Will get barked at here probably… someone spoke of EQ in glowing terms…and it does sound perfectly reasonable when you look at the description (http://eiconsortium.org/measures/measures.html)…the whole nature of measuring the emotional behaviour of people vis a vis your suitability for organisational inclusion is really Orwellian and Huxleyellian as well. It is the notion that you ‘don’t rock the boat’ by being in anyway challenging or vociferous…because that demonstrates that you lack intelligence (EQ that is – don’t get intelligence mixed up with ’emotional intelligence’)…essentially EQ represents the ‘nod your head and pretend to agree with what is being said no matter what it is’, because emotional people are too difficult (read – crazy)….a giant FUCK THAT SHIT!!!!! (whoops getting a little emotional there).
Emotional Intelligence is a two-way street. The dismissal of other’s ideology engenders animosity regardless of whether that ideology is absurd, idiosyncratic or valid intellectually, philosophically and sociologically. Moreover, some of the greatest minds in history were social outcasts and many were murdered (Socrates for instance – technically he committed suicide – he was forced to) because they didn’t adhere to a status quo, because being liked was less important than thinking critically and speaking out – outside the socially acceptable box (or at least not suffering fools gladly – not a great thing in a world made up largely of fools – and the current global zeitgeist that provides Trump, Brexit and Scomo et al with large support bases, demonstrates this eloquently).
The term EQ was first coined in 1990 [Peter Salovey and John D. Mayer coined the term ‘Emotional Intelligence’ in 1990 describing it as “a form of social intelligence that involves the ability to monitor one’s own and others’ feelings and emotions, to discriminate among them, and to use this information to guide one’s thinking and action”. Naturally, many use it as a means to sell, sell, sell because rather than it being empathic it has grown in popularity due to its ability to read and manipulate others emotions to advantage in business.
This is not a good thing philosophically, politically or morally due to the ideology being a tool for advancing socially and economically rather than philosophically and emotionally (meaning the raison d’etre is flawed due to it having an economic rather than empathic/altruistic purpose).
It seems to speak of the notion that we should accept the beliefs and ideas of others without question as being ‘democratic’ rights, because emotional behaviour is unacceptable and antagonistic by virtue of it challenging the notion of immutability propounded by the largest voting block (even though that block may be larger by an incredibly small margin). Lurking behind the notion that ‘we have to be nice’, or, ‘we have to accept what the majority rules’ is the proposition that the many may be horribly wrong despite the fact that they are the many.
I would cite Nazi Germany as an example although there are too many to mention here…and yet this sounds exactly like the argument that followers of Trump, Scomo, Palmer and Hanson propound…they are the ‘sick of the PC’ crew and thus they can be emotional, they can express thoughts of xenophobia and bigotry vociferously because that is their right, but it is better (and way more insidious) if they say it calmly with EQ. This is not what I mean, EQ is theoretically about listening to others and accepting what they say and calmly accepting that they have a right to say it (then you go to a closet, close the door and scream until your eyeballs bleed….then come out and offer the numb skulls your very nicest drone smile and a cup of tea).