Thoughts on Emotional Intelligence

I find the very concept of emotional intelligence, or EQ, to be interesting. Not in the sense that we have developed our psychological understanding of humanity to a point of harnessing the wild torrents of emotion for our own benefit, as advertised in business settings. But in that we've continued down a path of discounting anything that doesn't fit into the purely logical structures of our present society to the point of finding a new and rational way to tout the benefits of suppressing or manipulating emotion as a healthy practice.

I have recently seen emotional intelligence summed up in the following statement: The ability to experience an emotion without reacting to it. A very grown up concept. At face value, it should certainly seem mature and beneficial. How many immature outbursts, tantrums essentially, have we seen thrown by people who should know better? Individuals overcome with emotion in moments and in places where such outbursts disrupt the feeling of safety and security of those around. Though, this take may be more a result of the boiled-down, buzz word aspects of our society more than the actual study of the subject. So what is the study of EQ?

As with any theory, the longer EQ is studied the more diverse the models of thought surrounding the notion become. There are three models of EQ now being discussed; the Ability, the Mixed, and the Trait model. They, of course, all have a similar central ideology that strikes me as: the harnessing of emotion for blanket achievement. This is largely due to the theory being formulated for business strategies in successful human resource management. The reading of the components of the study of EQ at large come across as a checklist for; recognizing, adapting, and manipulating emotions in oneself and in others to achieve goals. Thank you, Wikipedia.

So, what's wrong with this concept? If the aforementioned people had managed to not react to the emotional trigger, or if they had harnessed their negative emotions to motivate themselves to achieve a more beneficial goal, would they not have erupted in such a display? Perhaps not, however, this idea of rationalizing an emotion to the point of non-reaction strikes me as being similar to seeing the engine light in your car turn on and not stopping to see what is wrong. Or, in a less alarming sense, seeing others laugh at something and not looking to see what caught their amusement.

The perspective of The ability to experience an emotion without reacting to it is very Victorian, very Vulcan. The ability to identify, recognize, and immediately suppress an emotion certainly does seem to fit into the largely logical biased world in which we live. Where our educational system is tuned to focus only upon the factors of reading, writing, and arithmetic at the determent of music, art, and creativity. A logistical focus so arduously enforced that these other aspects, considered a requirement a generation or two ago, are seen as merely extracurricular by today's standards. I can see why this perspective would seem enviable to such a society. Also so in the larger sense of the study of EQ; the harnessing the emotion of oneself or others to achieve goals. Where emotions are to be viewed as merely unfettered horses of motivation that need to be cultivated in order to drive unified action. Largely in benefit of business ends.

However, as intelligent as this concept may seem, it discounts a significant fact of the human being. Specifically that logical processing only makes up a part of our minds. We've all heard it, the logical half and the creative half of the brain. Where linear thought is the language of the logical hemisphere, that is not the language of the other half of our minds. Emotions, flashes of images, concepts out of order, dreams, intuition; these are the languages of our other selves. The subconscious, the creative aspects of humanity. Those parts that suddenly come upon a solution in the middle of the night to a problem that has been vexing us all day. The parts that tell us that a situation is not going to work out, even when all evidence presented says the opposite. The parts that make your heart flutter when you see a crush or recoil in disgust when someone does something reprehensible under the guise of sensibility.

I find EQ risks ignoring, or mishandling, half of the things you try to tell yourself. Disregarding the actual point of the emotion or random thought, and instead utilizing it as fuel to drive your conscious goals. This kind of conscious awareness of the emotional core does not make one empathetic, it makes one emotionally predatory. Training your mind to identify, recognize, and then either disregard or manipulate the emotion to fit the goal is not emotional health; it is emotional manufacturing. Industrialized emotions for an  industrialized age.

If we digress for a brief moment to remember that nature abhors a vacuum and is essentially the great economizer, then how can we disregard roughly 50% of who we are at the core, after ages of evolution, as the fanciful flight of childish whimsy. How can we say that that other half of ourselves has no place in the society we create? Apparently, EQ's answer is that this other 50%, if left unchecked, would bring no benefit to humanity at all. Instead stymieing our development with pointless and random feelings. Only through its use as little more than fodder for goal oriented individuals can we find its true purpose. And that is the new, touted model for proper mental health?

I find that one cannot exist without the other. Logical thought is how we make sense of the physical world, and emotion is how we bring meaning to it. Conscious consideration is how we quantify existence and the subconscious is how we qualify it. Both parts of a whole, not merely fuel for one or the other.

And when someone manages to bring both together in harmony, it results in something amazing: compassion. Present in the majority of the famous figures from the last century; Mandala, Gandhi, Princess Dianna, Mother Teresa, and et al., through their compassion they brought a lasting change to the world. An aspect that appears lacking in the tenets of EQ. I suppose I see EQ more as the app version of something better; boiled-down, DIY kits for people to make the motions of truly compassionate individuals. As if merely the ability to manipulate emotions to motivate people automatically results in something good. I can think of a few motivational speakers in history that were not in line with the public good. I'm sure you can too.

In summary, this language of the subconscious, emotion, is indeed a strong motivator. It is the drive, often illogical, to change our circumstances so we can recognize how unhealthy they may have been. The intuition that guides us when the logical choice is unclear. That which unifies us when circumstances should tear us apart. It is often hailed as, more than anything else, what truly makes us human. To a purely logistical world based upon numbers, quantified results, and a largely financial benefit; it is little wonder that it should be considered in study as nothing more than a force to be harnessed.