Talk:Emotional intelligence

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)

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?--Nectarflowed ^T 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. 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. 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 -- 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.

James F. (talk) 10:01, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Pburka 01:23, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)