"You say it's life no matter how it's lived & what you got you don't know how to give."
I have been reading that Emotional Intelligence book that was all the rage several years back. Yes I am simply that up on trends, lol. The early chapters were good enough, being an exploration of the routes that emotion takes through the brain delivered in a personable, easy to understand manner but since then things have started to become a bit disquieting.
Chapter three is entitled When Smart is Dumb - and basically as far as I've read, seems to be dissecting the many occasions in which IQ fails to predict the success of people.
The worrying thing being the undue focus the author puts upon material success in ascertaining an individual's personal level of success.
After all it's an unintelligent and insensitive presumption to imagine that personal success is borne of the same things for everyone because obviously individual differences exist.
For instance some will see their personal wealth as happiness and thus a sign of the ultimate success of their lives, whilst others will view the fact that they have had a successful marriage or successful and enriching friendships as most determining of the same.
Regardless Goleman just seems to pound in again and again that the only importance that matters is in terms of material wealth and competing well against other people in an appearance sense.
Basically the only route to happiness is by being rich and important so obviously those who are rich and important are those who have better EQ.
Which is a bit of an oversimplifying stretch on his part.
As an example, he is the kind of man who writes this.
I remember the fellow in my own class at Amerherst College who had attaine five perfect 800 scores on the SAT and other achievement tests he took before entering. Despite his formidable intellectual abilities, he set most of his time hanging out, staying up late, and missing classes by sleeping until noon. It took him almost ten years to finally get his degree.
BECAUSE LETS NOT FORGET KIDS, THE ONLY SUCCESSFUL WAY TO DO THINGS IS QUICKLY, K.
I mean this person was not unhappy and yet still his life is considered to be unsuccessful?
Basically implying that being personally happy is are entirely unimportant in measuring the success of a life if you do not achieve it through expected means.
To me that attitude stinks because it is entirely illogical.
It began to become obvous to me that this whole EQ bilge was set up to reward the aquiration of social and emotional processing designed to help you manipulate other people better in order to win at life, as opposed to that which will strictly make you or those around you happy.
Then as if knowing that I needed direct evidence of this, this doozy of oddness came up.
*...four-year-old Judy might seem a wallflower among her more gregarious playmates...she hangs back at playtime...a keen observer of the social politics of her pre school classroom...When Judy's teacher asks her to put each girl and boy in the part of the room they like to play in the most...Judy does so with complete accuracy. These are the skills that, in later life, might allow Judy to blossom into a star in any of the fields where "people skills" count, from sales to management to diplomacy.
*I had to cut out so much irrelevent waffle about the game the teacher had the kids play because it's not really necessary.
Lets be honest more sales than diplomacy because Judy is not interested in the mutuality of social exchange otherwise she would be playing with other kids and not just watching them. How foolish an author is when he can't even seen that just because the activity involves people that that doesn't mean it is at all an example of people skills.
Emotional IQ seems to solidify strictly as learning the social skills required to manipulate other people - the type needed in sales and not those needed to form relationships of mutual exchange.
Which makes it all sound like a book detailing why we should all be sociopaths if we want success at life.
It's just entirely heartless to waffle on about emotion and then to have your first chapter on the topic at hand be all about how we should use it to get what we want from life and have nothing about enjoying it for it's own sake.
It's just so horribly simplistic that even at this stage I am doubting his ability to handle the complexity of analysing or commenting upon the evidence he will present later in the book.
There is no shade for this guy at all.
Brilliantly I found this review of the entire book that includes something I have concluded from like three pages of the third chapter.
"Goleman rarely talks of using emotions in a positive way. He doesn't talk about their value to make needed changes in our lives and in the world. Thus, he underestimates the value of our negative feelings. He doesn't even seem to understand why people even have negative feelings or to understand that humans have natural emotional needs or that "success" and being a "star performer" do not necessarily meet our emotional needs."
Bascially yes he is saying that everyone clearly wants the same things y'all and those who don't are FREAKS WITH LOW EQ.
Not different but defective.
That review also brilliantly hits up this attitude he takes as I said that everything exists purely to make capital otherwise it's worthless and non existent. Unless you are using you social skills to make money or prestige for yourself you clearly don't have them. Man he is essentially sooooo obvious with his agendas that it was obvious to me what he was suggesting three pages into the main part of the book, how lolsome is that. I'm still now only on page 37.
