Talk:Emotional intelligence: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
Removed section |
Gnomingstuff (talk | contribs) rv 2024 test edit |
||
| (409 intermediate revisions by more than 100 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{Skip to talk}} |
|||
There is a problem with this article: it presents Goleman's work as is, without saying anything about the tons of critisizm on his publications and the fact that it is not considered a scientific work. |
|||
{{Talk header|search=yes|disclaimer=yes|bottom=yes}} |
|||
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=B| |
|||
{{WikiProject Business|importance=Low}} |
|||
{{WikiProject Psychology|importance=Mid}} |
|||
{{WikiProject Philosophy|importance=Mid}} |
|||
}} |
|||
{{User:MiszaBot/config |
|||
| algo = old(200d) |
|||
| archive = Talk:Emotional intelligence/Archive %(counter)d |
|||
| counter = 1 |
|||
| maxarchivesize = 70K |
|||
| archiveheader = {{aan}} |
|||
| minthreadstoarchive = 1 |
|||
| minthreadsleft = 4 |
|||
}} |
|||
{{Photo requested}} |
|||
{{Annual readership|days=365|expanded=true}} |
|||
{{TOC_right}} |
|||
| ⚫ | |||
Goleman's book is basically a confusing and incoherent collection of scientific work, augmented with the writer's own personal, unverified, opinion. Something should be added about this. |
|||
Shouldn't the topic on "Nancy Gibbs on emotional intelligence" be moved to the criticism section? Or, perhaps there should be a History section. [http://www.eqtoday.com/02/emotional.php here is a history with input from many of the leaders in the field]. Or, [http://www.nexuseq.com/articles/index.html?subaction=showfull&id=110 here is a history from an interview with Daniel Goleman]. |
|||
== Article should be called [[Emotions and Intelligence]] == |
|||
-- Sela |
|||
Emotional intelligence does not appear to be one thing, but rather it appears to be a combination of three things. Personality, General overall cognitive ability (IQ), specific socially oriented cognitive ability ([[Theory of mind]]). [[User:Coatchecker|Coatchecker]] |
|||
: Nope, the subject actually is "Emotional Intelligence" .. which in it's current form could almost be considered some type of holistic mental therapy that liberally incorporates random scientific facts to make it appear more authentic. Apparently a dynamic EQ was originally propose to be "the answer" to offset the fixed potentials of IQ to cash in on the stigmatic limelight surrounding 'The Bell Curve' (a hot topic at the time). I might go as far as to call EI a pseudoscience, but there is quite a few factual academic studies in the field. Although the peer reviewed journals in no way over glorify "emotional intelligence" in such an exaggerated manner as the New York Times bestseller that shares the same name. If anything the scholars have spent more time cleaning up the mess that Goleman made than making actual progress in this area. These views are my opinions. Anyways, the title is correct, the information does seem to be an odd amalgamation, but as one might say, "that is the nature of the beast." [[User:74.97.109.162|74.97.109.162]] |
|||
==POV? - Statement regarding IQ in the section titled "Mayer and Salovey's Four Branch Model of Emotional Intelligence" == |
|||
== Clean up == |
|||
I noticed the following sentence, and have a couple of NPOV concerns: |
|||
Hi, I'm trying to clean up this page. |
|||
"It should however be noted that adult income, completion of high school, attainment of higher education, avoidance of dependence on welfare, avoidance of criminal conviction, and several other factors normally considered aspects of a "successful" life correlate very strongly with IQ" |
|||
It's the first time I've tried to clean up a wikipedia page, so have patience with me. It's just that there are a lot of areas that really need to be clarified, just on a grammatical / sentence-structure level. As someone familiar into EI, I'm also adding a bit of info here are there, although I'm trying to do this in separate entries. Chime in if there are any objections. |
|||
-Kerrjac |
|||
--Ok, now I think that most of the article reads pretty well & objectively. I had edits for just about every section. Most of them were grammatical / styllistic bits (e.g., putting terms in italics rather than quotes), with a bunch of new internal links (among others, reliability, mediation, regression, confound, self-report, case study, social desirability). Most content changes were in the assessment / criticism section: For the former I rearranged the order, to take the emphasis off of the commercial scales, and also added info on the Schutte inventory; and for the latter, I further clarified the comparison to IQ, and I created a new section for criticism against Mayer. I also temporarly took out that section on neural circuits (see my note in text, I think the info doesn't below in the criticism section). |
