
Emotional Intelligence is Overrated - hownottowrite
https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/article/20140930125543-69244073-emotional-intelligence-is-overrated
======
Htsthbjig
For me it could be one of the most important things.

As a manager and entrepreneur we had some people that were intellectually
bright, masters of cognitive ability, but were miserable and made everybody
miserable.

As bright as they were, they had their partners or children abusing them, or
cheating. It was clear that they were not bright in other areas of their life.

The problem was when they projected their anger, frustration or cynicism on
other members of the team.

This is a red line for me, I learned to never tolerate this and it is one of
the best thing you could do for your team.

Emotions are addictive and contagious. It you let negative emotions of one
member go against the team, soon the entire team will react and
escalate(people work this way, hey he insulted me so I double the insult back
and so on).

In lots of jobs, emotional intelligence is not that important, specially when
you can "outsource" it from the workers to managers but on sales it is an
essential ability.

~~~
ninjaplease
Your employees were being abused and you blame them? Think your own emotional
intelligence might need a firmware upgrade.

~~~
philh
Ve described a situation and what ve did about that situation. Ve didn't say
anything about assigning blame.

~~~
ANTSANTS
Ve?

~~~
philh
Gender-neutral pronoun.

~~~
aninhumer
We have one of those already, it's "they".

~~~
philh
I sometimes use that, but it feels awkward to me when referring to a specific
person. And in this case, I think that at one point I was using "they" to
refer to the employees, and didn't want the ambiguity.

(I'll note that I've had this discussion multiple times before. I'm fine with
people expressing disapproval of my choice, but please assume that I'm not
making it out of ignorance.)

~~~
aninhumer
It takes some getting used to, but I think "they" is still a lot less awkward
than using a completely new word.

My post was probably more condescending than necessary.

------
RankingMember
A more accurate title for this article would be "Emotional intelligence
doesn't correlate to increased measurable performance (in dollars and cents)."

Having someone who's productive in the metric of work throughput doesn't
necessarily a desirable employee make.

Particularly, I take issue with his apparent notion that emotional
intelligence is only applicable in certain fields: "This isn’t to say that
emotional intelligence is useless. It's relevant to performance in jobs where
you have to deal with emotions every day, like sales, real estate, and
counseling. If you’re selling a house or helping people cope with tragedies,
it’s very useful to know what they’re feeling and respond appropriately. But
in jobs that lack these emotional demands—like engineering, accounting, or
science[...]"

Unless this employee is working for themselves in the dark vacuum of space,
they're going to need to talk to people, and anyone who's worked with someone
with zero emotional intelligence can tell you what a drag that can be.

~~~
autistsadvocate
_> Particularly, I take issue with his apparent notion that emotional
intelligence is only applicable in certain fields_

Others may take issue with the notion that there are no fields for which one
with less emotional intelligence is not universally inferior.

 _> anyone who's worked with someone with zero emotional intelligence can tell
you what a drag that can be._

Do not conflate "zero emotional intelligence" (i.e. the clueless, innocently
blunt) for "destructive personality" (i.e. the arrogant, egotistical,
aggressive, confrontational etc.)

~~~
RankingMember
Just so it's clear, my post isn't picking on people on the autism spectrum any
more than the universe is picking on me by making my skin deficient in melanin
such that I sunburn easily.

My opinion is that emotional intelligence is something that can be learned.
Some people will struggle more than others, but we all have our challenges to
overcome.

~~~
aninhumer
I know some autistic people who are actually far better at it, probably
because they've had to actually learn it, instead of relying on instinct.

------
ryanx435
it is actually extremely valuable.

I'm a project manager at a big company that makes medical devices. we recently
got our first shipment of prototypes, which we ordered and payed for months
ago (because of long lead times for some of the parts). turns out, not enough
units to go around for all the various testing. no one's fault, really, we
just estimated our need inaccurately 6 months ago.

my job is literally to make everybody happy with what they get. this requires
navigating the emotional landscape that is all the different
hardware/software/firmware/quality/mechanical/marketing/whomever engineers and
team leads and ensuring that everybody maintains high moral wh8le dealing with
a lack of resources.

and yes, morale is extremely important to a productive team if you want to get
anything done at a level of sufficient quality.

it's not easy.