Will I keep reading for the lolz I wonder?
Chapter three is entitled When Smart is Dumb - and basically as far as I've read, seems to be dissecting the many occasions in which IQ fails to predict the success of people.
The worrying thing being the undue focus the author puts upon material success in ascertaining an individual's personal level of success.
After all it's an unintelligent and insensitive presumption to imagine that personal success is borne of the same things for everyone because obviously individual differences exist.
For instance some will see their personal wealth as happiness and thus a sign of the ultimate success of their lives, whilst others will view the fact that they have had a successful marriage or successful and enriching friendships as most determining of the same.
Regardless Goleman just seems to pound in again and again that the only importance that matters is in terms of material wealth and competing well against other people in an appearance sense.
Basically the only route to happiness is by being rich and important so obviously those who are rich and important are those who have better EQ.
Which is a bit of an oversimplifying stretch on his part.
As an example, he is the kind of man who writes this.
I remember the fellow in my own class at Amerherst College who had attaine five perfect 800 scores on the SAT and other achievement tests he took before entering. Despite his formidable intellectual abilities, he set most of his time hanging out, staying up late, and missing classes by sleeping until noon. It took him almost ten years to finally get his degree.
BECAUSE LETS NOT FORGET KIDS, THE ONLY SUCCESSFUL WAY TO DO THINGS IS QUICKLY, K.
I mean this person was not unhappy and yet still his life is considered to be unsuccessful?
Basically implying that being personally happy is are entirely unimportant in measuring the success of a life if you do not achieve it through expected means.
To me that attitude stinks because it is entirely illogical.
It began to become obvous to me that this whole EQ bilge was set up to reward the aquiration of social and emotional processing designed to help you manipulate other people better in order to win at life, as opposed to that which will strictly make you or those around you happy.
Then as if knowing that I needed direct evidence of this, this doozy of oddness came up.
*...four-year-old Judy might seem a wallflower among her more gregarious playmates...she hangs back at playtime...a keen observer of the social politics of her pre school classroom...When Judy's teacher asks her to put each girl and boy in the part of the room they like to play in the most...Judy does so with complete accuracy. These are the skills that, in later life, might allow Judy to blossom into a star in any of the fields where "people skills" count, from sales to management to diplomacy.
*I had to cut out so much irrelevent waffle about the game the teacher had the kids play because it's not really necessary.
Lets be honest more sales than diplomacy because Judy is not interested in the mutuality of social exchange otherwise she would be playing with other kids and not just watching them. How foolish an author is when he can't even seen that just because the activity involves people that that doesn't mean it is at all an example of people skills.
Emotional IQ seems to solidify strictly as learning the social skills required to manipulate other people - the type needed in sales and not those needed to form relationships of mutual exchange.
Which makes it all sound like a book detailing why we should all be sociopaths if we want success at life.
It's just entirely heartless to waffle on about emotion and then to have your first chapter on the topic at hand be all about how we should use it to get what we want from life and have nothing about enjoying it for it's own sake.
It's just so horribly simplistic that even at this stage I am doubting his ability to handle the complexity of analysing or commenting upon the evidence he will present later in the book.
There is no shade for this guy at all.
Brilliantly I found this review of the entire book that includes something I have concluded from like three pages of the third chapter.
"Goleman rarely talks of using emotions in a positive way. He doesn't talk about their value to make needed changes in our lives and in the world. Thus, he underestimates the value of our negative feelings. He doesn't even seem to understand why people even have negative feelings or to understand that humans have natural emotional needs or that "success" and being a "star performer" do not necessarily meet our emotional needs."
Bascially yes he is saying that everyone clearly wants the same things y'all and those who don't are FREAKS WITH LOW EQ.
Not different but defective.
That review also brilliantly hits up this attitude he takes as I said that everything exists purely to make capital otherwise it's worthless and non existent. Unless you are using you social skills to make money or prestige for yourself you clearly don't have them. Man he is essentially sooooo obvious with his agendas that it was obvious to me what he was suggesting three pages into the main part of the book, how lolsome is that. I'm still now only on page 37.
Will I keep reading for the lolz I wonder?