Customer Reviews

Emotional Intelligence: Why It Can Matter More than IQ

5 star:		(79)
4 star:		(35)
3 star:		(25)
2 star:		(10)
1 star:		(17)

 

 

This book just confirms what I've been thinking for years- intelligence, that is "book smarts", is just ONE piece of what contributes to a person's overall success in life- and in no way guarantees anything. You can be the smartest person in the world, but if you don't have other qualities like self-esteem or persistence- well, there's a good chance that you won't be happy. Case in point, there is no scientific literature linking IQ or academic ability to happiness levels. Anyway, this book does a good job of elaborating on the idea that intelligence will only get you so far in life- and spends its time telling you why. Here's a quick rundown of the book's five parts:

-Part 1 talks about the brain's "emotional architecture"
-Part 2 shows the reader how neurological givens play out in the most basic flair for living called "emotional intelligence"
-Part 3 examines some key differences this aptitude makes
-Part 4 gets into emotional intelligence and childhood
-Part 5 explores the hazards of not mastering the emotional side of things

So, if the idea of improving your life by taking a look at the emotional side of things sounds interesting to you, I would highly recommend checking this book it out. Other self-help books I liked include Exercise Beats Depression.

Ever since I read Martin Gardiner's book on multiple intelligences, I have been intrigued by the study of how we learn and the different types of intelligence. No one disputes that mathematical/analytical brain-power is a very different type of intelligence from the kind of bodily intelligence that makes someone a graceful gymnast or a super athlete; while there is often some cross-over between the kinds of intelligence that make for good mathematicians and good musicians, the kinds of intelligence that are brought to bear on different parts of our lives get developed in different ways.

One of the more controversial and overlooked types of intelligence is Emotional Intelligence. I do not agree with the idea that one's EQ is in some way opposite from the IQ, the standard intelligence quotient idea (which in and of itself is calculated and reliant on different criteria depending upon the test). I don't believe that Goleman ever makes such a dramatic claim as to show a precise inverse relationship between the EQ and IQ. He does show that there are different kinds of difficulties that can arise, and that a high IQ does not necessarily (or even often) translate into a high EQ.

After a brief introduction exploring the general issues of intelligence and the power of emotions, Goleman
looks at new discoveries in brain anatomy and architecture, particularly as it pertains to what happens when emotions `take over'. The second, and longest, section of the book looks at the nature of Emotional Intelligence. This is being able to understand oneself as well as others, being able to control emotions (or not), and drawing on Aristotle's phrase from the Nicomachean Ethics, being able to have the right degree of emotion at the right time for the right reason for the right duration. Goleman's third section incorporates the general ideas of Emotional Intelligence into the broader context of living, stating that one's emotional intelligence is in fact a more critical factor than pure computational intelligence at being `successful' in many important parts of life - from personal relationships to professional relationships, self-satisfaction and self-growth, emotions often hold sway over traditional `intelligence'. The fourth section examines developmental issues, leading to the final section exploring what happens when such development goes wrong.

Goleman's observation that children seem to be increasingly depressed, despondent, violent and unruly than in the past may or may not be accurate - unfortunately, such comparisons with the past often rely on shaky anecdotal evidence or studies whose parameters are different, and thus whose conclusions cannot be accurately compared. However, it certainly seems that these are true observations. Goleman warns of a coming crisis as unprepared children face an adulthood full of emotional stress and crises for which they have not developed coping skills. Goleman calls for more emphasis on emotional intelligence issues - anger management, conflict resolution, sense of self, etc. for school children to reduce violence and potential for crime.

Overall, this book presents interesting ideas. The idea of Emotional Intelligence is fairly new, and will no doubt be adapted and revised in the coming years. Goleman's task here may be less of a comprehensive overview rather than an introductory shout to the community that needs to address the issue.

I have mixed feelings about this book. On the one hand, I think Goleman has made a good case for broadening our view of "intelligence" to encompass more than what is measured by an IQ test. And I strongly agree with him that we need to educate children emotionally as well as intellectually.
On the other hand, both the author and the journalists who have written about his findings have used them to support a false dichotomy: EQ is the opposite of IQ, highly intelligent people are emotional idiots, and so forth. He quotes, ad nauseam, the story of a high school student who, when his teacher gave him a B instead of the A he thought he deserved, shot the teacher. This perpetuates the stereotype that gifted children are lacking in EQ, which other studies have shown is NOT the case -- in fact, they tend to be hyper-responsible, sensitive to the feelings and wishes of others, and prone to blame themselves rather than others when things go wrong in their lives (gifted teenagers commit suicide at a higher rate than average teenagers).
Gifted children have it hard enough already: they're considered "nerds" and "freaks" by their peers, and expected to be perfect at everything by their parents and teachers; but they're not supposed to have problems (in or out of school) because, after all, they're GIFTED. Labeling them (falsely) as emotionally deficient, and asserting that there's some fundamental conflict between IQ and EQ, just makes things even harder for them.