I've got to recognize when someone is angry but staying quiet so I can remedy
their situation. I've got to recognize when someone is holding back available
resources from another party because of available personal vendetta. I've got
to recognize when emotions are about to Crack and prevent the team from going
over the cliff.

basically what I'm saying is that emotional intelligence is very important.
without it, key players would get angry and fed up and quit.

the reason people think it is over rated is because it's hard to recognize
until it isn't there.

~~~
fleitz
Well now that we have an anecdote, lets throw out the data.

~~~
pedrosorio
The "data" in the article doesn't take into account management or any of the
situations referred by the parent comment.

~~~
dreamweapon
And that's one of the fundamental flaws of the article: it attempts to asses
the value of IQ or EQ with mean individual performance -- and completely
ignores what matters most, which is of course group performance.

------
emmelaich
Without falling on either side of the debate, it's probably a good time to
bring out this quote from 1704.

    
    
        "Good engineers are so scarce, that one must bear with their humours"
    
        - Lord Galway, 1704

------
eruditely
Yes, but rationality in the sense of Stanovich isn't. See.

[http://www.amazon.com/Rationality-Reflective-Mind-Keith-
Stan...](http://www.amazon.com/Rationality-Reflective-Mind-Keith-
Stanovich/dp/0195341147)

Touches on the phenomenon of "Smart people acting dumb" if I have to state it
utterly crudely. This is not one of the common knee-jerk reactions to
intelligence metrics. The book itself is incredible.

Summary of his previous work here
[http://lesswrong.com/lw/2g1/what_intelligence_tests_miss_the...](http://lesswrong.com/lw/2g1/what_intelligence_tests_miss_the_psychology_of/)

Dysrationalia: Separating Rationality and Intelligence talks about the
phenomenon informally described as "smart but acting stupid". Stanovich notes
that if we used a broad definition of intelligence, where intelligence only
meant acting in an optimal manner, then this expression wouldn't make any
sense. Rather, it's a sign that people are intuitively aware of IQ and
rationality as measuring two separate qualities. Stanovich then brings up the
concept of dyslexia, which the DSM IV defines as "reading achievement that
falls substantially below that expected given the individual's chronological
age, measured intelligence, and age-appropriate education". ..... He argues
that since we have a precedent for creating new disability categories when
someone's ability in an important skill domain is below what would be expected
for their intelligence, it would make sense to also have a category for
"dysrationalia":

~~~
jrapdx3
Actually, the DSM (4, 5) does _not_ have a diagnosis of "dyslexia". DSM 4 does
have "Reading Disorder" (315.0), and other learning disorders. The terminology
was changed in DSM 5 (see
[http://www.dsm5.org/Documents/Specific%20Learning%20Disorder...](http://www.dsm5.org/Documents/Specific%20Learning%20Disorder%20Fact%20Sheet.pdf)).

The term "dyslexia" is used in the DSM's description of reading/learning
disorders but was considered too imprecise to be used as a diagnosis.

It's probably obvious to most reading here that the ability to manipulate
abstract representations, e.g., rational thought, is necessary but
insufficient for adequate real-world problem solving that individual and group
survival depends on.

Emotional reaction is also an essential survival tool functioning as a built-
in signaling or warning system. Reactions serve as an "alert", triggering
responses, arousing attention, motivating problem-solving and accordingly,
reasoned action. However, in an emergency (e.g., a distinct threat), emotional
reactions can be translated directly to action as in "fight or flight"
activation.

Emotionality becomes problematic when emotional information is not adequately
integrated with cognition/rational processing. If a person can't reason about
emotion, reactions are more likely to "take over", and "primitive"
(aggressive, "overly emotional") behaviors occur.

