2 ms·
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 re
by 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 agoBy 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 agoOkay 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.