Results 1 to 17 of 17

Thread: Logic/Ethics - IQ and EQ

  1. #1

    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    South Korea
    TIM
    INTJ - intuitive sub
    Posts
    214
    Mentioned
    13 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default Logic/Ethics - IQ and EQ

    I have observed no association between Personality type and Intelligence. For instance, logic in the first or seconardy funcation is irrelevant to IQ. Likewise, ethics in the first or secondary function is irrelevant to EQ. I have known an Emotionally Intelligent woman with a LSE personality. I have met another woman with an IQ of 149 and ESE personality but she has a very low EQ.

    My opinion is that IQ and EQ are not determined by logic/ethics within the personality but I've heard the opposite opinion expressed.

    Care to discuss? Please share your view.

  2. #2
    meme hotline Chae's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2016
    TIM
    ethic 3
    Posts
    9,083
    Mentioned
    716 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    Here's some material that may be relevant for comparing the two, this will probably come up ---> x

    On a personal level: contrary to how I view myself, my IQ is extremely high and my EQ extremely low. I'm sceptical of either measure in and of itself, and there's rightful criticism about that already* but if you trust the results within what they defined - well, being IEE has nothing to do with it.

    *for instance, there are claims that the IQ is scientific racism.

  3. #3
    Seed my wickedness Sanguine Miasma's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Location
    Spontaneous Human Combustion
    TIM
    EIE-C-Ni ™
    Posts
    7,563
    Mentioned
    321 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    Default

    There's no objective scale for EQ. It's based on self reports and is highly dependent on factors what others appreciate.

    There's gamma EQ: just check out Goleman (tool to climb up the ladder) and
    there's delta EQ read about Baron-Cohen

    Then there are views that want to destroy EQ as objectively good way of carrying yourself through life. Check out Paul Bloom.
    MOTTO: NEVER TRUST IN REALITY
    Winning is for losers

     

    Sincerely yours,
    idiosyncratic type
    Life is a joke but do you have a life?

    NO Private messages, please. Use Discord instead.

  4. #4
    Hot Message FDG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    North Italy
    TIM
    ENTj
    Posts
    16,615
    Mentioned
    235 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I agree with you more or less.
    Obsequium amicos, veritas odium parit

  5. #5
    Bertrand's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2017
    Posts
    5,896
    Mentioned
    486 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by unsuccessfull Alphamale View Post
    There's no objective scale for EQ. It's based on self reports and is highly dependent on factors what others appreciate.

    There's gamma EQ: just check out Goleman (tool to climb up the ladder) and
    there's delta EQ read about Baron-Cohen

    Then there are views that want to destroy EQ as objectively good way of carrying yourself through life. Check out Paul Bloom.
    I agree with this. IQ is a real thing, and EQ purports to be the same or similar in regards to ethics or emotions, but its really not. I would say that a high IQ on an ethical type likely results in what we call "high EQ"--because IQ is just the ability to do whatever you do faster. Such that IQ is always what's under the hood and what we call "traditional high IQ types" are just high IQ + logical personalities, whereas "high EQ types" are just high IQ with ethical egos, etc. I think "emotional intelligence" exists in the sense that you can be more or less sophisticated and quick with ethical thinking, but I think the common notion of "EQ" is just an equivocation on IQ when IQ is common cause to both "regular IQ" and "EQ" phenomena

    I also think sufficiently high IQ could give rise to non ethical egos having "high EQ" since even relatively low time investment in absolute terms could result in high returns, that which, in some ways, could rival a "slower" ethical type. The reverse is also true with ethical types having high IQs could come across as more logical, more sophisticated, in a word "smarter", than lower IQ logical types

    in other words there is not a separate capacity to develop emotional intelligence, it is just IQ. IQ underlies both logic and ethical processing speed and development, but type is what directs it. Type tends to determine how much attention is paid to each domain, but IQ powers the speed at which they progress. There are not two separate "speeds" (IQ and EQ) only one speed (IQ) with different levels of focus and hence development: the development of ethics could be called "emotional intelligence" (or skill/experience/knowledge/proficiency/understanding, etc-- "intelligence" tries to sum it up) but that is not "EQ"--rather it is the result IQ + attention paid to ethics, just as "logical mathematical" developmental rate would be determined by IQ + logical preference. Sensing + IQ would be bodily kinesthetic, etc etc. There's no separate "body quotient" analogous to IQ either, they are all separate domains, delineated largely on the basis of information elements all powered by processing speed, i.e.: what we call "IQ" and which is actually measurable to some degree
    Last edited by Bertrand; 05-05-2017 at 08:02 PM.

