3 ms·

> For politeness sake, i'll assume its a misunderstanding, although that is a bit hard to imagine at this point, since i'm being extremely explicit. By all mea

> For politeness sake, i'll assume its a misunderstanding, although that is a bit hard to imagine at this point, since i'm being extremely explicit. By all means do things for politeness sake; I'm fine with that. It seems you've assumed my discussion of "serious people working in this field" to mean something other than scientific researchers... and I've assumed your disrespectful remarks to include researchers, rather than just "people using the phrase EQ". > It is you taking offense that suggests there may be overlap between these two groups, which is extremely worrying. This fresh accusation relies on the assumption that I've misunderstood you but you understood me perfectly, which is clearly not the case. Slow down; I'll do the same. ..and FYI, telling you that you're being disrepectful is not the same as "taking offense".

robertlagrant 9y ago
I've understood what he's said just fine, richmarr, and you're definitely coming across in the way he's interpreting. You _seem_ to have a problem that you're struggling to define, other than a nebulous issue of "respect" which, as he's pointed out, should have absolutely no bearing on how scientifically legitimate something is. (Indeed, objections such as that are often an alarm bell.) So: he hasn't assumed that you mean people other than researchers. If there is actual research happening then cite one example (as he already asked). He's also explained that any serious researcher wouldn't give two hoots about respect, and would only want to discover the truth, whatever it may be. Do you agree with that?
- richmarr 9y ago
  Goleman, Petrides (2001), and Salovey/Mayer (2004) all "make statements about EQ" so would all fall into ralfn's defined group "people making statements about EQ" that he accuses of being "less scientific than a gossip magazine". But, as ralfn already clarified, he did not intend to draw actual researchers into his dragnet, so the point of dragging out that misunderstanding is what?

robertlagrant 9y ago

I've understood what he's said just fine, richmarr, and you're definitely coming across in the way he's interpreting. You _seem_ to have a problem that you're struggling to define, other than a nebulous issue of "respect" which, as he's pointed out, should have absolutely no bearing on how scientifically legitimate something is. (Indeed, objections such as that are often an alarm bell.) So: he hasn't assumed that you mean people other than researchers. If there is actual research happening then cite one example (as he already asked). He's also explained that any serious researcher wouldn't give two hoots about respect, and would only want to discover the truth, whatever it may be. Do you agree with that?

richmarr 9y ago
Goleman, Petrides (2001), and Salovey/Mayer (2004) all "make statements about EQ" so would all fall into ralfn's defined group "people making statements about EQ" that he accuses of being "less scientific than a gossip magazine". But, as ralfn already clarified, he did not intend to draw actual researchers into his dragnet, so the point of dragging out that misunderstanding is what?