Blogger Sisyphean recently wrote on this blog:
Emotionality, if we define it as reactivity, is entirely separate from the higher order cognitive functions.
Thank you for saying that, because one of the reasons I’ve always hated the term “emotional intelligence” is that historically and philosophically, there’s always been a clear distinction between emotions (that which feels, wills, and wants) and the intellect (that which thinks, reasons, understands, and knows).
I believe intelligence (intellect) is the slave of emotions in the sense that intelligence is the ability to problem solve and emotions make something a problem that needs solving. For example if I feel fear that someone will break into my house, that’s a problem that needs to be solved and I use my intelligence (problem solving ability) to build a stronger door.
A lot of people who are considered emotionally unintelligent are actually intelligent in every way, they just have malfunctioning emotions so they don’t feel fear (and other emotions) at the appropriate times. They’re smart enough to know they should turn off the stove, but since they have no fear of the house burning down, it’s not a problem for them to solve. In other words, they’re not motivated, but because their behavior resembles that of someone who is too stupid to turn off the stove, they are falsely labeled emotionally unintelligent.
Intelligence and feelings (physical or emotional) probably evolved together because from an evolutionary perspective, what good are feelings without the intelligence to act on them and what good is intelligence if you have no feelings to act on? What good is feeling pain when you cut yourself if you lack the intelligence to learn from the experience and avoid the object that cut you? Thus I don’t believe animals very lacking in intelligence feel pain because there’d be no purpose in it evolving.
Our emotions evolved to motivate us to engage in behaviors that increase the odds that we will replicate our genes and avoid behaviors that will decrease the odds of us replicating our genes. So we feel fear so that we don’t get ourselves killed before reproducing and we feel love so that we can bond with someone to reproduce with and we feel greed so that we can gather enough wealth to help ourselves, and those who share our genes like our family and co-ethnics.
Meanwhile our intelligence evolved to adapt to the needs and wants of our emotions, but if our emotions are maladaptive, our behavior will be too, even if our intelligence is brilliant. Intelligence is the cognitive ability to adapt, but that doesn’t mean the goals we are adapting to are adaptive as defined by evolution, because the part of the brain that solves the problems is separate from the part of the brain that generates the problems that need solving.
Having said all that, I do believe some people are cognitively better at reading the emotions of others and understanding their motives, but I would call this social intelligence, because the term emotional intelligence has been mixed too much with personality and emotional traits to be a coherent concept.
And bear in mind I’m not saying highly reactive people are always maladapted to modern society. Blowing up at someone over what others might consider ‘nothing’ is a very effective threat display that gets a lot of people special treatment in certain situations (especially if that person is not considered a physical threat). It can also land you in jail.
Still, in general I would think of high reactivity as something on the R side of the R/K continuum because it’s about getting the most out of the current moment. Being engaged in a raging fit about not getting enough ketchup packets in your to-go bag tends to inhibit rational thinking. I’d say the most R would be those who are highly reactive and suffer from that anger for a while, and the most K would be those who don’t react much and when they do, they get over it quickly, with those who explode easily but forget about it ten minutes later being somewhere in the middle. Those last people exist too, I’m not making that up, that pattern of behavior describes the majority of the women in my extended family.
In my mind, the whole point of conflating emotionality with intelligence is to give those who experience very strong emotions something to feel good about. Being highly reactive doesn’t guarantee that you have very good theory of mind. It might be entirely unrelated. The best manipulators I’ve met, the truly scary people who I knew were sizing me up from the moment we met, who seemed to be able to get anyone to do anything for them, were very cool, calculating people. (Both were women)
In my mind, the whole point of conflating emotionality with intelligence is to give those who experience very strong emotions something to feel good about.
Yes, it’s not unlike Howard Gardner’s theory where he includes athletic ability as one of his 7 or now 8 intelligences. Such over-inclusive definitions make such scholars beloved because they make almost everyone feel like they’re smart at something.
