The Dark Side of Emotional Intelligence

[prplchknz]

I think his view is that there there are multiple aspects to emotional intelligence:



So those aspects cover a pretty broad swath, and aspects of them might not fall under what the term "emotional intelligence" initially brings to mind. For example both "social skill" and "motivation" (as defined above) have a leadership/workplace feel to them, which makes sense given Goleman's focus on leadership.

Also, a fair amount of EI research depended on instruments that depend on self-reporting, which can be problematic.

the only thing in that list that i have even the slightest handle on is self awareness though

 

[Southern Kross]

Would be interesting to speculate about how those aspect related to type-related strengths (there's an article here summarizing some findings).

I thought this was interesting:

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.

I remember the first time I took one of those online EI tests and beforehand thinking, "oh, I'll be great at this". Then I discovered I kinda suck at it. The whole thing really pissed me off because it felt like it had nothing to do with what mattered (to me) in terms of emotion. I have great understanding of emotions but limited ability to harness and redirect that where needed. I was also irritated by how surface focussed the whole thing was; the fact that the superficial perception of immediate feelings in another person seemed to be given precedent over the perception of inner emotional world. It seemed like the value was placed on entirely the ability to exploit emotions and manipulate others as efficiently as possible. These are things con men and psychopaths are great at.

Of course I was mainly pissed off because I hated feeling like I'm "emotionally ignorant" - but my arguments do still stand. And I do think there has to be an equivalent, opposing for of emotional intelligence too; one that is focussed more on depth of understanding rather simply how practical and useful you can make it in purely objective terms.

 

[danseen]

I'm a business management student.

I've also done lots of courses on emotional intelligence. My own definition of management is simply using company resources to get things done and achieve corporate goals. so part of this has to be how to relate to people, as employees make a firm's good or service. EQ to me is not spent, since who wants a boss who doesn't give a shit how s/he comes across?

 

[WhoCares]

I'm reasonably certain the CEO of my company is a psychopath. In person (yes we've met more than once) he is a somewhat reserved but affable character who appears to be visionary. In practice I can clearly see how me openly manipulates the employee population by sleight of hand with known desires, while delivering almost the exact opposite. I can see his divide and conquer tactics during pay negotiations and I can see him giving certain targeted individuals what looks like a promotion, only to fire them shortly after for failing to achieve the impossible. Its become such a common occurence that we can literally see who's going to be fired next from internal memo's announcing a recent promotion or portfolio reshuffle.

Emotionally intelligent? If you call being popular while shafting your employees emotionally intelligent then yeah sure. I just dont have the stomach for such things.

 

[Coriolis]

I'm reasonably certain the CEO of my company is a psychopath. In person (yes we've met more than once) he is a somewhat reserved but affable character who appears to be visionary. In practice I can clearly see how me openly manipulates the employee population by sleight of hand with known desires, while delivering almost the exact opposite. I can see his divide and conquer tactics during pay negotiations and I can see him giving certain targeted individuals what looks like a promotion, only to fire them shortly after for failing to achieve the impossible. Its become such a common occurence that we can literally see who's going to be fired next from internal memo's announcing a recent promotion or portfolio reshuffle.

This can be a good way to get rid of poorly performing or otherwise troublesome employees: give them enough rope and let them hang themselves.

 

[WhoCares]

This can be a good way to get rid of poorly performing or otherwise troublesome employees: give them enough rope and let them hang themselves.

While I cant say the people gone were stellar performers (who is in the corporate world anyway?) I dont admire the tactics employed. In all cases they were set up to fail. It wasn't case if them hanging themselves, it was a blatant case of being given tasks to which no person could hope to succeed. Seems an underhanded way to go about things to me. Its easy to wash ones hands of it adn say well thats okay I didnt like that person anyway. But these kind of tactics dont ever die out, it is only a matter of time until they are finally employed on you also. I dont condone psychopathy as a way to run a company, call me highminded if you will.

 

[Coriolis]

While I cant say the people gone were stellar performers (who is in the corporate world anyway?) I dont admire the tactics employed. In all cases they were set up to fail. It wasn't case if them hanging themselves, it was a blatant case of being given tasks to which no person could hope to succeed. Seems an underhanded way to go about things to me. Its easy to wash ones hands of it adn say well thats okay I didnt like that person anyway. But these kind of tactics dont ever die out, it is only a matter of time until they are finally employed on you also. I dont condone psychopathy as a way to run a company, call me highminded if you will.

Either the employees should have been fired, or not. If not, no method is justifiable. If so, does it matter that much how it was done? It's less a matter of being highminded than of being effective.

 

[cafe]

I don't know how it works in more professional settings but in service jobs they love to cut hours way down to force people to quit so they do not have to provide unemployment benefits the employee is entitled to and has paid into with every paycheck via payroll taxes.

 

[two cents]

It all comes down to what exactly is being taught.

Yes, it does, no argument here!

It is one thing to teach people how to recognize and understand emotions better, so we are not manipulated. It's quite another to encourage specific types of emotional behavior. People who are not naturally attuned to emotions would do well to learn the first, but should not be pushed into the second.

The more I deal with people outside my very limited social bubble the more it becomes clear to me that the majority of people don't have an even rudimentary "theory of mind" concerning other people (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_mind). This is completely unacceptable.

This mostly comes down to attributing to other people either the motivation one has oneself (I want to be friends with this person, therefore they must want to be friends with me, for example), or some really simplistic stereotypical motivations attributed to a group the person belongs to (for example: she is wearing that skirt to get attention, because that's what women want, sexual attention from men). This is, as far as I can see, a constant source of interpersonal problems and personal frustration to EVERYBODY, ALL THE TIME.

Also, there's the distinct, but somewhat related issue of Fundamental Attribution Error (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamental_attribution_error). It seems this is a bias that comes naturally to people, and is responsible for a lot of frustration and conflict.

Coincidentally, if you are even somewhat interested in psychology, you will probably have heard of Cognitive Behavioral Therapy (CBT), and how it seems to be a very effective intervention for most people with an enormous variety of problems. Well, if you look into the techniques of CBT, you will see that it is an attempt to teach individuals to enhance their theory of mind and to avoid Fundamental Attribution Error.

Interestingly enough, both of the issues I just brought up have very little to do with being "attuned to emotions", and is mostly about rational, cognitive models: what you understand about how you and other people think and feel, rather than being "sensitive", or going as far as exhibiting any specific emotional behavior.

Now, as far as "specific emotional behavior" thing goes, there's a bit of a caveat. I'm sure you've heard of anger management, right? I'm not going to say that everyone needs it, or even that those courses incorporate effective techniques that aren't bullshit... But I would argue that if people expect to benefit from living in a civilized society, they should also expect to comply with some basic expectations that they effectively manage their emotions, and don't allow those emotions to create problems for people around them. So, yes, some types of emotional behavior should be (and generally are already) taught. That doesn't mean micromanaging how people are allowed to feel (which would be a terrible, repressive thing to institute and would make everyone miserable).

I would prefer to be my genuine self with these people, rather than go through life creating false impressions for those I care most about.

You are making the assumption that an improvement in emotional intelligence means you'll have to fake your way through life. This is not the case. In fact, there's a lot of research that points to the fact that people are happiest when they are allowed to be genuine and to engage in self-affirming behaviors.

To begin with, if your theory of mind is robust and you eschew fundamental attribution error, your genuine emotions about a situation will be different. Someone cut you off in traffic? Well, maybe they aren't just an asshole fucking with you, maybe they are in a rush to pick up their kid from daycare, will be fined for getting there late, and are so stressed out about it they didn't even see you. And you can probably remember a time when you did the same thing for similarly understandable reasons. Suddenly, rather than getting angry, you realize you aren't in that big a rush yourself, shrug and turn the music on. Are you not being genuine when your reactions are altered in this way? No, you just "genuinely" react differently.

What about when you get home and your kid hasn't done their homework, and you see their report card and there's a "D" on it. One "genuine" reaction would be to remember that time they spent all evening playing Halo and scream at them and shame them for being lazy and threaten to take away their video games. Another, equally "genuine" reaction would be to question them (in a non-confrontational) about why they are procrastinating: you might learn that they are struggling with a subject and are feeling particularly anxious (and extra tutoring would help), or that they've been feeling really low and use video games to escape their mood problems (and a visit to a doctor/therapist would be in order), or that they are having some interpersonal conflicts in that class and are too overwhelmed to focus on the work (and a parent-teacher conference might help). Both are genuine reactions, but one might be more effective in solving the problem (your child's poor performance at school) and make your home life less fraught with conflict.

I'm not advocating that you should go through life swallowing insults and pasting on a fake smile. I'm suggesting your life (and the lives of everyone you come in contact with) would be better if you had a better understanding of what's actually going on with the people around you (and, just as importantly, knew the limits of your knowledge in this respect), rather than acting on misguided and mistaken assumptions. AND, most importantly, the solutions I'm proposing have a whole lot more to do with REASONING than with FEELING, and are quite objective and evidence-based in their underlying assumptions and application.