What exactly is the science of emotional intelligence? Part II

I argued in my previous blog using the science model of Kuhn that the science of emotional intelligence was not settled and it was more likely undergoing a paradigm shift.  What provoked my disagreement with Ashkanasy is that in his podcast he implied that Goleman’s book caused emotional intelligence to be regarded as a fad and not a science.  So the first question we should ask Is Emotional Intelligence scientifically valid?

If we go to the 21^st Century version of the Delphi Oracle, ChatGPT comes up with this answer.

Yes, Emotional Intelligence (EI) is scientifically valid. EI is a set of abilities related to the perception, use, understanding, and management of emotions. The concept was first introduced by psychologists Peter Salovey and John Mayer in the 1990s, and since then, a significant amount of research has been conducted on the topic.

Research has shown that EI is a distinct construct that is separate from other forms of intelligence, such as cognitive intelligence. Studies have also demonstrated that individuals with higher levels of EI tend to have better mental health, social skills, and job performance.

There are several measures of EI, such as the Mayer-Salovey-Caruso Emotional Intelligence Test (MSCEIT) and the Emotional Quotient Inventory (EQ-i), which have been widely used in research and practice.

Overall, the scientific validity of EI is well-established, and it has become an important concept in fields such as psychology, education, and business.

I agree with most of the above but still would argue that the secret to lifting your EQ is to learn and use a model of temperament that is practical, scientifically valid and trait based such as the 7MTF.  However since then my thinking has been again modified.

This time it was an article by Mark Latham in the Spectator (18/2/23) about the Thin White Duke, aka David Bowie. To summarise the article:

Bowie argued that up until the invention of the internet, the human knowledge-set was reasonably well settled. While historians sometimes differed, this was only at the margins, giving us a definitive interpretation of past events. So too, most aspects of science had been resolved.  Social values and norms were framed around mainstream notions of decency and common sense. The parameters of political debate, while keenly contested at election time, pivoted on the orthodoxy of a handful of major parties.  It was as if the 18th-century Enlightenment had struck an ideal balance: creating new freedoms of speech to debate concepts and ideas, thereby further advancing the knowledge-set, but within accepted boundaries as to what was factual and what was nonsense.

Very few people subscribed to conspiracy theories or wacky notions of information being ‘socially constructed’ and ‘fluid’. Observable truths were respected as the foundation-stone of intellectual enlightenment.  Bowie’s thesis was that the internet would blow this settlement apart. As a mostly unregulated, open-access regime it would give a wide range of political activists the forum and space they needed to create their own self-serving narratives, unchallenged by the disciplines of evidence and facts.

This in turn would fragment society, as people would find their own group with which to associate and support online. Public life would be transformed, becoming more divisive and censorious as political tribes tried to close down their rivals and embed their beliefs in popular culture.  The orthodoxies of history, science, education and major party politics would come under permanent siege. And as this process played out, the internet tribes would dig in deeper, fortifying their positions with fewer facts and even less evidence, talking mainly to themselves (in what we now call the political ‘bubble’).”

So am I a faddist or a sceptical rationalist who believes in evidence as I certainly was prior to the introduction of the internet?  I thinking I will adopt the philosophy of Gerry Raffety “clowns to the left of me, jokers to the right, here I am stuck in the middle with you”.

This blog was first posted on LinkedIn 3 March 2023

https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/what-exactly-science-emotional-intelligence-part-ii-christopher-golis/