Teaching Emotional Intelligence In Academia

[Solar Plexus]

Are schools setting students up for failure by neglecting to instill emotional intelligence in favor of focusing exclusively on intellectual subjects, much of which will never be utilized in the professional world?

With the prevalence of school shootings, bullying, teen suicides, drug-abuse and high school dropouts, it seems that a lack of emotional intelligence is at the core of these issues, at a time when kids need it the most, struggling with hormone changes and all of the social pressures that school entails.

Interestingly, women, on average, tend to have higher empathy than men; and men, on average, have more emotional regulation of distressing feelings.

From the book, "Emotional Intelligence - Why it can matter more than IQ," by Daniel Goleman

The five main categories of emotional intelligence

1. Knowing one's emotions. Self-awareness - recognizing a feeling as it happens - is the keystone of emotional intelligence. As we will see in Chapter 4, the ability to monitor feelings from moment to moment is crucial to psychological insight and self-understanding. An inability to notice our true feelings leaves us at their mercy. People with greater certainty about their feelings are better pilots of their lives, having a surer sense of how they really feel about personal decisions from whom to marry to what job to take.

2. Managing emotions. Handling feelings so they are appropriate is an ability that builds on self-awareness. Chapter 5 will examine the capacity to soothe oneself, to shake off rampant anxiety, gloom, or irritability - and the consequences of failure at this basic emotional skill. People who are poor in this ability are constantly battling feelings of distress, while those who excel in it can bounce back far more quickly from life's setbacks and upsets.

3. Motivating oneself. As Chapter 6 will show, marshaling emotions in the service of a goal is essential for paying attention, for self-motivation and mastery, and for creativity. Emotional self-control - delaying gratification and stifling impulsiveness - underlies accomplishment of every sort. And being able to get in the "flow" state enables outstanding performances of all kinds. People who have this skill tend to be more highly productive and effective in whatever they undertake.

4. Recognizing emotions in others. Empathy, another ability that builds on emotional self-awareness, is the fundamental "people skill." Chapter 7 will investigate the roots of empathy, the social cost of being emotionally tone-deaf, and the reasons empathy kindles altruism. People who are empathic are more attuned to the subtle social signals that indicate what others need or want. This makes them better at callings such as the caring professions, teaching, sales, and management.

5. Handling relationships. The art of relationships is, in large part, skill in managing emotions in others. Chapter 8 looks at social competence and incompetence, and the specific skills involved. These are the abilities that undergird popularity, leadership, and interpersonal effectiveness. People who excel in these skills do well at anything that relies on interacting smoothly with others; they are social stars.

Of course, people differ in their abilities in each of these domains; some of us may be quite adept at handling, say, our own anxiety, but relatively inept at soothing someone else's upsets. The underlying basis for our level of ability is, no doubt, neural, but as we will see, the brain is remarkably plastic, constantly learning. Lapses in emotional skills can be remedied: to a great extent each of these domains represents a body of habit and response that, with the right effort, can be improved on.

This is an interesting discussion from the author about Emotional Intelligence. He gets into the subject of teaching these skills in school around the 22 min point. At 6:00, he mentions that workplace studies have found emotional intelligence is twice as important as IQ and technical skill combined.

 

[Coriolis]

Are schools setting students up for failure by neglecting to instill emotional intelligence in favor of focusing exclusively on intellectual subjects, much of which will never be utilized in the professional world?

Your premise is flawed. The time and attention schools spend on intellectual subjects, as well as problem solving and critical thinking, is woefully inadequate. The focus is on complying with rules, following procedures, fitting the mold, groupwork and team exercises - if anything, too much going along to avoid giving any offense. No wonder people who need more mental challenge than that pick up weapons and turn violent.

 

[Solar Plexus]

Your premise is flawed. The time and attention schools spend on intellectual subjects, as well as problem solving and critical thinking, is woefully inadequate. The focus is on complying with rules, following procedures, fitting the mold, groupwork and team exercises - if anything, too much going along to avoid giving any offense. No wonder people who need more mental challenge than that pick up weapons and turn violent.

I'm not following your rationale. Are you saying that you think these kids who shoot up schools are doing so because they're not being intellectually stimulated enough? If so, then I would say your premise is the one that's flawed.

