Jump to content

Talk:Emotional intelligence

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Pete.Hurd (talk | contribs) at 03:37, 15 May 2006 (rvv). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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)

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)

Removed section

I've moved the following section here:

== Emotional Intelligence Quick Book ==
Latest emotional intelligence book [1] , 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. [2] Major findings from the book:

  • Women average 4 points higher than men in emotional intelligence.
  • CEO's have the lowest emotional intelligence in the workforce, with middle management scoring the highest.
  • Emotional intelligence tied to physical health via the impact of stress upon the body's immune system.


    • brenneman(t)(c) 02:10, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    Tag

    I'm not sure, but aren't tags supposed to be placed in the Talk page, and not the article itself? Or does this only apply to some tags? Is there a list of tags, and WHERE they should be put?

    {NPOV} and {cleanup} tags are the two most common tags, and both go on the articles themselves. NPOV tags go there to warn readers of the dispute. Other tags that address issues that are more exclusively for editors of the page, such as {controversial} get placed on talk pages. There is probably a guide somewhere to tags, but I don't know where it would be offhand. The help page would probably be a good place to start.--Nectarflowed T 02:30, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    I added some criticism from H.J. Eysenck. Does this help the neutrality/balance problem?

    Paul Magnussen 16:08, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    Describe his position and link to the source, but don't copy and paste his criticisms into the article. As it is, it's hard to tell whether they are his opinions or those of the author of the article. TaintedMustard 05:13, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    Removed NPOV

    I have attempted to provide a NPOV to this article; and removed the NPOV tag. However, the article is still heavily about Goleman and his work. Steven McCrary 17:47, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    To be honest, I think it's okay that much of the article is about Goleman and his work. He is probably the leader in research on EI, and most of what is believed about EI comes from him. Even though there has been other research, it only makes sense that the majority of the article would be about the most well-known aspects and researchers of EI. --Cswrye 05:46, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    Deleted text

    Greetings,

    The article underwent substantial reorganization by User:68.185.91.32 without explanation. I have reverted some of those edits.
    I am especially concerned about moving the definition of emotional intelligence to the end of the article.

    If there is a problem with the text, please discuss it here. Thanks, SteveMc 18:47, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Merge emotional intelligence tests into this article

    This article covers almost all the tests in emotional intelligence tests. I don't see why we need a redundant article. The invention and discussion of emotional intelligence seems to hinge on its measures, so shouldn't that be a central theme of this article, not a separate one? Kslays 16:17, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    I have a concern about this -- the tests are mostly produced by for-profit companies that seem to be using wikipedia to promote their tools (e.g., Emotional Intelligence Appraisal). If there is discussion of tests, should be broader or analytical or not list any individual assessments.... that said, it makes sense to me that assessments be a section of this article rather than it's own.

    The tests should be in this article with a clear statement of their for-profit goal. The WAIS, other Harcourt Assessment tools, and PAR tests are for-profit. The biggest difference appears to be that their measures are now traditional and monopolistic, whereas emotional intelligence tests are new, there is competition between the measures, and some are used for business hiring. The measurement of emotional ability is the basis for this article, so the tests shouldn't be in a separate one. Kslays 14:33, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Jargon (TMMS and SEI)

    These acronyms were introduced to the article without introductions. Does SEI simply represent "Self-report EI" Dozens 17:12, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    SEI is for Six Seconds Emotional Intelligence Assessment

    Suggestion

    This article would benefit with a section on documented methods on improving EI.


    EMOTIONAL INTELEGENCE IS CRAP- anonimous

    Criticism section

    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.

    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Emotional_intelligence&oldid=53257058"