|||
The concerns are: |
|||
Perhaps we can take off the 'needs cleanup' tag in a few days. I think we just have to make sure that the reference section is updated with the content. We might also want to elaborate on some of the the information a bit, particularly the assessment area. |
|||
1) Is it a non-NPOV to suggest that the listed criteria are normally considered aspects of a "successful" life? |
|||
-Kerrjac |
|||
2) Is it a non-NPOV to suggest that the listed criteria have a strong correlation with IQ? |
|||
One thing I am not clear on is whether or not these are statements made in the referenced work or whether they are opinions of the contributor (they read like the latter). |
|||
Does anybody have any opinions on this? [[User:TigerShark|TigerShark]] 00:29, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC) |
|||
:All the phenomenon listed above have been shown to be correlated with IQ. I do think they are popularly considered to be indicators of success. But aren't there tests of EI, for example the marshmellow test, provided by Goleman, that have been shown to be predictive of future success indicators, such as standardized test scores?--[[User:Nectarflowed|Nectarflowed]] [[User_talk:Nectarflowed|<sup>T</sup>]] 22:51, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC) |
|||
==Link removed== |
|||
I am the site owner of ***.org. Sannse removed the link to my site under external links. My site has been the number one site on emotional intelligence for much of the past few years. Recently Rob Emmerling, the webmaster of another site on EI, the EI Consortium site, started a campaign to discredit me. He evidently wrote to Sannse and she removed my link. When I asked her if we could discuss this she wrote back something like "There is nothing to discuss." This struck me as a very authoritative response, and while I am new to Wikipedia, it doesn't seem to reflect what the Wikipedia vision is. Therefore I would like to start a discussion of this. |
|||
Also, with respect to Dan Goleman, I suggest those who are interested in seeing a critique of him visit my page "http://***.org/gole.htm". It is the most comprehensive criticism of him on the web, and probably the reason that Rob Emmerling decided to try to discredit me since Dan Goleman is basically Rob's boss at the EI Consortium. |
|||
Steve Hein |
|||
http://***.org |
|||
: Hi Steve, I read over the review link you added, and I can't say there's much there that makes it a useful link for this article. It's just your personal notes on the book, used as a platform for attacking your rival Goleman (in the foreword review) and as a vehicle for advertising (asking readers to buy the book through your site so you can pick up $7.50). If you are an expert on EI then neutral contributions to the article itself would be greatly appreciated, but I don't think this particular link adds much. [[User:Silsor|silsor]] 20:01, Apr 19, 2005 (UTC) |
|||
: I should also add that people are generally discouraged from adding links to their own sites in Wikipedia articles. [[User:Silsor|silsor]] 20:04, Apr 19, 2005 (UTC) |
|||
I removed [this link]. Firstly the content doesn't appear to be that useful, more of a personal essay than anything else. Secondly, I'm not too happy with some of the other content of the site, it doesn't seem to me to be one we want to link to. We had a complaint about this link in an email to the Foundation, and I thhink the writer was right, this isn't the best site to give our readers -- [[User:Sannse|sannse]] [[User talk:Sannse|(talk)]] 23:22, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC) |
|||
: I think that this was appropriate, yes. I think that the content isn't quite up to snuff, and contains some worrying diversions. |
|||
: [[User:Jdforrester|James F.]] [[User_talk:Jdforrester|(talk)]] 10:01, 19 May 2005 (UTC) |
|||
== Daniel Goleman == |
|||
The recent changes by [[User:2004-12-29T22:45Z]] have significantly changed the tone of this article. Claiming that Goleman 'kidnapped the concept' is inflammatory and not NPOV. This article now appears to be an attack on Goleman. I am not defending Goleman, but I think that the criticisms should be worded in a more neutral fashion. |
|||
[[User:Pburka|Pburka]] 01:23, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC) |
|||
| ⚫ | |||
I've moved the following section here: |
|||
<blockquote> |
|||
<nowiki>== Emotional Intelligence Quick Book ==</nowiki><br/> |
|||
