Emotional Intelligence: Why It Can Matter More Than IQ : Daniel Goleman

**Bathsheba** · July 15th, 2009, 11:12 PM

A review from: 50 Self-Help Classics: 50 Inspirational Books To Transform Your Life by Tom Butler-Bowdon (London & Boston: Nicholas Brealey)

*
Through the application of intelligence to emotion, we can improve our lives immeasurably;
*
Emotions are habits, and like any habit can undermine our best intentions;
*
By unlearning some emotions and developing others, we gain control of our lives.

If this were all there was to it, it would not be a very interesting book, but Emotional Intelligence is one of most successful self-help tomes of the last decade, and has reached well beyond what would normally be considered a traditional self-help reading audience. Researchers had been expanding our idea of what intelligence is for some time, but it took Goleman's book to catapult the idea of emotional intelligence into the mainstream. In saying that IQ is not a particularly good predictor of achievement, that it is only one of many 'intelligences', and that emotional skills are statistically more important in life success, Emotional Intelligence was bound to be well-received.

Following is a breakdown of the book and some of its key points.

Civilizing the brain

In looking at the way the brain is wired, the book removes some of the mystery from our feelings, particularly the compulsive ones. The physiology of our brains is a hangover from ancient times when physical survival was everything. This brain structure was designed for 'acting before thinking', useful when in the path of a flying spear or in an encounter with an angry mammoth. We are people walking around in the 21st century with the brains of cave-dwellers, and Goleman tells us about the 'emotional hijackings' that can trigger spur of the moment murder, even of a longstanding spouse.

Using emotional intelligence

Parts Two and Three go into the elements of emotional intelligence and its application in real life. Goleman notes that the problem is not the emotions per se, but their appropriate use in given situations. He quotes Aristotle: 'Anyone can become angry - that is easy. But to be angry with the right person, to the right degree, at the right time, for the right purpose, and in the right way - this is not easy.' Aristotle's challenge becomes all the more important in a technologically advanced world, because the meaning of 'civilization' ceases to be technological, defaulting back to the nature of man and the quest for self-control.

Part Three applies the lessons of emotional intelligence to intimate relationships, work and health. The relationships chapter alone is worth more than many entire books on the subject, intricately describing the neuroscience behind the Martian and Venusian worlds of the sexes.

Emotion and morality

In making the link between emotional life and ethics, Goleman notes that if a person cannot control their impulsiveness, damage will be done to their deepest sense of self; control of impulse '...is the base of will and character' he says. Compassion, that other benchmark of character, is enabled by the ability to appreciate what others are feeling and thinking. These two elements are basic to emotional intelligence, and therefore basic attributes of the moral person.

Emotional intelligence makes a winner

Other major qualities of emotional intelligence are persistence and the ability to motivate oneself. These are not emotions per se but require self-control and the ability to put negative emotions and experiences into context.

Goleman validates 'the power of positive thinking' as a scientifically proven approach to achieving success, and says an optimistic outlook is a key clinical predictor of actual performance, borrowing from research done by Martin Seligman (see Learned Optimism).

The obsession with IQ was a product of the 20th century's model of mechanistic achievement; EQ, in its focus on empathic people skills and relationships, is a basic success element in a more fluid and creative 21st century economy.

The world of work

Goleman's work has had a significant impact on the workplace and business world. Though he only devotes one chapter to management, it is clear that the concept of emotional intelligence has struck a nerve with workers angry or hurt by the low emotional capacities of their bosses. Similarly, it has shined a light for many bosses and team leaders who wonder what they can do to improve maddeningly poor performance. As you suddenly see that half your organization is emotionally stupid, your standards will inevitably rise.

One fascinating chapter 'When smart is dumb', puts IQ in its place amongst several other types of intelligence. As everyone who has worked in an office environment will know, you may be producing the most exciting product around, but it will still be a miserable place to work if it is also an arena for the clash of egos. Business success is the result of passion for a vision or a product. Though big egos are often associated with such success, better companies are notable for their ability to create harmony and excitement by focusing on the product or the vision, not the organization. These ideas are further spelled out in the spin-off Working With Emotional Intelligence.

