Talk:Emotional intelligence: Difference between revisions
TigerShark (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
TigerShark (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
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. |
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. |
||
Line 7: | Line 6: | ||
-- Sela |
-- Sela |
||
==RE: IQ== |
|||
==Statement regarding IQ in the section titled "Mayer and Salovey's Four Branch Model of Emotional Intelligence" == |
|||
I noticed the following sentence, and have a couple of NPOV concerns: |
I noticed the following sentence, and have a couple of NPOV concerns: |
Revision as of 00:31, 13 February 2005
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.
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.
-- Sela
Statement regarding IQ in the section titled "Mayer and Salovey's Four Branch Model of Emotional Intelligence"
I noticed the following sentence, and have a couple of NPOV concerns:
"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"
The concerns are:
1) Is it a non-NPOV to suggest that the listed criteria are normally considered aspects of a "successful" life? 2) Is it a non-NPOV to suggest that the listed criteria have a string 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? TigerShark 00:29, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)