  6. #6
    Hot Message FDG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    North Italy
    TIM
    ENTj
    Posts
    16,615
    Mentioned
    235 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Bertrand View Post
    I agree with this. IQ is a real thing, and EQ purports to be the same or similar in regards to ethics or emotions, but its really not. I would say that a high IQ on an ethical type likely results in what we call "high EQ"--because IQ is just the ability to do whatever you do faster. Such that IQ is always what's under the hood and what we call "traditional high IQ types" are just high IQ + logical personalities, whereas "high EQ types" are just high IQ with ethical egos,
    no no ethicals with what we call high IQ excel at learning just as much as logicals with similar IQ. This is a given!
    Obsequium amicos, veritas odium parit

  7. #7
    Bertrand's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2017
    Posts
    5,896
    Mentioned
    486 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by FDG View Post
    no no ethicals with what we call high IQ excel at learning just as much as logicals with similar IQ. This is a given!
    learning what though? life is learning and contains both logical and ethical information in any given moment. IQ helps one process the information, type dictates what information you focus on. the "moral genius" is just an ethical thinker with high IQ, in the same way the "scientific genius" is the logical type with high IQ. its tempting to think IQ and EQ are both discrete and actual because people tend to be "born into" type and since type determines the focus it looks like they learn different information at different rates. but the truth is they learn information at the same rate and spend more time on one or the other, and not just in terms of "actively thinking about it" but also in what they focus their perception on as a matter of reflex. while an ethical thinker with a high IQ can't just switch to science and be at the top, based on their high IQ, its not because they learn emotions "better" as a matter of brain power, rather they learn ethics better as a matter of brain organization which dictates their focus. to change focus, were it even possible, would have them starting on a much lower level, although inasmuch as top notch ethics are good for a variety of purposes it would carry over into how they pursue science and the help they got etc

    this is actually a common flaw I see in reverse, where people think that because someone dedicated a large amount of time at something they must be innately superior at learning it; when the case may be that they were actually kind of slow they just spent a shitload of effort on the thing; thus they may have no high IQ or EQ and to trust them with something not "already known" would be a mistake. I see this a lot where people with a lot of crystallized intelligence are looked to in areas outside their expertise at the expense of those with high fluid intelligence, with usually negative results. the general idea is people read back into acheivement "high IQ" and think it will be likewise quick to assimilate the unknown in a new experience, i.e.: translate to effective leadership, when it actually won't. the same thing can be said for creativity where a person memorizes songs vs the person who learns how to sight read. the first person may play one song more impressively because they've done it a thousand times, but the other can do so much more and would be the go to choice for dealing with something new

    IQ and EQ presuppose that there are separate metrics for gauging ones ability to assimilate the unknown but it confuses built up experience focusing on one area and reading back into it a "separate" aptitude, when there is only ever one. and it is not IQ in the sense of "good with numbers" or whatever stereotype we have, but IQ in the sense of "brain processing power". I think a lot of misunderstanding here is based on a stereotypical and innacurate idea of what IQ actually is.

    people then go forward with it and say "well I'm bad at x because i have low (EQ or IQ)" and its like no, you're bad at x because you've spent no time on it in addition to probably just having an average IQ. but its so much easier to believe one is "superhuman" in one area at the expense of another because of base aptitudes and not simple effort and an overall limitation on processing. you'll see posters in this very thread trying to frame things in those terms because it makes it sound like its not their fault rather it was always "in the cards" but!-- never "I'm slow" its "Im slow @ that" but fast @ this. the truth is you're the same at everything but you've devoted more time and effort on this or that, part of which is based on type, so in that sense it can't be helped, but starting from today people could do whatever they wanted and the idea that IQ or EQ or xQ or yQ would hold them back is nonsense. if you wan't to say you're not smart, don't limit it to one domain so as to give yourself an out, expand it to everything so you have to own up to it for what it is, which is the admission that you're just not smart enough in general to do it all (the people who come close we call polymaths)
    Last edited by Bertrand; 05-05-2017 at 09:37 PM.

