THE MENSAN'S MILLSTONE ?
I should perhaps begin by declaring no professional interest in what follows. I touch on it only because I noticed it in passing and it concerns extra to conventional intelligence in humans, and might bear upon what is understood to be an philosophical approach to life. The Cover CD of Future Publishing's August 1999 Issue of Internet Advisor magazine includes a computer program called Emotional Intelligence Test (EIT), by Plumeus Inc. There is no need to be connected to the Internet to use it. The program seems complete, but allows only ten runs.
Based upon brief supporting notes, the thinking behind the program seems to be something like: Initiation, operation and termination of an activity are each ventures in themselves. Modification of a venture is itself a venture. One can be engaged upon a venture. An extension of that venture exists in one's head. Vague or precise, that extension has form and direction, making it a project. One may have many projects; small, large, momentary or lifelong. One focuses on some and overlooks most. Projects are shunted around and modified by each other. Seek the above in: Sidney wondered if it was time to show Alice the railway in his attic.
Next it seems necessary to make up a composite from various statements in the program material: One secures quality of life through becoming; (a) able to control projects, or (b) able to choose which projects to be involved in, or (c) able to modify one's own projects and those of others. But always with sound methods that have oneself and those involved content insofar as possible. This could imply one attempts only what is suitable according to if one is by nature a leader, intermediary or follower. No matter, the essential is that for quality of life one must manage the likes and dislikes of oneself and others, hence manage the emotions of oneself and others, and manage the concrete. The program material then notes many scoring a low IQ achieve good quality of life whilst many scoring a high IQ do not. Another factor is clearly present. It is suggested this is emotion management ability, measurable and expressible as a current rating, and resting upon an emotion management capability that is measurable and expressible as a permanent quotient. So far this means one can understand adequate emotion management to be a prerequisite of adequate fact management. EG: Maybe a low EQ means a high IQ can not achieve quality of life. My word! That explains just about everything that matters doesn't it!
To assess the user the program asks a series of questions, mostly relating to attitude and response in life situations, and, from the answers, offers the user personal Emotional Intelligence Test ratings, to compare against the usual bell shape type distribution curve for the population. A word of caution there, it is possible American/European cultural norms are assumed. Some guidance is also given on what sort of roles in family, work and society the user might presently be comfortable with. And, where it found weaknesses, the program also suggests a range of topic related reading, etc. Finally it emphasises the user should motivate themselves to study, practise and apply whatever is suggested as beneficial, obviously with them continuing with whatever they presently do satisfactorily in emotion management terms, which is not all that easy to pick out from its assessment comments. Overall, notice this is not all about managing one's own emotions, it is also about one managing the emotions of others.
Trusting I have it about right I would make the following observations: The notion of an innate emotional intelligence capability attempting to discern and manage emotional matters is interesting. Several issues develop immediately, some concerning both EQ and IQ. (i) What would be meant by overt and covert management, and forcing management and default management. This is no ordinary branch of knowledge. A great deal of managing in any environment is probably aptitude, study, practise and application, to become proficient in fathoming its dials and operating its levers to best effect. Usually in childhood emotional experiment is momentary, leaving no aftertaste, hates and loves forgotten next day, allowance is made. Most of us drift through the theoretical and applied course in a hazy way, emerging to achieve hazy and safe results. Natural brick walls to run into tend to be few and random. For an adult to study and practise emotion management upon self, relatives, colleagues and friends to become an emotion manager is not to be undertaken lightly. Experimental effects may linger, allowance may not be made. In the adult world it is easy and quick to construct substantial synthetic brick walls. How might one predict one is suited to it. Possibly if, on reflection, one determines one has always tried to properly manage oneself and others. If not, well, perhaps only a little polishing of what one has would be enough. (ii) About a century of welfare studies have shown that ability must not be confused with capability. Whilst sound nutrition, exercise, study and practise can certainly dramatically improve the abilities of a poorly fed and ill educated human, so far it has proved near impossible to increase a well fed and well educated human's capabilities by more than about five per cent. Hence, anyone finding over a year or so their quality of life improves by more than five per cent must make the obvious deduction they were an emotional illiterate. That is what is called rousing the audience. But, consider, should it turn out they double their quality of life in a year, well now, that would be something not to be sneezed at. That is what is called mollifying the audience. (iii) Whilst the advice the program gives might be useful to a user, as far as I can make out the given rating and quotient figures are really only of much use to someone testing someone else, to ascertain what capability the testee has and how much if any education is appropriate for them. This would assume the tester is seeking to assist the testee or is looking for someone of a given profile. There are many examples of what people with given Knowledge or IQ have done, so it is fairly easy if one has one's Knowledge or one's own IQ to find out roughly what sort of level one might likely be able to work to in any intellectual field. But, if one has one's own ER and EQ, against what yardsticks can one compare them. Can one assume high figures ago with being, say, a great composer, the private lives of many of them do not suggest it. (iv) The material says a user could well find their IQ and EQ figures very different. Two questions come to mind: Firstly, is it reliable to assume dependence upon separate aspects of brain structure and chemistry explain this. Secondly, since one's IQ is said to be much the same in all intellectual fields, can approximate equality in maximum depth of all emotions be assumed with EQ, can one take it a person slow to anger is slow to forgive. You see the problems. (v) Is it reasonable to think of ability and capability in regard to all input and output functions; sight, sound, smell, etc. Could we apply an AQ figure to an artist or a GQ figure to a Gourmet. Perhaps some are simply unable to comprehend the finest paintings and finest wines. (vi) As a general matter, is it possible the concept of emotional intelligence significantly contributes to explaining the way some historical characters operated. And, lastly, (vii) One has the feeling a society for the emotionally gifted will soon loom over the horizon. In a world of structured emotion what is the equivalent of a philosopher. What interest groups might develop. How would their members interrelate. It is not so easy to exchange emotional information over a distance. Mutual grooming might be essential practice. It is a relief to be sure and certain I will never pass the entry test. However, theoretically, those who do must sooner or later enormously improve our quality of life, so, should we beat them to it in that regard. I await your giggles and growls with my ears pricked in eager anticipation.
Albert Dean
Albert : I tried out one of the EQ tests on the Web the other day. It seems my EQ is half my IQ, which probably says something. What, I don’t know. I’m not sure I have much faith in either concept.
Theo