Latest emotional intelligence book ''[http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0743273265/qid=1121997252/sr=8-1/ref=pd_bbs_sbs_1/102-6760913-7796966?v=glance&s=books&n=507846]'' , released in June of 2005, which reviews research with 500,000 people worldwide and measures EQ using Daniel Goleman's model via The Emotional Intelligence Appraisal test. ''[https://www.talentsmart.com/products/ei.php?ID=18]'' Major findings from the book: |
|||
<LI> Women average 4 points higher than men in emotional intelligence. |
|||
<LI> CEO's have the lowest emotional intelligence in the workforce, with middle management scoring the highest. |
|||
<LI> Emotional intelligence tied to physical health via the impact of stress upon the body's immune system. |
|||
</blockquote> |
|||
<br/> |
|||
[[User:Aaron Brenneman|<font color="#2f4f4f">brenneman</font>]][[User Talk:Aaron Brenneman|<font color="#2f4f4f"><sup>(t)</sup></font>]][[Special:Contributions/Aaron Brenneman|<font color="#2f4f4f"><sup>(c)</sup></font>]] 02:10, 22 July 2005 (UTC) |
|||
Latest revision as of 05:51, 3 January 2025
| Please place new discussions at the bottom of the talk page. |
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Emotional intelligence article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1Auto-archiving period: 7 months  |
 | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 | It is requested that a photograph be included in this article to improve its quality.
The external tool WordPress Openverse may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites. |
Criticism section
[edit]Shouldn't the topic on "Nancy Gibbs on emotional intelligence" be moved to the criticism section? Or, perhaps there should be a History section. here is a history with input from many of the leaders in the field. Or, here is a history from an interview with Daniel Goleman.
Article should be called Emotions and Intelligence
[edit]Emotional intelligence does not appear to be one thing, but rather it appears to be a combination of three things. Personality, General overall cognitive ability (IQ), specific socially oriented cognitive ability (Theory of mind). Coatchecker
- Nope, the subject actually is "Emotional Intelligence" .. which in it's current form could almost be considered some type of holistic mental therapy that liberally incorporates random scientific facts to make it appear more authentic. Apparently a dynamic EQ was originally propose to be "the answer" to offset the fixed potentials of IQ to cash in on the stigmatic limelight surrounding 'The Bell Curve' (a hot topic at the time). I might go as far as to call EI a pseudoscience, but there is quite a few factual academic studies in the field. Although the peer reviewed journals in no way over glorify "emotional intelligence" in such an exaggerated manner as the New York Times bestseller that shares the same name. If anything the scholars have spent more time cleaning up the mess that Goleman made than making actual progress in this area. These views are my opinions. Anyways, the title is correct, the information does seem to be an odd amalgamation, but as one might say, "that is the nature of the beast." 74.97.109.162
Clean up
[edit]Hi, I'm trying to clean up this page.
It's the first time I've tried to clean up a wikipedia page, so have patience with me. It's just that there are a lot of areas that really need to be clarified, just on a grammatical / sentence-structure level. As someone familiar into EI, I'm also adding a bit of info here are there, although I'm trying to do this in separate entries. Chime in if there are any objections. -Kerrjac
--Ok, now I think that most of the article reads pretty well & objectively. I had edits for just about every section. Most of them were grammatical / styllistic bits (e.g., putting terms in italics rather than quotes), with a bunch of new internal links (among others, reliability, mediation, regression, confound, self-report, case study, social desirability). Most content changes were in the assessment / criticism section: For the former I rearranged the order, to take the emphasis off of the commercial scales, and also added info on the Schutte inventory; and for the latter, I further clarified the comparison to IQ, and I created a new section for criticism against Mayer. I also temporarly took out that section on neural circuits (see my note in text, I think the info doesn't below in the criticism section).
Perhaps we can take off the 'needs cleanup' tag in a few days. I think we just have to make sure that the reference section is updated with the content. We might also want to elaborate on some of the the information a bit, particularly the assessment area.
-Kerrjac