  8. #8
    C-ESI-Se 6w7 sx/sp ashlesha's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    the center of the universe
    Posts
    15,798
    Mentioned
    909 Post(s)
    Tagged
    4 Thread(s)

    Default

    I'm an ethical type who is challenged by some aspects of eq and its not because I lack the knowledge or brain processing power. Also personally speaking I think in some ways being emotionally oriented in general has been a hindrance because I sometimes find it difficult to step outside of my emotions and take a broader perspective. I don't think that focus on and immersion in an element necessarily equates to positive, pro-social development of that element (sure, it can, but bad habits established due to adverse experiences, social exposure etc die hard). From what I know about eq, it takes more than the ability to understand what's healthy & why (more than the kind of understanding provided by iq).

  9. #9
    Bertrand's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2017
    Posts
    5,896
    Mentioned
    486 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by lungs View Post
    I'm an ethical type who is challenged by some aspects of eq and its not because I lack the knowledge or brain processing power. Also personally speaking I think in some ways being emotionally oriented in general has been a hindrance because I sometimes find it difficult to step outside of my emotions and take a broader perspective. I don't think that focus on and immersion in an element necessarily equates to positive, pro-social development of that element (sure, it can, but bad habits established due to adverse experiences, social exposure etc die hard). From what I know about eq, it takes more than the ability to understand what's healthy & why (more than the kind of understanding provided by iq).
    this goes to what unsucessful alphamale was saying about EQ being subjective. it sounds like you're allowing other people's subjective definitions of what constitutes "development" of EQ to influence your own assessment of yourself. I.E. if an ESI has Fe ignoring and EQ is measured largely on ability and preference to immediately influence people positively in the next 5 seconds, then ESIs are going to come off looking bad. its another weakness of EQ

    the entire concept falls apart because it lacks objective measurability. it is literally a rationalization rooted in some of the psychological reasons I alluded to above, couched in pseudo objectivity, and it gives (people who shoot lazers but cant fly) and takes: you think you lack "EQ" when you're simply not Fe valuing in a system that measures itself accordingly. you're right though its not because you lack brainpower. anyone could be good at "EQ" if they tried precisely because its subjective and not innately static or determined, which is precisely its weakness as a base measurement, unlike IQ. The person with the highest "EQ" is probably a SLE who just learned to master the definitional framework so as to score the most points. this is not because they have an innately higher powered understanding of emotions, quite the opposite in fact (which also goes to how ESI could seemingly have poor EQ).

    all of this shit is nested in larger frameworks. EQ is a huge step down in depth from socionics and IQ and real (academic) psychology in general. its just a shitty folk theory that arises as a consequence of already well understood phenomena

  10. #10
    I sacrificed a goat to Zeus and I liked it
    Join Date
    Sep 2016
    Location
    Durmstrang School
    Posts
    2,845
    Mentioned
    164 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    IQ and EQ are both generally bad ideas since they mostly seem to be used to define people. EQ tests also suck since they're all self-assessment rather than actual questions. It would be easy to make an actual EQ test modeled off an IQ test based on the "empathy tests" used to test for autism in children, or giving out short "literary" passages and asking things like "what was this character's motivation"? but no one's done that, because no one really cares about empathy (never mind that that's mostly a cognitive empathy test. I don't think you can test for affective empathy like an IQ test at all).