As far as emotional intelligence is concerned, do you see these traits as valuable in the work force? If so, how valuable are they in comparison to the traditional curriculum being taught in schools? Many students with an above average IQ will fail to graduate from a university or will obtain a college degree and land nothing more than an entry-level job due to a lack of emotional intelligence.

 

[skylights]

My line of thinking is somewhat close to Coriolis'. I actually think that intellectual encouragement and the social academic environment fosters emotional intelligence, and it is largely administrative bullshit that gets in the way: teaching to the tests, time pressure, PCness, taking away extracurriculars for lack of funding, not fostering individual differences, not being supportive enough of students with disabilities and learning differences, and so on. I do think that students would benefit from more emphasis on holistic wellbeing, including instruction in healthy and positive interpersonal relating, body image, nutrition, conflict management, stress management, financial skills, personal awareness including strengths, weaknesses, and identity, and social justice. But fundamentally I believe violence, bullying, suicide, and drug abuse are more a result of the larger culture being oppressive towards intrapersonal struggle, mental health issues, and body image issues - any setting where an individual is different and struggling to succeed. The more our culture does to promote global acceptance, personal empowerment, and cooperative support, the less individuals will feel alone, pressured, and driven to nihilistic solutions.

 

[21%]

I like the idea. I'm just not sure you can 'teach' emotional intelligence. I think that comes from having healthy interactions in your childhood, so I think we should start by teaching good parenting skills.

 

[Coriolis]

I'm not following your rationale. Are you saying that you think these kids who shoot up schools are doing so because they're not being intellectually stimulated enough? If so, then I would say your premise is the one that's flawed.

As far as emotional intelligence is concerned, do you see these traits as valuable in the work force? If so, how valuable are they in comparison to the traditional curriculum being taught in schools? Many students with an above average IQ will fail to graduate from a university or will obtain a college degree and land nothing more than an entry-level job due to a lack of emotional intelligence.

i am saying that they are frustrated, partly because there is little in school for them, but they are required to be there and go through the motions, and that bothers them more than others. My main point, however, is that the most valuable skills are not taught well at all in schools. These are critical thinking, problem solving, and developing understanding of the world around us rather than simply memorizing and regurgitating facts, or executing cookbook scripts. If you really could teach emotional intelligence, this would probably be better than most of the latter, but it can never supplant the former.

 

[Mole]

I like the idea. I'm just not sure you can 'teach' emotional intelligence. I think that comes from having healthy interactions in your childhood, so I think we should start by teaching good parenting skills.

Yes, good emotional skills are learnt from an early age.

 

[AzulEyes]

I think it should be a topic- yes. It might not "teach" someone to BE emotionally intellegent as another poster stated- but it brings credence to the topic of emotional intelligience. It encourages people to evaluate their own emotional health and maturity. It gives a stamp of approval on it as a topic of importance. A very key component to how we interact with people in all situations every single day.

Just coming out of a friendship with a person extremely stunted emotionally- can I just say- it's devastating. (For my friend mostly- to live a life trying to navigate personal and professional relationships without the emotional maturity and health necessary to just get by.) And it's devastating for those unlucky enough to be in the path of very negative beahaviors that can result.

Good parenting skills is a great point someone brought up too. Why does no one tell parents that, 'Hey! Everything you say to this kid or in front of this kid will determine who this kid is when he grows up- and what he will think of himself!" I watched a mother say some really stupid things in front of her young daughter the other day and I was cringing inside.

I agree that the definition of intellect and what topics should be taught in school is certainly subjective in terms of the real needs of society.

 

[prplchknz]

So basically people will be mind numbingly stupid yet be very empathetic towards others? well I guess people are stupid already thanks to the school system, but hey at least they won't be insulting as well! seems legit

 

[Z Buck McFate]

My line of thinking is somewhat close to Coriolis'. I actually think that intellectual encouragement and the social academic environment fosters emotional intelligence, and it is largely administrative bullshit that gets in the way: teaching to the tests, time pressure, PCness, taking away extracurriculars for lack of funding, not fostering individual differences, not being supportive enough of students with disabilities and learning differences, and so on. I do think that students would benefit from more emphasis on holistic wellbeing, including instruction in healthy and positive interpersonal relating, body image, nutrition, conflict management, stress management, financial skills, personal awareness including strengths, weaknesses, and identity, and social justice. But fundamentally I believe violence, bullying, suicide, and drug abuse are more a result of the larger culture being oppressive towards intrapersonal struggle, mental health issues, and body image issues - any setting where an individual is different and struggling to succeed. The more our culture does to promote global acceptance, personal empowerment, and cooperative support, the less individuals will feel alone, pressured, and driven to nihilistic solutions.