Teaching EQ

Emotional Intelligence has its roots in the concept 'emotional literacy', and in the final part of the book Goleman expounds on the need for EQ skills to become part of school curricula. With facts and figures he has no trouble convincing us of the high costs - monetary and societal well-being - of not teaching children how to deal with their emotions constructively and resolve conflict.

Final comments

Part of Goleman's motivation in writing Emotional Intelligence was the thought of millions of readers relying on self-help books which 'lacked scientific basis', and indeed the book comes out of an impeccable academic and research milieu. Goleman appears to know all the key people in the field, notably Harvard intelligence researcher Howard Gardner, New York University's Joseph LeDoux, and Yale's Peter Salovey, who first provided the concept of emotional intelligence.

Yet this Emotional Intelligence a self-help book in the classic mould. Pointing to the extraordinarily malleable circuitry of the brain, and our ability to shape the experience of our emotions, one of his great points is that 'temperament is not destiny'. We are not beholden to our habits of mind and emotion, even if they seem like an unchangeable part of us.

The most alluring implication of Emotional Intelligence is that greater awareness and control of our emotions on a large scale would mean an evolution of the species. We believe that hate, rage, jealousy, etc. are 'only human', but when we look at the finest human beings of this century - the Ghandis, the Martin Luther Kings, the Mother Teresas - we find such negative emotions were remarkably absent. These people were able to express anger according to Aristotle's dictum - they could use their emotions instead of letting their emotions use them. What could be a better definition of civility or humanity?

smiles4u · July 16th, 2009, 12:50 AM

One ' thing' that has absolutely always fascinated me is the fact the brain is still not ' completely ' understood and the fact i question Will it ever be (??) ... That within itself brings on an emotional onset of the unknown for me on a very different level compared to anything else ' unknown ' BUT in a curious and positive manner, now that i immerse in (I think i maybe ODD, LOL)

**Bathsheba** · July 16th, 2009, 10:38 AM

'Anyone can become angry - that is easy. But to be angry with the right person, to the right degree, at the right time, for the right purpose, and in the right way - this is not easy.'

This is what I was mulling over this morning on my walk doing the school run. Yesterday I felt really angry at the silly receptionist at my DS's school. I wanted to let the school know that my son had missed the first 3 days of term due to illness. She asked what he had and I said a combination of a cold/middle ear infection and conjunctivitis. And I added that today he was borderline... probably should be at school because is bored out of his mind and running around the house wanting to let of steam etc. I said that it's really hard to know somedays if they should go to school because they seem really sick at night but are fine during the day. Anyhow the receptionist latched onto the fact that he had had conjunctivitis... and said that he really shouldn't be at school. I said that the discharged had been gone for 2 days.... and that now his eyes were just a bit bloodshot. She barked: doesn't matter keep him home. I quietly fumed mainly due to her dismissive tone of voice. She didn't know me... I've worked in childcare and am all too familiar with infection control! I would never send my child into a school/care environment if they were at all infectious. But this woman was implying that I would! I can understand her frustration because so many parents DO send their children to school unwell... usually because they have work commitments. Now this is where I needed to make sure that I didn't attack back due a personal frustration that has nothing to do with her... even though I was tempted. I feel like that because I am a SAHM that I don't have the same rights as a working person. If I get sick I don't get to take a sick day! I have to soldier on and care for children! Of course I didn't vent on her. But back to the phone conversation... the worst thing about it was that she basically told me to keep my son home until Friday and that "I have to go I don't have time for this".

Well excuse me! So I rang Nurse On Call and was told by a very helpful woman that according to Victorian Government School Health and Exclusion policies a child with conjunctivitis can return to school as soon as the discharge has ceased. Thankyou! That's all I wanted to know... I didn't need to be told in a robotic voice: "Keep you child home from school if they are sick" over and over like the stupid receptionist did... because sometimes it's actually hard to tell!

So, breathing deeply, I reflected on all that transpired. I felt angry. But what would getting angry with the receptionist actually achieve? She probably doesn't even have children of her own. Maybe if I wanted to persue it I could write a letter to the principal? Maybe the source of my anger was my own frustration and lack of sleep due to dealing with 3 sick kids and not feeling that well myself over the past week? Maybe I had to own a bit of the anger instead of displacing it onto other people. I finally came to conclusion that being angry isn't really an appropriate response to this situation. Maybe mild frustration would be a better reaction. Ok... so now I have to let it GO. Time to move on

Now I have this little phrase (at the top of this post in bold) of being angry in my EQ toolbox I hope to save myself a lot of unnecessary angst!