"Dysrationalia" or failure of logical thought or problem-solving is too
general a phenomenon to have diagnostic specificity. IOW many better specified
conditions manifest forms of "executive dysfunction", which I guess is the
idea you were getting at.

~~~
eruditely
And no specifically it is _not_ executive dysfunction which is too low level a
concept, something that is entirely addressed in his book. He specifically
addresses how executive dysfunction means lack of supervisory processes and
how rationality is more all encompassing.

You posted some "101" material to something so far beyond it I don't think you
will be able to take yourself seriously after you survey his work.

[http://www.keithstanovich.com/Site/Research_on_Reading.html](http://www.keithstanovich.com/Site/Research_on_Reading.html)

------
kenjackson
Is it really overrated? I've never heard of anyone using emotional
intelligence in the real world.

That said, I'm actually surprised that it doesn't negatively correlate with
sales performance. When I worked sales, it seemed that those that did the best
were those who could leave their compassion and empathy at the door and really
push -- it was a lot more Boiler Room than really understanding the customers
needs. But maybe that was just an isolated experience.

~~~
outside1234
The might have left their compassion and empathy at the door, but not their
perception on if the other side could be pushed harder.

~~~
kenjackson
Definitely. As one of the top sales people would say (paraphrased), "A polite
no is no different than someone cussing you out. Either way you don't get the
sale. And some people you can effectively force to buy something they don't
want."

------
hindsightbias
EI is just another tool to manipulate people to the ends desired, and there
will always be people who don't think they're emotional creatures.

Kirk always got Spock to do what he wanted.

------
dschiptsov
One more thing.

 _Experts agree that it has three major elements: perceiving, understanding,
and regulating emotions._ \- One's own emotions, in the first place!
Manipulating other people's emotions is a mere cunning.

 _Cognitive ability was more than five times more powerful than emotional
intelligence. The average employee with high cognitive ability generated
annual revenue of over $195,000, compared with $159,000 for those with
moderate cognitive ability and $109,000 for those with low cognitive ability.
Emotional intelligence added nothing after measuring cognitive ability._ \-
and this is just a stuffed with numbers bullshit for CEOs.

For starters - so called "cognitive ability" without a corresponding ability
to control and manage one's own emotions is a plain nonsense. The too-well-
known marshmallow test and studies of so-called "cultures of honor" are
exactly about this.

People who haven't recognize the faulty of one's own uncontrolled emotions and
one's own undisciplined mind as the cause of suffering, who have done nothing
to improve themselves just cannot be considered smart or intelligent.

------
vecter
Maybe in sales, but there's a whole big world outside of sales. Most of the
interactions your team will be having is internal. If you have people who have
low emotional intelligence, it's going to make it hard for your team to
functional smoothly. This study doesn't measure that in any way.

------
shele
They are looking at the wrong question. Of course, productive output of a
person does not depend so much on his/her EQ, but their output and their
working conditions may depend a lot on the EQ of others in the group
(especially the boss ^^).

------
beloch
My gut emotional feeling is that I'd like to see solid procedures and numbers
from the study rather than a somewhat vague description before I'll be
convinced either way.

~~~
threatofrain
I think there is actually a mountain of research in this area, and I believe
that the general community of industrial / organizational scientists in this
area have accepted that general mental ability is a really hard predictor (of
work performance) to beat, and that it's a robust and powerful predictor
across a variety of job categories. The author of the post actually listed one
or two citations, but if you wanted the general opinion of the field, I think
you should look for a review article.

I am not at all surprised that some CEO's offhanded suggestion / bet failed to
unseat general mental ability as one of the most reliable and effective
predictors of work performance. That doesn't mean that you should have a
single-metric employment criterion. You could always select for both emotional
and cognitive ability, you just have to judge whether it's worth sieving for
that versus something else.

------
Glan1984
How does one really test for emotional intelligence? Emotional intelligence is
by definition difficult to quantify. For that matter so is problem solving
ability; a five minute problem solving exercise does not seem sufficient. Did
they account for years of experience in sales? Were all the salesmen selling
the same thing? At the same location? What about height? What about looks?