This largely reflects my own position on it. With the problems that are presently already in place, I can’t help but feel dubious about putting ‘emotional intelligence’ into the curriculum. Especially where teaching to the tests is concerned- it could actually have the opposite effect and give kids the means to more effectively manipulate others. There’s no way to effectively gauge empathy in some fast, one-size-fits-all method; until we've learned to place a bit less emphasis on monitoring teachers’ productivity (‘measuring’ every single tiny thing they ‘teach’) in this way and to give them a little more wiggle room, it’s a mistake (imo) to add ‘emotional intelligence’ to that pile.

I haven’t watched the video- Goleman may even make a compelling argument for how to bypass the problem of teaching to the test….but schools are so obsessed with keeping teachers accountable at present that I have trouble imagining an approach making it to fruition without becoming horribly corrupt somewhere along the line. We need to look at how to make the whole school system more emotionally intelligent for everyone involved before trying to teach ‘emotional intelligence’ directly to children (e.g. the one-size-fits-all approach to teaching children is, in itself, incredibly not emotionally intelligent).

 

[Galena]

1. Emotional education would be uniquely damaging to the students if the school fucks it up.

2. As great as the idea is, I don't trust them not to fuck it up in practice. Standardizing emotional growth would be just one way to do so.

 

[prplchknz]

actually when I was little the program i was in 1st-4th grade taught emotional intelligence, didn't know that's what it was called. there was a puppet involved, but I'm not sure if it helped or not. but it was a small private school so it was easier to implement.

 

[Coriolis]

Just coming out of a friendship with a person extremely stunted emotionally- can I just say- it's devastating. (For my friend mostly- to live a life trying to navigate personal and professional relationships without the emotional maturity and health necessary to just get by.) And it's devastating for those unlucky enough to be in the path of very negative beahaviors that can result..

What did this person do that causes you to consider them stunted emotionally? What does that even mean? How does he an those he interacts with suffer? It seems judging emotional behavior itself would be highly subjective.

 

[NK258]

I believe they could easily teach emotional intelligence within the schools by including it within the science requirements. There is a plethora of scientific material that describes what happens to us under stress or perceived attack to our person. We all have 3 brains; our reptilian brain, the middle brain and the prefrontal cortex and I do believe it absolutely reasonable to slip in the lessons under the umbrella of science.

There is also stephen covey material currently being adopted by several grammar schools throughout the US which holds seminars (?) regarding character etc. But the former seems to be the more logical course of action to reap the most valuable results. It's reasonable and within the realms of academics.

I'm not so sure why the school system would discourage the addition of materials.

There was a time where teaching sex ed was frowned upon. Maybe it's time we stopped putting the carriage before the horse.

 

[Mole]

Interestingly emotional intelligence and critical intelligence are two sides of the same coin of intelligence.

And it is the interaction of emotional intelligence and critical intelligence that makes us intelligent.

 

[AzulEyes]

What did this person do that causes you to consider them stunted emotionally? What does that even mean? How does he an those he interacts with suffer? It seems judging emotional behavior itself would be highly subjective.

Omg- you don't know the half of it. I suspect my friend suffers from Borderline Personality Disorder plus Psychosis episodes. He created an online alter ego that he tortured me with. He has tortured people before me with wacky, outrageous behavior. I really can't get into it- and I don't say this shit lightly. He put me through hell for 2 years.

 

[Coriolis]

I believe they could easily teach emotional intelligence within the schools by including it within the science requirements.

The best way for schools to teach emotional intelligence is by demonstrating it. Kids, especially young ones, learn by example and will reflect what they are surrounded with to large degree.

 

[NK258]

The best way for schools to teach emotional intelligence is by demonstrating it. Kids, especially young ones, learn by example and will reflect what they are surrounded with to large degree.

Kind of like how we taught our children to not have unprotected sex? 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 think it would be best to lower our standards, and be aware, that the "best" probably won't happen until a generation or two are taught. Also, I don't believe this issue crosses any major lines regarding beliefs. So it is a wonder how we got sex education in schools ... 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.

