Article

2019-11-09 Science & Technology

Is Emotional Intelligence (AQ) more important than intelligence?

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by Besoeker 2019-11-09 06:38|| || Front Page|| [9 views ] Top

#1 That's how cultures collapse - "collegiality" & "group adjustment" replace ability.

Posted by g(r)omgoru 2019-11-09 06:56|| 2019-11-09 06:56|| Front Page Top

#2 I used to have an old Pepper... & Salt cartoon from WSJ at my desk. Two guys in suits walking down the street. The caption: "I don't want to learn to manage my anger, I want to franchise it."

I couldn't get away with that today.

Posted by M. Murcek 2019-11-09 07:12|| 2019-11-09 07:12|| Front Page Top

#3 ...that appears to be the motto of the ~~Donks~~ Socialists.

Posted by Procopius2k 2019-11-09 07:15|| 2019-11-09 07:15|| Front Page Top

#4 Is Emotional Intelligence (AQ) more important than intelligence?

No. Next (dumb) question?

Posted by Raj 2019-11-09 07:57|| 2019-11-09 07:57|| Front Page Top

#5 If your cat is your owner then probably yes, but for the people who actually built civilisation...

It's a solid NO!

Posted by Bright Pebbles 2019-11-09 08:15|| 2019-11-09 08:15|| Front Page Top

#6 Nolo Contendere

Posted by Mercutio 2019-11-09 08:20|| 2019-11-09 08:20|| Front Page Top

#7 No. Next question.

Posted by Lex 2019-11-09 09:02|| 2019-11-09 09:02|| Front Page Top

#8 One reason that we have such a shitty political and media exec class is that our elite colleges in the affirmative action era have elevated "personal" characteristics to the top of their admissions criteria. This ranking of traits like "warmth," "sparkle," and other BS made-up attributes allow Harvard, Yale, etc to admit brown-nosing, academically-inferior characters over truly brilliant, academically-superior kids.

This is how we end up with shallow, smarmy self-promoting masters of perception management like Zero, Cory Booker, KamalHo, and their shitty white counterparts such as the Clintons and all the Pajama Boys and Girlz shitting around Washington, the media & entertainment industry corporate suites, left-wing big-city governments and Silicon Valley.

You can see the gory details of this wretched bargain -- it's a kind of political reputation-laundering by the Ivy Keagues' admissions process-- in the ludicrous and incompetent judicial opinion handed down in the Asian Americans ("Students for Fair Admission") v. Harvard discrimination case.

Heather Macdonald, writing not in City-Journal but in The New Criterion, has a fabulous point-by-point takedown of this judicial Shitshow's lies and BS.

Posted by Lex 2019-11-09 09:18|| 2019-11-09 09:18|| Front Page Top

#9 Misleading or ill-researched article by the BBC. AQ is actually 'Adversity Quotient' and has been a favorite of anti-white psychologists and diversity lobbyists, for some time now.

Modern psychiatry invented a theory for employers to accommodate non-tech, arts and humanities people into all sorts of roles. Because those classified with more 'EQ' gained increasing traction in HR departments, advertising and PR, they helped others from academic fields and humanities gain employment with companies.

The dissection of the psyche into several 'types of intelligence' was done in the late 90s. Basic, Social, Emotional, etc. The one thing that everyone overlooked before applying systems theory to the human mind, is that intelligence cannot be divided like a machine.

The classical psychologists were right in defining 'quotients' for how the subject fares in different kinds of interactions. There's intellectual, emotional, spiritual, physical, creative, and adversity quotients. The Emotional Quotient was just a measure of the emotional aspect of intelligence. Now, an EQ score is said to reflect the emotional intelligence divorced from actual intelligence. In the late 90s and especially through the Obama era, lickspittle academics greatly stressed on the Adversity Quotient (AQ). This is not the EQ, or the IQ. It is the individual's ability to adapt and make use of adverse situations and overcome difficulties to solve problems. When classifying a subject as well adjusted and capable, modern shrinks began to take the AQ into the formulae to determine intelligence.

This is erroneous. It is what I call devious typification and ends up classifying individuals like; 'this one's emotionally intelligent but not with much basic IQ' - the EQ raises his score. In that sense, you may have a retard or an idiot savant with a greater EQ or AQ score than an IQ. Or a psychopath with a high AQ working in a school and spreading falsehoods true only to her.

Which is what most universities must have in their admins to have the kind of mess you have today. It's how gainfully employed people can turn out to be Antifa or anti-nationalist diversity lovers and opinionated weed smokers out to hit people.

What the article purposely leaves out is the theory calls for a suitable SQ, or spiritual quotient - to keep the intelligence grounded in purposes adhering to morality, empathy and a sense of good and evil. It is regarded to be the most important quotient of intelligence, without which the psyche is usually aberrant and ill-adjusted. While it may be colored by an individual's own culture or religion, it is an essential part of the intelligence. Modern shrinks however have carefully extricated themselves from questions of morality and believe this adjustment can apply to all.

Posted by Dron66046 2019-11-09 10:49|| 2019-11-09 10:49|| Front Page Top

#10 Very well said, Dron.

Funny how, before our top university admissions committees began applying this AQ/EQ nonsense, those universities not only attracted the preppie spawn but also turned out brilliant grads like TS Eliot, EO Wilson, James Watson, Richard Feynman (though even Columbia denied admission to Feynman precisely because he wasn't "well-adjusted" or "nice" i.e. sufficiently preppie-goy).

None of these individuals was "collegial." None of them spouted PC nonsense-- in fact, Eliot was an anti-Semite, Watson a chauvinist skirt-chaser, Feynman a rebel, and all of them in one way or another publicly scorned, even shat upon, "diversity" nonsense.

Unlikely that even one of these brilliant men would have been admitted to any top university that practices "holistic admissions" today.

It's no wonder our culture is so barren of brilliance and replete with shit.

Posted by Lex 2019-11-09 11:28|| 2019-11-09 11:28|| Front Page Top

#11 It's a good thing that China are also mentally crippling their academics in the name of a different kind of correctness. The papers coming out of there while numerous are not of very good quality. They lack the intellectual heft that you see in a work done by a mind with untrammeled momentum. It's mostly copy and paste and replace words with synonyms, and modern statistical cooking these days. They're beating their heads over there to produce an original work.

Posted by Dron66046 2019-11-09 11:42|| 2019-11-09 11:42|| Front Page Top

#12 Guess if one must ask, then the answer will be yes because the other is unachievable.

Posted by Skidmark 2019-11-09 13:48|| 2019-11-09 13:48|| Front Page Top

19:36 Ospas Dhahran 49
19:27 Mercutio
19:23 Varmint Splat1454
19:05 rammer
18:54 Procopius2k
18:53 Procopius2k
18:52 lord garth
18:09 Lex
18:00 Lex
17:49 Mullah Richard
17:48 Ospas Dhahran 49
17:48 Mullah Richard
17:30 trailing wife
17:15 trailing wife
17:04 Seeking Cure For Ignorance
16:57 Spot
16:26 Vernal Hatrick
16:11 Silentbrick
16:10 Seeking Cure For Ignorance
16:05 Lex
15:52 trailing wife
15:44 g(r)omgoru
15:40 g(r)omgoru
15:40 g(r)omgoru