Goleman is exploiting the pop psychology of the day with little facts and, as an earlier reviewer noted, many of the studies he cites, not only, do not support his arguement, but contradict it. If you want to learn more about intelligence read the Bell Curve, it presents a sound arguement, which most psychometricians agree is true, and backs up the argument with an enourmous amount of facts. If you want to learn about emotions, I suggest something by Paul Eckman, a psychologist who has spent his career researching and performing experiments on the nature of emotion.

All in all, this book, Emotional Intelligence, is the worst kind of garbage to be written, since it is passed off as science, and is just two peoples' (Gardner, not a psychologist!, and Golman) opinions on what they think, with VERY LITTLE or no support and it, even, presents contradictory arguements. For example, Goleman cites the emotional edge Asians have because of parental pressure, and cultural, put on children to work harder in school if they are not performing well, but then goes on to point out that many white validictorians aren't particularly successful after high school, compared to others, because they were merely pressured to work hard to get good grades, that they didn't actually have the emotional or intellectual edge reflected in their grades. Well, which is it- just pressure or an emotional edge? How can sound science be presented with OBVIOUS contradictory logic!?

I'm not usually in favor of destroying books, but this seems like a good candidate.

Too bad such a good idea had to be couched in such a smug, self-satisfied tone.

Throughout the book, I had the distinct feeling that I was being patronized. The feeling that I was hearing, "Oh, you think you're so smart, but you're a loser as far as emotions and personality are concerned, and you're gonna have a miserable, pain-filled life." The impression I got was that high IQ goes hand-in-hand, even *causes* a lack of personal skills.

That being said, I think Mr. Goleman has some good, long-overdue ideas. I have indeed felt my own life to be much more satisfying when I implemented some of his suggestions. It gives me a real sense of clarity when I attempt to tune in to other people's agendas... makes me feel as if I have much more personal power and control over my own choices, instead of working myself up into a tizzy over others' behavior towards me. Empathy--really giving of yourself emotionally-- enables me to have insight into others' lives and my own, as well as a quality of connection and sharing that I had never thought possible. I am a veterinary student, and just as with human patients, the most precious gift you really can give is your time and your listening ears... and it feels phenomenal to the listener as well as the speaker.

Those who decry the "clueless", I think, are closer to the mark than Goleman himself is. Because it really is all about having a clue... knowing what to do, knowing what is going on, knowing how to act and what to be.

I used to think I was one of maybe five people in the country who did not like this book, because everybody else seemed to treat it as gospel. Truly, not until recently did I find ANY kind of real criticism of it. From the beginning, though, it left a bad taste in my mouth. Yes, it did speak to me, at least partially... but the aforementioned smugness I felt from it, as well as other previously unvoiced doubts, told me it wasn't quite right.

Too bad, also, that many of this book's critics tend to fall into arguments that only seem to bolster Goleman's cause. After all, those who disagree with the book must all be racist, immature, or just jealous of other's emotional and social ease, and therefore their opinions are less valid, right?

Now for my other doubts: Quite simply, I have a problem with *how* people attempt to implement his ideas. How many of you have a friend who works for a corporation that regularly puts its employees through ridiculous, even humiliating, "team-building" and "morale-building" seminars? Such activities are unspokenly (sometimes spokenly) enforced under the threat of being deemed not a team player or having a bad attitude. I suppose bosses can now tell dissenters that they lack EQ and won't amount to much at work. Or, for that matter, in life; since EQ carries over to personal life and the very satisfaction with and enjoyment of it.

"The right attitude" in real life means agreement more often than most may think... agreeing with the boss, the crowd, or the prevailing opinion. Social competence seems to be defined primarily in terms of being agreeable, approachable and nonthreatening... primarily, of course, intended to be aimed at women, who, after all, are supposed to be more inherently nurturing and relationship-seeking.

Persistence, determination, tenacity, boldness, passion, vivacity, vigor... nowhere does Goleman have a fraction of the praise for these qualities that he has for "social competence". Because these qualities just might put one into disagreement with others, and apparently if you are truly competent socially, you just don't disagree. Or if you do, it's in a "nonthreatening" way...

We point to study after study showing how married people are healthier, wealthier and happier than single people, and that social isolation increases the risk of early illness and death. We make women in particular feel inadequate for not being "nurturing" enough, and people in general for not "getting along" well enough. And as for children displaying the aforementioned qualities in too high levels... we put them on Ritalin or Paxil.
I did not feel personally more competent emotionally OR socially when I held back, trying to be "nonthreatening"... no, it was when I found my voice and agreed to disagree, when I decided to risk some negative perceptions from others. Call me funny, but I don't think that REAL emotional intelligence would stand for suffocating people under a mantle of "going along to get along". I wonder how many people hurt others simply by tarring them with a "does not get along" brush, and verbally or secretly invoking EQ?