Lorelle: Goleman has written another book about how our brains are a amazingly adaptable and fluid (ie not a finished work) and this is one aspect behind why we can't "understand" it because simply speaking it doesn't "stand still" long enough for us to get a good look at it!!!

**HotI** · July 16th, 2009, 11:22 AM

I feel like that because I am a SAHM that I don't have the same rights as a working person. If I get sick I don't get to take a sick day! I have to soldier on and care for children! Of course I didn't vent on her.

So, breathing deeply, I reflected on all that transpired. I felt angry. But what would getting angry with the receptionist actually achieve? She probably doesn't even have children of her own.

At the beginning it sounded like you believed the receptionist' reaction was due to you being a SAHM, and her possibly not recognising the skills that you have. And this was frustrating to you.

Later, you disregarded her comments because you assume that she doesn't have kids of her own, and therefore her point of view doesn't count?

I see that you are in a reflective mood, and this was something that just occurred to me from your post. Something to ponder?

**Bathsheba** · July 16th, 2009, 11:33 AM

Not sure what you mean... I didn't assume that she didn't have children of her own I was just trying to work out why she seemed to lack any degree of understanding as to how it is not always black and white... she just kept saying "keep your child home if they are sick"... not acknowledging the grey area. If a child has been awake the previous night with an earache but is running around by lunchtime (no earache) is the child sick or not? If a child has slightly bloodshot eyes but no discharge is my child sick or not? I don't get people who refuse to see shades of grey when there clearly are. I was trying to work out why she refused to see the shades of grey... surely if she had kids of her own she would know that there are OFTEN shades of grey.

Do you think I over reacted in my own head? Maybe she does have kids of her own but was in a bad mood for other reasons? Who knows... but I don't think she needed to be so abrupt. And she certainly should have never said that she didn't have time to speak to me.... that was not professional... she should have asked me f I would like to speak to another staff member about my concerns... afterall she is a receptionist... I don't know why she asked me what illness my son had either... I never expected to really speak with her... I expected that she would put me through to the school nurse perhaps.

Anyhow... it's interesting how emotions can either interfere with or contribute to getting results isn't it?

**HotI** · July 16th, 2009, 11:56 AM

She probably doesn't even have children of her own. Maybe if I wanted to persue it I could write a letter to the principal?

I don't think you over reacted at all. I don't think her response was correct. And you checking with Nurse on Call that your beliefs were correct is what i would have done.

I just found it interesting that when the interaction occurred, you believed that it had something to do with you being a SAHM. Whether the receptionist thought about this at all, i don't know.

But later in your post when you had worked out that what she had said wasn't true (re conjunctavitis and keeping kids home), you made this comment.

She probably doesn't even have children of her own. Maybe if I wanted to persue it I could write a letter to the principal?

So making the assumption that she doesn't have kids.

I guess the difference is that the first bit of the story, you thought she was telling you things DUE TO you being a SAHM, and the second you found her info to be inaccurate and then said she she probably doesn't have children of her own.

So Assumption and reaction vs evidence and then asumption

Maybe i am just talking in circles?

**Bathsheba** · July 16th, 2009, 11:59 AM

you believed the receptionist' reaction was due to you being a SAHM, and her possibly not recognising the skills that you have.

I said this:

"Now this is where I needed to make sure that I didn't attack back due a personal frustration that has nothing to do with her... even though I was tempted. I feel like that because I am a SAHM that I don't have the same rights as a working person. If I get sick I don't get to take a sick day! I have to soldier on and care for children! Of course I didn't vent on her."

So this is where I owned my feelings... whether my feelings were right or wrong were irrelevant because I didn't act on them. I didn't speak to the women with abruptness... my tone was inquiry... her was impatience. We both made choices on how we allowed our emotions to play a role in the phone discussion. It's interesting how they differed.

