By saying EQ doesn't exist he's saying there is no "emotional intelligence" trait that determines how good you will be at various emotional/social aspects of life. Instead, testing EQ just looks at those various things and combines the results. There is no reason to believe that, for example, a person who is conscientious will also be agreeable. They are separate traits. A test which tests both (and other things) and combines the results and calls them "EQ" is not useful. Contrast this with intelligence, for which they they test something very specific which you can test even in children, and we know this ability, even though on the surface unrelated to any real-world skill, strongly correlates with how they will perform at many different things later in life. It is an actual trait, not just an average of how good you are at various things.
    - chillacy 9y ago
      Okay I don't want to derail too much, but a couple things to note: 1. IQ is itself a combination of multiple cognitive functions: verbal comprehension, perceptual reasoning, working memory and processing speed, etc, and people might be better or worse on in individual topics. 2. Conscientiousness and Agreeableness are part of the Big 5 model, which is itself just a model of personality that has its own share of flaws.
blfr 9y ago
The author goes on to point out that there are real, measurable, predictive personality traits like conscientiousness and they still don't come close to IQ. It should also be noted that IQ is five or more times as powerful a predictor as even good personality trait predictors such as conscientiousness. The true relationship between grades, for example, and IQ might be as high as r = .50 or even .60 (accounting for 25-36% of the variance in grades). Conscientiousness, however, probably tops out at around r = .30, and is more typically reported as r = .25 (say, 5 to 9% of the variance in grades).
oskarth 9y ago
You can't just invent a trait. You have to define it and measure it and distinguish it from other traits and use it to predict the important ways that people vary. EQ is not a psychometrically valid concept. Insofar as it is anything (which it isn't) it's the Big Five trait agreeableness, although this depends, as it shouldn't, on which EQ measure is being used (they should all measure THE SAME THING). What precisely do you disagree with? Let's enumerate some possibilities. Feel free to pick one and argue your point: 1. You can just invent a trait. 2. You don't have to define a trait, measure it or distinguish it from other traits or use it to predict the important ways that people vary. 3. EQ is a psychometrically valid concept. 4. It isn't the Big Five trait agreeableness. 5. EQ measures shouldn't all measure THE SAME THING.
- placebo 9y ago
  >1. You can just invent a trait. Of course you can, though it will probably be a useless invention. >2. You don't have to define a trait, measure it or distinguish it from other traits or use it to predict the important ways that people vary. Naturally, if you're going to invent a trait you should distinguish it from other traits as well as show it has predictive power. Measuring it however is the tricky part, but not being able to currently measure it does not mean it doesn't exist. >3. EQ is a psychometrically valid concept. >4. It isn't the Big Five trait agreeableness Don't know - didn't major in psychology. >5. EQ measures shouldn't all measure THE SAME THING Yes they should, once EQ measures are well defined and standardized, which they are not. I admit that What rubbed me the wrong way about the answer was the elitist vibe I got from it - if I'd have listened to predictors about me in my youth, I wouldn't never have reached anything I've achieved. Hubris is dangerous thing, and this is the feeling I got. I'm open to the possibility that it may well be a wrong interpretation on my part though.
exo762 9y ago
You've missed his point. First. Its not that EQ does not describe certain personal characteristics. It is that EQ can actually be described as a combination of other existing, well established traits. Thus it is not an independent variable. EQ is just a bad design. As for your "trust me, I'm an authority vibe" remark... OP has referenced a lot of papers to properly argument his point. And he is an actual authority.
- placebo 9y ago
  I'm aware he's an authority, which is exactly the reason I caution against blind acceptance.
  - mpweiher 9y ago
    Hmm...you realize that he (a) explains ad nauseam and (b) cites relevant research. So how is this "blind acceptance"? Whereas you don't appear to be an authority, made a fairly broad claim ("so much wrong..."), explained nothing and cited...crickets.
    - placebo 9y ago
      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.
      - kyrre 9y ago
        He explains this in more detail in the comments.
      - deleted 9y ago
        [deleted]
weego 9y ago
I don't understand how you can make the leap from accepting that EQ was made up by a journalist with no formal background to arguing that criticising EQ as a concept is naive.
- tome 9y ago
  I don't understand this business about Goleman being a "journalist". He did a PhD at Harvard under psychologist David McLelland. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel_Goleman#Biography https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel_Goleman#Biography

fpig 9y ago

Did you actually read the answer? Nowhere did he say that those traits don't matter, or even that they are too hard to measure (although he did say they are less predictive of success than IQ). He says the concept of EQ is worthless because it just bundles together measurements of completely different character traits in a pretty much random way and creates a less-predictive mess as a result. It's like summing someone's weight in kg and height in cm and saying that's their "physical score". This "physical score" is pointless even though we can measure both components accurately and measuring them is not useless in itself.

