3 ms·

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 va

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.

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.