**Bathsheba** · July 16th, 2009, 12:06 PM

In making the link between emotional life and ethics, Goleman notes that if a person cannot control their impulsiveness, damage will be done to their deepest sense of self; control of impulse '...is the base of will and character' he says. Compassion, that other benchmark of character, is enabled by the ability to appreciate what others are feeling and thinking. These two elements are basic to emotional intelligence, and therefore basic attributes of the moral person.

Without belittling the receptionist to make myself feel better I believe this is where she could have done better: displayed a higher EQ by showing at least a small degree of compassion. She also wasn't able to resist the impulse to tell me that she didn't have time to talk. A better EQ response (a more professional response) would have been to ask if I would like to speak to a more appropriate member of staff.

ETA: Oh and Kate, thanks for reading all this LOL I don't think you are questioning me in a negative manner BTW

smiles4u · July 16th, 2009, 01:22 PM

Thanks Bath, must check that book out as it sounds like it might be right up my ally of interest

Also i wanted to add Bath my reaction would have been VERY similar to yours today with the receptionist. After my having a career & obviously been amongst the workforce ' world ' until i was 40 to give birth to DD and even though i have a little business on the Net now that's not the same satisfaction as being in the workforce. I too am a SAHM ... i am treated on an extreme level of difference that it actually still shocks me, even more shocking family & friends that knew me for so darn long as a busy don't have too time for everyone am i allowed to call my previous self a ' workforce gal ', they too treat me very differently. Strange though as i still feel i have maybe not the same buzz but that buzz is still there about me. Motherhood hasn't always felt like a natural process for me so therefore i do alot of the time feel like each of my feet are planted into two different working worlds, given that i am no longer in one of the worlds for now. Maybe because i was in the workforce for so long (??) i feel this way, kind of like that workforce buzz is still attaching itself to me cause it was PART of me for so long & i do not all the time but at times do miss it, i truely don't know. I ' think ' i'm not like most Mothers i meet, maybe i could be wrong ... but i don't mind as it makes me who i am today. Bath as far as frustration goes i'm right up there with you. I have found as i get older i walk away from rudely mannered people as i spent too much energy and time in the past on those sorts of people ... and got nowhere with it, and to top it off walk away angry. So now i walk away and ' allow ' myself to feel p@ssed off for a little while as it's natural to get it out of one's system and then find something wonderful in my day after the incident and then bring on my sense of humour and try very hard to have a giggle if not a smirk about it ... and then get on with my day

Not an easy task BUT i guess i could say i HAVE had lots of practise, LOL

... NO room for debates in my life ... Just GETS my blood pressure rising and i'd rather have some inner peace instead, LIFE certainly is far too short for my liking. I deal with ' things' in a manner that suits me maybe NOT others BUT having said that it doesn't make me a weak character but a rather a very STRONG one. I SPEAK UP when need be & it can be done in a kind and gentle manner without being ill mannered to others ... if i did it would go against the grain of whom i feel proud to be.

Bath, i just wanted YOU to know i DO get where you are coming from

... and stay true to who you are & never be anyone else less WONDERFUL ...
(

A smile for you lovely lady from me)

(Wow, how some of this ties in with a bit of your thread ... Emotions !!!)

**Lulu** · July 16th, 2009, 02:01 PM

I don't even bother wondering why someone is rude to me. I just assume they are having a crappy day and leave it at that.

Some days it seems as if the entire universe is having a crappy day and I know it's got nothing to do with me. How could it? Something like a rude receptionist or snotty checkout chick mildly irritates me, if someone speaks to me like I don't know anything I don't care because he could they know I DO know what I am talking about if they don't know me?
Fark - what a sentence!

smiles4u · July 16th, 2009, 03:03 PM

Lulu, ... you get my funny spot every time, always wuv your posts

... Please NEVER lose your humour woman or no one else will crack me up as much Here

xox

**Lulu** · July 16th, 2009, 04:31 PM

I wasn't meaning to be funny actually, but sometimes my brain is faster than my fingers OR the reverse!

To make my point a little (I hope) clearer - there isn't much point assuming or speculating about WHY someone responds a certain way, not thinking how 'dare' they talk to me like that.
I mean if you want to speculate, why stop at assuming the receptionist doesn't have children OR she would think you would send a sick kid to school. You could stretch it right out and think......maybe the Principal just buzzed her out for not finishing something she tried hard to do, or she got a flat tyre that morning, or that she got home early last night to find her husband wearing her french knickers and heels. You could go on and on and on thinking about why she had the attitude and/or what she thought about you, but I think that's either stewing/overthinking it.