  11. #11
    Bertrand's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2017
    Posts
    5,896
    Mentioned
    486 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Wyrd View Post
    I don't think you can't test for affective empathy like an IQ test at all.
    exactly. and since cognitive empathy is largely what EQ amounts to, its potential is really a subset of IQ directed at a specific domain

  12. #12
    C-ESI-Se 6w7 sx/sp ashlesha's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    the center of the universe
    Posts
    15,798
    Mentioned
    909 Post(s)
    Tagged
    4 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Bertrand View Post
    this goes to what unsucessful alphamale was saying about EQ being subjective. it sounds like you're allowing other people's subjective definitions of what constitutes "development" of EQ. I.E. if an ESI has Fe ignoring and EQ is measured largely on ability and preference to immediately influence people positively in the next 5 seconds, then ESIs are going to come off looking bad. its another weakness of EQ
    Ah, i see. I was basing my understanding off a class I had taken at work (I believe it was goleman, which alphamale referred to as gamma, *shrug*). I wasn't aware it isn't the standard and I didn't absorb his post at first read. I'm still pretty meh @ the idea that being ethical helps with something like emotional regulation or listening skills, but if the entire concept is subjective then I guess it doesn't matter and there's not much to say.

  13. #13
    I sacrificed a goat to Zeus and I liked it
    Join Date
    Sep 2016
    Location
    Durmstrang School
    Posts
    2,845
    Mentioned
    164 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Bertrand View Post
    exactly. and since cognitive empathy is largely what EQ amounts to, its potential is really a subset of IQ directed at a specific domain
    Yes. It's interesting in the fact that for whatever reason people with high IQs tend to have larger gaps between affective and cognitive empathy and it goes both ways (on another thread, "smarter people tend to have other problems such as Asperger's or lacking a conscience") and measuring cognitive empathy seems like it could yield some insights (I think it's because of the inherent problem that the rules of social decorum don't make any sense on any level, so if you're smart, you have to either deliberately decide not to develop an understanding of them at an early age in order to be able to follow them, and your "EQ" wastes away like your toe muscles waste away if you don't wiggle them, which is the "Asperger's" part, or if you do understand them, you realize they don't make any sense on any level and can't follow them, which is the "lacking a conscience" part, but there's not the middle ground that exists for other people).

  14. #14
    Bertrand's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2017
    Posts
    5,896
    Mentioned
    486 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Wyrd View Post
    Yes. It's interesting in the fact that for whatever reason people with high IQs tend to have larger gaps between affective and cognitive empathy and it goes both ways (on another thread, "smarter people tend to have other problems such as Asperger's or lacking a conscience") and measuring cognitive empathy seems like it could yield some insights (I think it's because of the inherent problem that the rules of social decorum don't make any sense on any level, so if you're smart, you have to either deliberately decide not to develop an understanding of them at an early age in order to be able to follow them, and your "EQ" wastes away like your toe muscles waste away if you don't wiggle them, which is the "Asperger's" part, or if you do understand them, you realize they don't make any sense on any level and can't follow them, which is the "lacking a conscience" part, but there's not the middle ground that exists for other people).
    I think high IQ just accentuates whatever you already are to some extent, and that IQ tests primarly focus on Ti/Ne (although they do an admirable job of trying not to) so that in general its biased towards those types, which happen to coincide to some degree with aspergers or ASPD, but mainly as a matter of type. Like I think you could call SLE the "lacking a conscience" type and it wasn't so much that lacking a conscience made him smarter, it was that their IQ whatever it was is primarily focused on information that would lead to success (in part, but not total) on an IQ test or typical measures of "intelligence" in general. On the whole there are so many factors all interacting and offsetting eachother its a real mess to sort out, but I really don't think to be good at something you have to lack, as a matter of base processing ability, something else. In other words, I feel like if we could completely isolate IQ we would see it as the cognitive speed at which someone operates, and that inasmuch as anything can be powered by cognitive processes it will benefit from a faster rate (logic or ethics, and the main objection would be that ethics are not cognitive, rather affective, like you said).

    Measuring affective response might be workable in terms of "stronger" or "weaker" in terms of physiological reactions to stimuli. For example I know getting the chills or crying to music is probably an example of deeper affective ability. But as soon as you start calling one thing higher or better than another it gets super tricky. At least with Ti/Ne we can create hoops and measure the speed at which they get jumped through. Cognitive ability seems more or less straightforwardly beneficial no matter what. I can also think of a society where affective response would be seen as weakness and therefore less would be more (SLE society). In a strange way if everyone worked together that way it might be ok. In any case, the problem here is IQ discussions tend to involve a collision of values along with still-shaky objectivity and science and the whole thing usually devolves into a mess. (in other words, cognitive speed never seems to be bad, whereas affective strength could be seen as a liability in some cases--although I suppose this is giving primacy to thinking at the onset; were we in a purely feeling society it would be otherwise, which goes to show how cultural influenced these tests and their interpretations really are. Imagine a society where depth of feeling response to stimuli was seen as an unmitigated good regardless of how it inhibited thinking!)

