Yeah, I strongly disagree. It’s a genuinely valid way to figure out someone better. While the tests and all that aren’t really standardized, the idea is quite clear, and the idea works. Just because it was made mainstream, does not mean it’s suddenly bad. Just because the origins are sketchy, does not mean the theory is invalid. It just essentially means one’s ability to objectively assess your own and other’s emotions, feel empathy (not just understand it, but feel it), low emotional intelligence people would be less rational about their own and everyone’s else’s emotions. You simply cannot argue against this. It’s a skill/mechanism that makes society function better.
where is the universally accepted metric for measuring emotional intelligence? clearly there must be a test or something by which we can judge others and ourselves and evalated this ‘skill’.
Yeah, I strongly disagree. It’s a genuinely valid way to figure out someone better. While the tests and all that aren’t really standardized, the idea is quite clear, and the idea works. Just because it was made mainstream, does not mean it’s suddenly bad. Just because the origins are sketchy, does not mean the theory is invalid. It just essentially means one’s ability to objectively assess your own and other’s emotions, feel empathy (not just understand it, but feel it), low emotional intelligence people would be less rational about their own and everyone’s else’s emotions. You simply cannot argue against this. It’s a skill/mechanism that makes society function better.
Right, which is precisely why everyone things they are highly emotionally intelligent and it’s everyone else that isn’t!
such a genius metric, it is.
No, that’s just Dunning Kruger effect
where is the universally accepted metric for measuring emotional intelligence? clearly there must be a test or something by which we can judge others and ourselves and evalated this ‘skill’.
oh right, there is none.
MSCEIT and BarOn Emotional Quotient Inventory (EQ-i 2.0)