Same as deciding what an appropriate response was on the EQ scale. To me it a bit of a waste of time - esp if I could be daydreaming about Johnny Depp instead

**Bathsheba** · July 16th, 2009, 04:42 PM

Hmmm.... I think it just happens (imagining why someone reacts the way they do)... it's just how I am... maybe it's a defense mechanism. Maybe it's the only way I can handle the fact that so many are so mean? If the reality was that people are mean just because they are mean and they actually LIKE to make me feel awful I think I would spiral into depression! I think that 99% of the time people have reasons behind their meanness that are nothing about me so why not acknowledge it? I know myself when I am being awful it's usually because of some completely unrelated issue. So why not give the benefit of the doubt to other people?

I guess I'd like it if they could do the same for me. So I guess for me it's not a waste of time because it's a knee jerk reaction... based on self preservation. It's probably done more good than harm... if I didn't do it I would definitely be involved in more conflict in my life.

smiles4u · July 16th, 2009, 04:53 PM

So true Bath ... Conflict yeh who wants that, eeeek

(yep rather hide under a chair then put up with that unwelcome rubbish)... But sadly ' some ' people get off on it (as you know) !!! ... Hope your day got heaps better as you need some super charged energy for your very BIG special day this weekend, ... Nudge nudge wink wink

**Lulu** · July 16th, 2009, 05:10 PM

But surely imagining that receptionists husband in her underwear is a funner path to self-preservation?

In any case - it doesn't mean that she WANTED you to feel bad or crap just because she was mean. She may merely have been having a bad day.
If it's not about you (and it probably wasn't), it's not about you.
Why not speculate in a more positive way. It is out of the realms of possibility that once she gets home tonight and unwinds a little that she might think 'geez, I was a bit rude to that poor lady on the phone today' and feel bad? Or resolve not take her bad mood out on customers again next time, to try harder?
OR EVEN this - what if 2 mins before your call she got some terrible news? In which case a snotty attitude wouldn't seem so bad in the scheme of things. Feel me?

More like FC's thread - you need to take the ego out of it. Of course you would feel depressed if you thought everyone wanted to make you feel like poo, so why assume that? Are you that important that people go out of their way to crap you off? Or could it be a brief moment in time that someones manners slipped?

On one hand you say 99% of the time there is something behind the meanness that's not related to you, so why can't you leave it at that? I'm telling you - it's easier!

**Bathsheba** · July 16th, 2009, 05:33 PM

It's how I am Lulu... maybe it is because I have an inflated ego

but I don't think she deliberately wanted to make me feel like a stupid timewaster... I just think she demonstrated a low EQ at that particular time... she lacked professionalism and she's probably not even aware of it. So many people just go through life without even stopping to think if they are being fair or even valuing treating people with decency. Society instills in us a sense of valuing IQ. Everyone knows it pays to be smart with numbers or words or facts.... but does society ask us to increase/improve our EQ? I don't see much evidence of it to be honest. Infact there is more evidence of support for a low EQ: value stuff over relationships, persue the status, keep your eyes on the prize at all costs, take the easy path, get rich quick, I want it now. Are these helpful? I wrote in another thread that people in developed Western societies are turning into spectators rather than participants in life... we prefer the safety of watching and judging... we are become so ego-centric... just like children. And just like children our skills of empathy are becoming more and more limited. People don't have the time to think about anyone elses perspective as they hurry through life in their quest of More. Maybe my choice to lead a slower paced life than most allows me to be this way... I am not the kind of person who likes to be rushed and I refuse to lead as fast a life as most people I know because too many important things get overlooked. But I'm rambling now. I guess my main point was that I identified this exchange with a school receptionist as an example of how choosing my emotional reaction could work for me. It honestly was not that much of an effort. I like the outcome.

ETA: also maybe I do take life too seriously but from what I am told I was born that way: with an analytical frown on my face. I know it's fun to be able to laugh at things at bit more but that's not a glove that fits me... and I think that's ok... I play to my strengths and try to improve my weaknesses. The world needs a laugh but I'm ok with quiet reflection too.