 

[Solar Plexus]

So it is a wonder how we got sex education in schools ... 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.

I agree. I definitely think the evidence warrants intervention. According to the video, over the last few decades, athough IQ levels have gone up among students, EQ levels have drastically gone down which has led to a number of self-destructive and anti-social behaviors. And these are the young adults who are entering the workforce. In an ideal world, kids would learn emotional intelligence growing up from their parents, but it seems that a large number of young people are not acquiring these important skills and it is taking a toll on society as a whole.

This website: http://www.personalitypathways.com addresses general correlations or trends between mbti types and Emotional Intelligence. Interestingly, it debunks the notion that Feelers are necessarily more emotionally intelligent than Thinkers. According to his findings, ENTJs and ESTJs generally exhibit the greatest level of emotional intelligence and ISFJs and INFPs the least. I can't speak for all INFPs, but despite having a rather high IQ (which INFPs supposedly often do), I have been lacking in at least three of the five categories of emotional intelligence, specifically Managing Emotions, Motivating Oneself and Handling Relationships. Though I have relatively high empathy and I believe a great deal of self-awareness, my deficit in the other areas of emotional intelligence has created many unnecessary hardships in my life; (and it seems that a lot of other INFPs struggle with the same issues, as far as negative stereotypes go.)

In a the recent issue of the Bulletin for Psychological Type (Vol. 29, No.3 2006), one of the authors, Henry “Dick” Thompson (2006, p. 18), reported on some of his research into EI and Type. One finding I found quite interesting was that of the 5 personality types with the highest overall EQ score, three preferred Feeling and two preferred Thinking. In fact the top 2 were ENTJ and ESTJ ! (followed by ENFJ, ESFP, and ENFP). Of the 5 personality types with the lowest overall EQ score, three were Feeling types and two were Thinking types. And surprisingly, the bottom two were Feeling types: ISFJ and INFP! People looking for a correlation between EQ and Feeling won’t find it in Thompson’s research! About the only conclusion Thompson seemed willing to risk from this study was it appears that the EQ measures have a bias towards Extraversion.

Another authority of Personality Type, Elizabeth Murphy (2006, p. 26), reported on a study that found a correlation between dominant Intuition and high EI scores. Murphy noted that this same study, like Thompson's, found no relationship between EI and Feeling. In noting some of the unexplainable EI relationship to Type, Murphy offered the following advice: “. . . if someone is working with you and they offer suggestions or strategies for practicing any of the EQ skills that do not have a good fit for your style, check with someone who shares your type to see if they have any insight into an effective system that will work for you. The outcome of self-awareness, self-management, social awareness, and relationship management is available to all types. How you attain that level of success is unique to your type.”

 

[skylights]

The sex ed parallel is interesting. But when I think about my sex ed experience... it felt like a joke. I hate to say that for any teachers and administrators - and students - who were really invested in it, but the presentation was awful. They used old 80s movies which felt foreign and patronizing, and "the only really safe sex is abstinence" was perhaps the most emphatic point of the class. It wasn't realistic. People were so touchy about the topic that it wasn't handled effectively. It was referred to, inferred, danced around, and generally seen by everyone, including many of the people who had to teach it, as a waste of time. One of my sex ed teachers was a football coach completely uninterested in teaching sex ed (it was grouped with health/PE) and let us know that from the get-go.

So, like Misty, I share similar concerns that it won't be handled well, which is underscored by Coriolis' point that the system has to have some degree of emotional intelligence itself before attempting to teach emotional intelligence, and I don't think they're anywhere near there yet. I went to private schools for my earlier education and we had some guidance counselors who taught EQ-related lessons early on, and much like PE, I remember our instructive materials being outdated and the lessons being patronizing - the middle school guidance counselor, for example, enjoyed using a large puppet in her classes.

Though - the high school where my boyfriend teaches includes time for social workers to teach and/or lead exercises on psychological, social, and emotional wellbeing, and I think that's a step in the right direction. It's just... some use the time to actually lead the kids, and others cop out and have the kids play cards.

So it really depends on whether the school system can step up and take the issue seriously enough to reform both itself and its curricula as to whether it could successfully implement the inclusion of EQ.