placebo 9y ago
I read the answer, and my response is to the repeated "There is no such thing as EQ" statements which are stressed throughout it. How is anything I wrote not related to that statement? (edited my reply to be more constructive)
- fpig 9y ago
  By saying EQ doesn't exist he's saying there is no "emotional intelligence" trait that determines how good you will be at various emotional/social aspects of life. Instead, testing EQ just looks at those various things and combines the results. There is no reason to believe that, for example, a person who is conscientious will also be agreeable. They are separate traits. A test which tests both (and other things) and combines the results and calls them "EQ" is not useful. Contrast this with intelligence, for which they they test something very specific which you can test even in children, and we know this ability, even though on the surface unrelated to any real-world skill, strongly correlates with how they will perform at many different things later in life. It is an actual trait, not just an average of how good you are at various things.
  - chillacy 9y ago
    Okay I don't want to derail too much, but a couple things to note: 1. IQ is itself a combination of multiple cognitive functions: verbal comprehension, perceptual reasoning, working memory and processing speed, etc, and people might be better or worse on in individual topics. 2. Conscientiousness and Agreeableness are part of the Big 5 model, which is itself just a model of personality that has its own share of flaws.

blfr 9y ago

The author goes on to point out that there are real, measurable, predictive personality traits like conscientiousness and they still don't come close to IQ. It should also be noted that IQ is five or more times as powerful a predictor as even good personality trait predictors such as conscientiousness. The true relationship between grades, for example, and IQ might be as high as r = .50 or even .60 (accounting for 25-36% of the variance in grades). Conscientiousness, however, probably tops out at around r = .30, and is more typically reported as r = .25 (say, 5 to 9% of the variance in grades).

oskarth 9y ago

You can't just invent a trait. You have to define it and measure it and distinguish it from other traits and use it to predict the important ways that people vary. EQ is not a psychometrically valid concept. Insofar as it is anything (which it isn't) it's the Big Five trait agreeableness, although this depends, as it shouldn't, on which EQ measure is being used (they should all measure THE SAME THING). What precisely do you disagree with? Let's enumerate some possibilities. Feel free to pick one and argue your point: 1. You can just invent a trait. 2. You don't have to define a trait, measure it or distinguish it from other traits or use it to predict the important ways that people vary. 3. EQ is a psychometrically valid concept. 4. It isn't the Big Five trait agreeableness. 5. EQ measures shouldn't all measure THE SAME THING.

placebo 9y ago
>1. You can just invent a trait. Of course you can, though it will probably be a useless invention. >2. You don't have to define a trait, measure it or distinguish it from other traits or use it to predict the important ways that people vary. Naturally, if you're going to invent a trait you should distinguish it from other traits as well as show it has predictive power. Measuring it however is the tricky part, but not being able to currently measure it does not mean it doesn't exist. >3. EQ is a psychometrically valid concept. >4. It isn't the Big Five trait agreeableness Don't know - didn't major in psychology. >5. EQ measures shouldn't all measure THE SAME THING Yes they should, once EQ measures are well defined and standardized, which they are not. I admit that What rubbed me the wrong way about the answer was the elitist vibe I got from it - if I'd have listened to predictors about me in my youth, I wouldn't never have reached anything I've achieved. Hubris is dangerous thing, and this is the feeling I got. I'm open to the possibility that it may well be a wrong interpretation on my part though.

exo762 9y ago

You've missed his point. First. Its not that EQ does not describe certain personal characteristics. It is that EQ can actually be described as a combination of other existing, well established traits. Thus it is not an independent variable. EQ is just a bad design. As for your "trust me, I'm an authority vibe" remark... OP has referenced a lot of papers to properly argument his point. And he is an actual authority.

placebo 9y ago
I'm aware he's an authority, which is exactly the reason I caution against blind acceptance.
- mpweiher 9y ago
  Hmm...you realize that he (a) explains ad nauseam and (b) cites relevant research. So how is this "blind acceptance"? Whereas you don't appear to be an authority, made a fairly broad claim ("so much wrong..."), explained nothing and cited...crickets.
  - placebo 9y ago
    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.
    - kyrre 9y ago
      He explains this in more detail in the comments.
    - deleted 9y ago
      [deleted]

weego 9y ago

I don't understand how you can make the leap from accepting that EQ was made up by a journalist with no formal background to arguing that criticising EQ as a concept is naive.

tome 9y ago
I don't understand this business about Goleman being a "journalist". He did a PhD at Harvard under psychologist David McLelland. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel_Goleman#Biography https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel_Goleman#Biography