------
snowwrestler
Well, the concept of whether something is "overrated" is a squishy one.
Overrated by whom? Rated by what criteria?

As to the question of whether emotional intelligence has value, the answer is
clearly yes, as even this author admits:

> Cognitive ability is the capacity to learn. The higher your cognitive
> ability, the easier it is for you to develop emotional intelligence when you
> need it. (This is one of the reasons that emotional intelligence and
> cognitive ability turn out to correlate positively, not negatively.)

So, it's not that emotional intelligence doesn't matter, but rather that it's
possible for very smart people to be emotionally intelligent as well.

But where does cognitive ability come from? Quite a lot of what the author
calls cognitive ability is actually developed through learning: "the
capability to reason and solve verbal, logical, and mathematical problems."

And the first crucial step toward such learning is emotional intelligence.
There is quite a lot of research showing that very young children who are
taught how to recognize, name, and discuss their emotions achieve more in
education and career than those who are not. The book "Brain Rules for Baby"
summarizes much of this research.

------
capkutay
Some people have a special knack for reading people's posture, expressions,
vocal inflections. Others can at least listen to the words of their peers and
take that into consideration.

On the other hand, some people are emotionally deaf/blind. I've witnessed
occurrences of that multiple times and it always appalls me.

~~~
ObviousScience
Why?

I find it a little strange that people constantly have such trouble with basic
math concepts, such as variables, fractions, or exponents - things I
understood clearly as an elementary school kid.

But there's reasons to think that there's a slight variance in our brain
structures and how we perceive things, and that this coupled with our
inclination to work at what we're good at leaves people with vastly different
levels of skill in particular subject areas by the time they're adults.

It likely appalls me that I continually have to explain basic statistics to
executives making decisions based on the information the same way it appalls
you that you see people who don't seem to understand emotional concepts.

However, insisting that everyone should know what you know, or be as
proficient at the things you're good at as you are, especially when all you do
is condemn them for not being rather than genuinely helping them understand
makes you an asshole.

I think a lot of people who are good at emotions (and more generally, topics
related to people) often forget both how talented they are at those topics and
the great deal of time they've spent developing those skills (eg, they're
likely to have spent considerably more time socializing).

Just because something is obvious or straightforward for you now doesn't mean
that it's that way for other people or that they're not just putting in the
little effort it would be for you. (This applies to many topics and
situations, really.)

tl;dr: Most people persons I've met seem to have forgotten how much work they
put in to people related skills, and just assume everyone should be as good as
they are at their subject.

------
golemotron
An article about Emotional Intelligence on LinkedIn? Umm...

------
dschiptsov
It depends of what you mean by 'Emotional Intelligence'.) If it is the hype
which began with the book - well, it is overrated, and just hype. But if you
think of the thousand years old Asian tradition of cultivating and maintaining
a "balanced self" (via Indian meditation techniques or Asian Zen practices -
doesn't really matter) then try to find anything more underrated. Losing the
balance, losing ones face is considered to be very disgraceful and shameful
event.)

The more clear way could be this: consider that so-called "emotional centers"
in a brain (close to the center) are much more "ancient" than those in the
cortex, which is a relatively "recent development" (we, presumably, share
"emotional centers" with higher mammals). Thus it is very important (I would
say - the most important) "part" of our brain - the world is non-verbal, it is
"physical".

So, "training to develop of gaining and _habitual_ maintaining of a fine
control over these centers via breath techniques and other practices" which is
called "meditation" is a very important aspect of one's personal development,
especially in so-called primitive "cultures of honor". The results we could
see in these "tranquil" south Asian and Indian cultures.

And, of course, the book and resulting hype is nothing but re-telling the same
ancient ideas for a modern stress-ridden, anxiety-prone, ignorant busybody
consumers.

A much better book, by the way, is the "7 Habits" classic. Same ideas,
different context.

