Right, so i google both those and find that neither of them is widely adopted or used. they are basically in infancy and have substantial history of use or acceptance… and a few papers both showing their methodology is highly suspect:
Results showed that this is not the case for most items: The answer indicated by experts as the most correct in several cases was not associated with the highest ability; furthermore, items appeared too easy to challenge individuals high in EI. Overall results suggest that the MSCEIT is best suited to discriminate persons at the low end of the trait. Results are discussed in light of applied and theoretical considerations.
But the idea is still clear. Sure, you have essentially steered the argument to “tests are unreliable”, but you haven’t disproved the emotional intelligence itself. You said it - just a buzzword
are you sure i’m the one shifting the goalposts here?
my argument form the start was EQ is bullshit, a made up arbitrary metric that has no widespread acceptance. and that is true.
And like all bullshit things, people mostly use it to bully and posture each other.
I guess we will stay true to our beliefs. Being able to rationally understand emotions, reflect, feel empathy, etc. are not some foreign concepts, it’s real, categorizable human psychology (and neurology?) behaviour.
and they have no objective measure. you cannot measure a feeling of empathy and compare it across two people. empathy can’t be measured like a discus throw or how fast you can run mile.
they are not measurable things, they are contextualized by culture, language, and society. what is empathetic in one society is considered cruelty in another. and further, it will vary a lot depending on relationship, familiarity, and social dynamics.
You may think you are the sole arbiter of these things, and you’re welcome to do that in your personal life. but the arrogance it takes you can magically ID people’s ‘empathy’ based on internet posts is just insane ego-projection and and your judgement of how much they say shit you agree with.
Right, so i google both those and find that neither of them is widely adopted or used. they are basically in infancy and have substantial history of use or acceptance… and a few papers both showing their methodology is highly suspect:
and around we go.
But the idea is still clear. Sure, you have essentially steered the argument to “tests are unreliable”, but you haven’t disproved the emotional intelligence itself. You said it - just a buzzword
i can’t disprove the existence of god either.
are you sure i’m the one shifting the goalposts here?
my argument form the start was EQ is bullshit, a made up arbitrary metric that has no widespread acceptance. and that is true. And like all bullshit things, people mostly use it to bully and posture each other.
I guess we will stay true to our beliefs. Being able to rationally understand emotions, reflect, feel empathy, etc. are not some foreign concepts, it’s real, categorizable human psychology (and neurology?) behaviour.
and they have no objective measure. you cannot measure a feeling of empathy and compare it across two people. empathy can’t be measured like a discus throw or how fast you can run mile.
they are not measurable things, they are contextualized by culture, language, and society. what is empathetic in one society is considered cruelty in another. and further, it will vary a lot depending on relationship, familiarity, and social dynamics.
You may think you are the sole arbiter of these things, and you’re welcome to do that in your personal life. but the arrogance it takes you can magically ID people’s ‘empathy’ based on internet posts is just insane ego-projection and and your judgement of how much they say shit you agree with.