For advice I could really use on improving my social and emotional competence, I found Phil McGraw's books much more useful, especially "Life Strategies" and "Self Matters." To glean some spiritual insight, I could turn to Deepak Chopra. And from fanfiction writers, I learned some valuable lessons about creating realistic characters, painting emotionally rich and complex scenarios, respectful critiquing, and getting a proper critical distance on my personal needs, desires, fantasies and insecurities... lessons that, in applying to other dimensions of my life, have been unbelievably helpful.

These sources were much more healing and useful than Goleman's advice ever was. And not once did I come away with a feeling of having my nose rubbed in it.

I bought the book along with the recommended Emotional Intelligence PowerPoint, which is just a terrific resource! It's a complete presentation on emotional intelligence (which saved me a lot of work) but the great thing is it plays movie clips right from the presentation to illustrate each of the emotional intelligence skills. My audience really grasped the concept and was entertained enough to give me 100% of their attention for the full hour. Really great!

My teacher uses it into my class, and this had cost us: 6 month of school-year lost, 7 million of I-£ spent without any cause, except her hobbies (psychology). And then, I've been told I'll never be able to be happy, find a job, and other incredible things I don't say just because my english don't know them. What to say.....Goleman wasn't a great man, at all.

This book is very bad. The book is here to make money. I'll tell you what this book is about. It's so the stupid people who fail classes, can't think, have the vocabularies of six year olds, can feel better. Plain and simple. It's so the dumb frat boys and sorority chicks who have no brains can boast about their high EQs.

It's funny reading all these books by professors/academics that are now catching up to what has been written in many self-help books for the last fourty or fifty year.

Goleman and Seligman seem to make Emotional Intelligence and Learned optimism as some kind of great discovery...when all it is just plain common sense and rehashed works of Napoleon Hill and other self-help guru's.

I would dare anyone to read this book and read Napoleon Hill's Success with a positive mental attitude and see which they find more useful.

The importance of emotional intelligence was proven to me early on in this book, especially with the author's neurological explanations of the brain. Daniel Coleman used a variety of approaches to prove the importance of emotional intelligence including: neuroscience, biology, and case studies. Yet, some of the directions the author chose to take lost my interest. The case studies could have been abbreviated and maybe the classification of emotions could have been expanded on. The book demonstrated the dire consequences of not learning emotional intelligence and sometimes used extreme examples which seemed unnecessary. However, this pioneering book (albeit somewhat outdated) deserves attention.

For me the book started well with references to Aristotle's "Nicomachean Ethics," making a connection between the wisdom that Aristotle exalted and emotional intelligence. The book went on to explain how the physical components of the brain affect emotional behavior; here the amygdala is explained, which is the control center for emotional behavior, and is referred to throughout the book. This biology and neuroscience clarified how rudimentary emotional behavior is in the human brain.

In part three, the author showed progressive thinking in his belief that the medical profession must consider emotional factors. Since the book's publication, medical schools have agreed with him. On June 10, 2004, the Wall Street Journal reported that graduates from all 126 medical schools in the U.S. will take a standardized test that will rate "bedside manner." According to the article, this test will "gauge what multiple-choice questions cannot: a graduate's ability to communicate with patients..."

In parts Four and Five my interest waned as the author discussed how emotional training can save society. Although the author suggests key improvements to pedagogy, the case studies and extreme examples of what can go wrong with the emotional brain belabored the topic for me. Post Traumatic Stress Disorder is closely analyzed, as is trauma, abuse, and bullies - all valid areas for discussion but beyond what is needed for demonstrating what emotional intelligence is and why it is important. Violence, social aggression, and certain neuroses resulting from emotional problems could have been explained in a shorter section. But the author deserves credit for offering solutions, and has an interesting theory that modernity is the cause for a worldwide trend of melancholy.

I would have liked more of the book devoted to the challenge of defining emotions. Of interest to me was Appendix A because it revealed the classification attempts made for emotions. The section considers a handful of "core" emotions with all other emotions being a blend of these; there also might be families of emotions with many nuances affecting moods and temperament.

This book reveals a big-picture outlook of the human brain and the emotional activity that is an intrinsic part of it. The thesis that emotional intelligence can be more important than IQ is well supported, but the author is not saying that it is necessarily better! (Previous reviewers of the book have created an EQ-versus-IQ contest.) Both are critical facets of intelligence that must work together and neither can be dismissed.