    suffice to say, inasmuch as IQ measures cognitive ability, and inasmuch as anything has a cognitive component, I think IQ is common cause to aptitude potential in any of those areas, and that type tends to take whatever that base potential is and direct it, and in doing so actualize it into what we now call the various intelligences, which are really just domains and degrees of information mastery. I would also like to point out how ethics has a huge cognitive component, which is mainly what I was referring to earlier (I'm reminded of that person who posted "what its like" to be Fi valuing and it was portrayed as asking oneself a million and one questions concerning a given situation and how to proceed--it basically looked like a very comprehensive Te inquisition on an ethical scenario)--I feel like perhaps when I say ethics has a cognitive component I'm speaking for myself and describing the internal process of Te self-analysis that takes place as a part of working out one's own feelings. You ask yourself questions, think about things, see how you feel about them, then come up with the best, most moral solution you can. sometimes the questions are more or less non verbal but there's still this analytic process which is beyond words to some extent but its basically a self confession and I believe IQ inasmuch as it effects it at all, speeds up the process or adds nuance to self understanding (at least in terms of a Ti/Ne; but I feel like with Te/Si [superego] it is something similar, and for all thinking type super egos) in other words cognitive speed enhances ethical deliberation by way of the super ego's influence (this is how IQ could "improve" EQ in ethicals--via the super ego mechanism which questions and holds the ego accountable)

    honestly I now think my entire take on things could be summed up as ESI super ego's thoughts on living in a LIE society, which has a certain ontology built into it which really drives the discussion. truth is we could conceptualize IQ and EQ in any number of ways--semantically flip it around, and in the same way flip around the values in a Fi sense. ontology comes in as the base Ti and Fi assumptions we operate under which seem largely culturally influenced, which is to say largely LIE. the result being we think of Ti/Ne speed as generally "useful and therefore good" Fi as "important" but "potentially a liability" etc etc

    I concede now there are many different ways one could think about it and that only an underlying pragmatic orientation (LIE) gives rise to the current order we now have and tend to be idealistically striving for
    Last edited by Bertrand; 05-05-2017 at 10:58 PM.

  15. #15
    Delilah's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2017
    TIM
    EII
    Posts
    1,493
    Mentioned
    94 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I have only episodic stuff to share on this topic: someone I know who'd had to test EQ for some kind of work and scored top (w/e the indicators) and they're ESE.
    "Inasmuch as it is nothing but pure communicability, every face, even the most noble and beautiful, is always suspended on the edge of an abyss"

    They asked the fox, "Who's your witness?" The fox said, "My tail!"

  16. #16
    Hot Message FDG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    North Italy
    TIM
    ENTj
    Posts
    16,615
    Mentioned
    235 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Bertrand View Post
    learning what though?
    I am not going to read that wall of text: I meant "academic" learning or "practical" learning in any kind of task which requires advanced cognition.

    I think an ethical type potentially could win a nobel prize in chemistry just as well as a logical one. What I've seen in my life - sooner or later many ethical types get somewhat tired of scientific-mathematical topics, thus they end up being underrepresented.

    Ftr I am definitely not a fan of EQ, it's extremely hard to measure it objectively.
    Obsequium amicos, veritas odium parit

  17. #17
    Bertrand's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2017
    Posts
    5,896
    Mentioned
    486 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by FDG View Post
    I am not going to read that wall of text: I meant "academic" learning or "practical" learning in any kind of task which requires advanced cognition.

    I think an ethical type potentially could win a nobel prize in chemistry just as well as a logical one. What I've seen in my life - sooner or later many ethical types get somewhat tired of scientific-mathematical topics, thus they end up being underrepresented.

    Ftr I am definitely not a fan of EQ, it's extremely hard to measure it objectively.
    ok

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •