Is emotional intelligence a strength or weaknes?

Faye

Faye

^_^
Retired Staff
MBTI
INFJ
Enneagram
4w5
Obviously, it would be hard to argue that it is not a strength, but the problem I am having is that our society (at least, the U.S.) has become so afraid of value discussions and against the employment of emotional intelligence that it is a significant burden to think this way. The norm is to avoid normative discussions and pretend that everything can be solved empirically, like every problem we are currently facing is a matter of finding the right scientific solution and implementing it, and if you're not happy that is your fault because society is fine acting as it is.

This is foreign to my way of thinking, and i think that most INFJs would probably agree. I do not see how you can decide anything in regards to humans without it being a question of norms and values, and I think that those who pretend these things are unimportant (usually lumping them together as "philosophy and religion" and presuming the invalidity of such) are actually really just avoiding a values discussion in order to hurt others, or in other words, in order to allow the prevailing values to remain dominant.

So it is painful when you have a political discussion with someone, and they pretend that politics (or even sociology, psychology, etc.) is merely a matter of empirical observation and that values do not matter. Political discussions are always discussions of values in my opinion.

Has anyone else been bothered by this? Thoughts?
 
Dragon said:
. . . avoiding a values discussion in order to hurt others, or in other words, in order to allow the prevailing values to remain dominant.
Click to expand...

Yep, pretty much. I also think many people feel powerless to change things so they take on a "that's just the way it is" approach to politics.
 
ok, you touch on a couple of points here, i'll list my responses in order:

1. a broader range of options when it comes to interacting with other people is always useful. being of a purely clinical mind (ie. taking the scientific, rational, logical approach, every time), will work in some contexts, but will fail horribly in others, and likewise with so called "value based" thinking. it helps to be flexible and to be able to adapt, and we all generally do so as we mature and become more rounded people.

2. that dismissing values in political/religious discussions as irrelevant is done to either:
a) hurt people
or (though you lump them together)
b) to allow prevalent values to remain dominant
is an assumption on your part. i don't really understand where you're getting that. not to say it couldn't be true but.. why?

3. certainly. but in my opinion, how either party feels about it is irrelevant to the matter of whether it's actually true (that values are unimportant in political/religious discussion). although i'm leaning towards agreeing with you, values are pretty much all that dictate which side you feel is more correct in such abstract matters, but on the other hand, such values often have a historical and empirical (particularly physiological) basis, and when looked upon from that point of view it's easy to see how the values themselves could be degraded to a superficial idea.

i hope that made sense!
 
This cannot really be answered without defining emotional intelligence.

An EQ test posted on here seemed to equate EQ with optimism, which I consider a very destructive force.
 
I believe that there are 4 aspects of being that you must seek to balance in your life (like everyday, sometimes every minute) Your emotional, intellectual, physical and spiritual self. I find that many people will ignore the impact of the emotional and the spiritual aspects of their being and are thus out of balance. Everything you do, say and experience in life is touched by these aspects, so you must actively seek to understand these aspects about yourself.

To clarify though, spiritual does not mean religion. To me spirituality is the unknowable. It is those things that we do because of faith or belief. In the most pure sense of spiritual it means how we choose to live our lives. Manners are part of your spirituality. Who says we have to be nice and polite? We are taught that taking other's feelings into consideration is desirable but we choose to believe in this concept. However, spirituality does include religious beliefs, it is just not the end all be all of spirituality.
 
April said:
ok, you touch on a couple of points here, i'll list my responses in order:

1. a broader range of options when it comes to interacting with other people is always useful. being of a purely clinical mind (ie. taking the scientific, rational, logical approach, every time), will work in some contexts, but will fail horribly in others, and likewise with so called "value based" thinking. it helps to be flexible and to be able to adapt, and we all generally do so as we mature and become more rounded people.

2. that dismissing values in political/religious discussions as irrelevant is done to either:
a) hurt people
or (though you lump them together)
b) to allow prevalent values to remain dominant
is an assumption on your part. i don't really understand where you're getting that. not to say it couldn't be true but.. why?

3. certainly. but in my opinion, how either party feels about it is irrelevant to the matter of whether it's actually true (that values are unimportant in political/religious discussion). although i'm leaning towards agreeing with you, values are pretty much all that dictate which side you feel is more correct in such abstract matters, but on the other hand, such values often have a historical and empirical (particularly physiological) basis, and when looked upon from that point of view it's easy to see how the values themselves could be degraded to a superficial idea.

i hope that made sense!
Click to expand...

@May
I think we need to be careful about the distinction between empirical and normative propositions. An empirical investigation should supposedly yield the truth of the matter (insofar as truth is possible) or yield a solution to the problem, but what I am saying is that we are not even going to begin to want to conduct an empirical investigation unless our values are in line with it or we make presuppositions with the right thought experiments. Something may be empirically true, but that in itself is worthless. It only becomes worthwhile once someone wishes to utilize that information, and this entails making a value judgment. Ex. It might be the case that homeless people are in fact starving (empirical proposition), so do we allocate resources to create homeless shelters (normative issue)?

The problem I am having is that, in this example, people are assuming you only need to example the empirical matter- whether homeless people actually exist and are starving, while avoiding asking what should be done for them. My problem is that this allows for a squelching of the conversation where it is asserted that the homeless should be aided because, for example, we have preconceived values in other supposedly empirical disciplines (some areas of economics) that might assume something along the lines of government inefficiency in the matter and that the free market should be allowed to prevail in this instance. I think asserting anything like this, as a supposedly empirical method, actually entails a value judgment, and that you cannot really formulate empirical propositions that will hold true in multiple situations without presupposing normative ones.

And then they ignore any alternative normative proposals on the grounds that they are not empirical.

magister343 said:
This cannot really be answered without defining emotional intelligence.

An EQ test posted on here seemed to equate EQ with optimism, which I consider a very destructive force.
Click to expand...

That is a poor EQ test, and I wouldn't equate emotional intelligence with the construct of EQ necessarily, as it is fairly shallow in my observation. I can't give an exact definition, but it would entail the ability to feel deeply, empathize with others, understand and value emotional processing, and appreciate the imput of emotional processing on how to act.














I always find myself wishing I had a better understanding of logic/algebraic reasoning, and that I would trade some emotional intelligence for it. Because when you spend this much time absorbed in it, people tend to dislike you. But they don't dislike linear reasoning, and in fact having it helps you in many important and fruitful areas.
 
I feel as though there is no concrete answer to this question.
I do not think emotional intelligence should be considered a
strength or a weakness. What you do with your emotional
intelligence is what determines whether or not the intelligence
in question is a strength or a weakness.
 
I could be said to have almost no emotional intelligence. In that regards, does it therefore make me stupid? Does it mean that i can not function as well as those with a high emotional intelligence?
 
rogarn said:
I could be said to have almost no emotional intelligence. In that regards, does it therefore make me stupid? Does it mean that i can not function as well as those with a high emotional intelligence?[/QUOTE]

Uh, yes. <just saying, that is the logical conclusion>

However, nobody said it made you stupid. That is a value judgement that wasn't asserted.
Click to expand...
 
Why then, is emotional intelligence a necessary part in order to properly function? What does this add to life that is essential?
 
Because emotions make up one important function/aspect of being human. You will always have them and others will always have them. Logically it makes sense to find a deeper understanding so that you can be successful in the world at large.
 
Although it is an important part of being human, i have no desire to conform to what is said to be humanity. Success in the world at large depends on what you consider to be success. For me, the creation of greater efficiency in all that i come across is my primary goal. How can a deeper understanding of emotions benefit this?
 
Yes, but only if you are bent on self-sufficiency. Otherwise, you must learn to adapt to the world at large and it is practically crawling with Feelers.
 
Self-sufficiency. Yes, I can deal with that. I have to be honest and say that i would be perfectly content to spend the rest of my life in a hole as long as i was provided a computer with internet and sustenance. Although a desire for a partner is there for me, it is not a leading priority.
 
Values, norms and emotion are all highly unreliable.

Not only can they be feigned, invented and twisted, but they rely entirely on inaccurate human judgement.

The minute I hear the words 'I feel...' come into a debate, I discredit all which comes after.

The fact is, emotions mean nothing in light of factual evidence.

Imagine a doctor looking for love while performing heart surgery, or a marine biologist asking the fish how they feel?

They are merely human constructs, made important only by human error.
 
Ah but they exist. Eventually such "Feelings" will infect you and cause havoc in your life. Better to be prepared and understand that which scares or that which is unknown then to walk into the lion's den with no armor.
 
Being prepared for all situations does seem to be an INTJ life motto. Perhaps this is one i have overlooked.
 
rogarn said:
Being prepared for all situations does seem to be an INTJ life motto. Perhaps this is one i have overlooked.
Click to expand...

I win! Not that I am competative or anything. I am joking. Joking I tell you. Really....
*snickers*
 
Doing something out of bare necessity is different then liking it. Its only a partial win.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top