Kind of like how we taught our children to not have unprotected sex?
No, actually. I'm not sure we have taught that so effectively, but I would make other parallels. See below.
I do agree with you. But it isn't the reality. You're much too idealistic in my opinion to think that the best way, is going to be actualized.
I never said it would be actualized, just that it would be the most effective way. Very little in schools, however, is done in the most effective way.
Yet, we aren't promoting emotional intelligence preferring our students to be ignorant to how their brains work? Makes no sense. Seems an illogical sequence. I don't really see a down side in teaching EQ (and/or associated lessons) within schools.
It all depends on how it is taught. For one parallel, consider civic responsibility. We teach this already in schools on a factual level: who is eligible to vote, how the election process works, how the courts work, principles of justice like presumption of innocence and right to trial by jury. But look at the voter turnout in the U.S. and the general tendency for citizens to avoid jury duty at all costs. Clearly a theoretical knowledge does not translate into responsible and constructive behavior. EI training would amount to the same thing, unless it is implemented as indoctrination or brainwashing, which would be wrong for other reasons.
There definitely is a neurological angle to it. With regards to how to implement material about Emotional Intelligence, I think simply educating students on the subject itself could have some benefit. When I was in high school, there was no information about psychology whatsoever. I was suffering from debilitating social anxiety and depression and never even heard of the term "social-anxiety" or knew there was a diagnosis and treatment for the feelings I was experiencing. My parents were largely ignorant about psychology themselves and it never occurred to them that I needed any sort of psychological counseling. Neither did any of my teachers show any concern. Perhaps, my symptoms weren't obvious to others; since I rarely expressed my feelings outwardly; but the fact that there was no information available which I could've used to help myself is quite troubling in retrospect.
I see definite value in teaching students about psychology, and also physiology of how the brain works. As in my civics example above, however, this is in no way guaranteed to promote more constructive emotional behavior. A more realistic goal is the destigmatization of mental illness, so the current generation of students is as willing to seek help for mental issues as for colds, flus, and broken bones.
We want to teach children many things, from knowledge to skills to just exposing them to things like art, music, sports, other cultures, etc. Not all things can be taught in the same way, even considering the differences in learning style among students. Some things we want students to learn are more like habits than skills or knowledge. This includes civic responsibility, and even good study/work habits. We don't teach kids the theory of how to pay attention to detail, or keep track of deadlines, or organize their work; rather we work with kids individually and in small groups to help them develop these valuable habits, understanding that not everyone will do it the same way, and that it comes more naturally to some than to others. I would put emotional intelligence into the same category, at least to the extent that we want it to influence how students behave rather than just be regurgitated on a test. This means we (teachers, principals, everyone involved with students) must first and foremost model it, and then work with students to help them develop it, each in their own way.
Yes, it is doubtful that schools - at least public schools - will adopt this approach. It is equally doubtful that a more theoretical or knowledge-based approach will achieve the desired results.