The best manipulators I’ve met, the truly scary people who I knew were sizing me up from the moment we met, who seemed to be able to get anyone to do anything for them, were very cool, calculating people. (Both were women)
Makes sense. Women almost certainly have higher social IQ than men on average.
HUMAN intelligence IS NOT (my opinion) the ability to adapt to environment BUT is the ability to adapt the environment to its own circunstances because humans evolved to understand reality AND in the wolrd of hyperreality, all can be built.
The supreme ”g intelligence” ins founded in creators of reality and not followers.
‘Emotionality, if we define it as reactivity, is entirely separate from the higher order cognitive functions.’
based on……?
“Reactivity” is a broad term. “Intelligence” is a form of “reactivity.”
when people refer to ‘EQ,’ agreeably a silly term, they seem to be talking about intuition — about other individuals, situations, etc. intuition is essentially a summary of every single experience an individual has had in a particular domain. the accuracy of an intuition depends on the accuracy of the analogy between experienced situations and the current situation.
seems like it’s an ability to me.
I agree that intuition is a cognitive ability and thus a part of intelligence, but the problem is the term “emotional intelligence” is used to describe a lot of other traits that are better classified as emotions/personality, rather than intellectual functions.
I’d previously reached similar conclusions as those mentioned in your post. However, I have a few differences. First, concerning the idea that emotions and intelligence evolved together. I think emotions evolved first because, as you say, they motivate us to do things that are generally in our interests. However, it should be obvious that emotions don’t always motivate us to do things in our interests and are actually quite limited when it comes to complex situations. Therefore, animals involved intelligence to solve problems and deal with those complex situations. Now, people have to coordinate emotions and intelligence which requires people to understand emotional situations as well as having self control over their emotions. That, to me, is “emotional intelligence”.
Now, people have to coordinate emotions and intelligence which requires people to understand emotional situations as well as having self control over their emotions. That, to me, is “emotional intelligence”.
Perhaps the ability to control emotions is a cognitive ability and thus worthy of the name “intelligence”, but sometimes people who get credit for controlling their emotions, simply have easier emotions to control.
I’m sure there are heritable differences in emotion just as there are heritable differences in intelligence. The combined effects of both are still a result of emotional intelligence.
Some like to put “intelligence” after every human quality to form a scientific name that can be quantified. There are similar things like, athletic intelligence, street intelligence, etc.. They just mean ability, or quotient..
I will believe in the existence of emotional intelligence, if there are consistent tests, with high correlation among each other, measuring emotional intelligence. For now I am skeptical.
Anyway, emotions are little tools for the survival of the individual, maybe they can be consistently measured, but it should not be advertised as an alternative to IQ. It is a different class of qualities; IQ, emotions and beauty are all different classes.
Falling in love easier and deeper, will probably increase the chances of little babies.. Anger or fear will probably be helpful in survival. In that sense, assortative mating actually would suggest a positive correlation for IQ and emotional fitness.
I will believe in the existence of emotional intelligence, if there are consistent tests, with high correlation among each other, measuring emotional intelligence. For now I am skeptical.
There can be consistent tests but that doesn’t mean the tests are measuring an ability as opposed to (a) personality trait(s). If it’s the latter, it should not be called an intelligence of any kind.
http://www.npr.org/2014/10/23/358238948/is-there-really-such-a-thing-as-a-trophy-wife?utm_medium=RSS&utm_campaign=sciencetech
You all might be interested in this finding. Forget about trophy wife.
If you create enough types of intelligence someone, by chance, will score above average on one of them. This is how the IQ denialists try to subvert IQ by creating all these bogus intelligences that are intended to diminish the importance of IQ.
Yes, there’s virtually an unlimited number of mental abilities one could propose. Since it’s impossible to measure them all, IQ tests aim to measure the factor common to all of them: g.
They do the same thing when they create farsical accomplishments for African and American stone-age savages. Basically, since reality contradicts everything they believe, reality must be wrong!
The frontal lobes are responsible for emotional self-control. If the frontal lobes cannot control emotions effectively this is a deficit in intelligence in the frontal lobes resulting is poor/unintelligent decisions.