Talk:Emotional intelligence: Difference between revisions
| Line 23: | Line 23: | ||
Does anybody have any opinions on this? [[User:TigerShark|TigerShark]] 00:29, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC) |
Does anybody have any opinions on this? [[User:TigerShark|TigerShark]] 00:29, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC) |
||
==Link removed== |
|||
I removed one of the external links. 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) |
|||
Revision as of 02:49, 16 May 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
POV? - 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 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? TigerShark 00:29, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)