Intelligent idiots

[Svartalf]

So, eating gingerbread men is cannibalism too?

[Audley Strange]

If you believe the gingerbread men are real or transform into real flesh and blood of an ancient human, sure, why not?

[maiforpeace]

I dunno about intelligent idiots.

There's intelligence IQ, and emotional IQ...I'd be more likely to call this type of individual an intelligent person that lacks emotional IQ, or street smarts, or both.

[Bella Fortuna]

So, eating gingerbread men is cannibalism too?

Oh, the carnage!

[Audley Strange]

What's emotional I.Q. ? How is such a thing measured? Do the make you watch the beginning of bambi and score you on your reaction to the death of the mother? That's a bit glib, but it does seem like a bizarre thing to talk about emotional intelligence to me. Not that I'm attempting to devalue an individuals own emotions and clearly there is a problem with people who are at either extremes, but really it sounds like an excuse to me to make dumb people feel better about themselves, which might be an emotionally intelligent thing to do.

I've really no idea.

[Audley Strange]

So, eating gingerbread men is cannibalism too?

Oh, the carnage!

Brilliant choice of word.

[maiforpeace]

What's emotional I.Q. ? How is such a thing measured? Do the make you watch the beginning of bambi and score you on your reaction to the death of the mother? That's a bit glib, but it does seem like a bizarre thing to talk about emotional intelligence to me. Not that I'm attempting to devalue an individuals own emotions and clearly there is a problem with people who are at either extremes, but really it sounds like an excuse to me to make dumb people feel better about themselves, which might be an emotionally intelligent thing to do.

I've really no idea.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emotional_intelligence

[Audley Strange]

What's emotional I.Q. ? How is such a thing measured? Do the make you watch the beginning of bambi and score you on your reaction to the death of the mother? That's a bit glib, but it does seem like a bizarre thing to talk about emotional intelligence to me. Not that I'm attempting to devalue an individuals own emotions and clearly there is a problem with people who are at either extremes, but really it sounds like an excuse to me to make dumb people feel better about themselves, which might be an emotionally intelligent thing to do.

I've really no idea.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emotional_intelligence

I read that. The criticisms of it seem quite valid to me and as such I'm still none the wiser. Emotionally balanced might be a better term, but I'm not sure whether I'm dimissing something unfairly or whether others are giving credence to woo. Thanks though.

[Exi5tentialist]

You use yours, I never said they live in the forest. If you must be a smart arse, try and be smart.

Sorry, I didn't realise they were visiting cannibals. Air fares are much lower than they used to be. Sorry for not factoring that in. My bad.

No problem. That's the good thing about tossed off hypotheticals, they are fluid. I could have been speaking of ritiualistic cannibals who eat their enemies to gain their power, a bunch of psycho flesh eaters hired by a rich deviant to chase and eat people for their own amusement, hell I could have even been speaking about catholics who truly believe in the miracle of transubstantiation.

Indeed. You could be talking about anything when you talk about anything. In fact, there is no way I can possibly know what you are talking about.

[Ronja]

Audley: One can be emotionally balanced (if you mean "at peace with oneself") and yet an absolute idiot when it comes to managing interpersonal relationships. Because of my study and work environment (computers etc.), I know a number of people (mainly men in their twenties, or in the 45-60 age bracket) who are quite OK if they get to work alone. Some of them are brilliant, even, at their work. But put them in a group and they are a friggin' disaster, unless the group is willing to tolerate quite a bit of and - at least at times. Some groups are willing, at least temporarily, if the technical wizardry of the guy is rare enough.

[Exi5tentialist]

Audley: One can be emotionally balanced (if you mean "at peace with oneself") and yet an absolute idiot when it comes to managing interpersonal relationships. Because of my study and work environment (computers etc.), I know a number of people (mainly men in their twenties, or in the 45-60 age bracket) who are quite OK if they get to work alone. Some of them are brilliant, even, at their work. But put them in a group and they are a friggin' disaster, unless the group is willing to tolerate quite a bit of and - at least at times. Some groups are willing, at least temporarily, if the technical wizardry of the guy is rare enough.

Am I right in thinking men in the 30-45 age bracket in Ronja's world get the treatment?

[Audley Strange]

You use yours, I never said they live in the forest. If you must be a smart arse, try and be smart.

Sorry, I didn't realise they were visiting cannibals. Air fares are much lower than they used to be. Sorry for not factoring that in. My bad.

No problem. That's the good thing about tossed off hypotheticals, they are fluid. I could have been speaking of ritiualistic cannibals who eat their enemies to gain their power, a bunch of psycho flesh eaters hired by a rich deviant to chase and eat people for their own amusement, hell I could have even been speaking about catholics who truly believe in the miracle of transubstantiation.

Indeed. You could be talking about anything when you talk about anything. In fact, there is no way I can possibly know what you are talking about.

Yes and no. You could read the words I typed and draw a conclusion that they meant nothing other than what I typed, or you could infer they were meaningless, or you could go nuts and start extrapolating all sorts of things based on nothing stated. Language may be a good tool but it isn't perfect.

[Exi5tentialist]

Yes and no. You could read the words I typed and draw a conclusion that they meant nothing other than what I typed, or you could infer they were meaningless, or you could go nuts and start extrapolating all sorts of things based on nothing stated. Language may be a good tool but it isn't perfect.

...or you could choose an option you didn't mention, that is you could make intelligent but limited inferences, although that path usually seems to cause a cacophony of derision here, and the occasionally inexplicable mention of bacon.

[Audley Strange]

Audley: One can be emotionally balanced (if you mean "at peace with oneself") and yet an absolute idiot when it comes to managing interpersonal relationships. Because of my study and work environment (computers etc.), I know a number of people (mainly men in their twenties, or in the 45-60 age bracket) who are quite OK if they get to work alone. Some of them are brilliant, even, at their work. But put them in a group and they are a friggin' disaster, unless the group is willing to tolerate quite a bit of and - at least at times. Some groups are willing, at least temporarily, if the technical wizardry of the guy is rare enough.

No I meant by emotionally balanced that one could recognise emotional states in onself and others but is not dominated by them. I think I take issue with some of what you said. If I said I've known plenty of women who were shit at their job but got promoted because in a group setting (i.e. letting everyone else do the work) they took credit or because they were prone to childish emotional outbursts such as crying, that would be considered sexist. However if a women knows that by crying she can get what she wants is that emotional intelligence, using her emotional state to her benefit and advantage?

I'm really not getting this.

[Audley Strange]

Yes and no. You could read the words I typed and draw a conclusion that they meant nothing other than what I typed, or you could infer they were meaningless, or you could go nuts and start extrapolating all sorts of things based on nothing stated. Language may be a good tool but it isn't perfect.

...or you could choose an option you didn't mention, that is you could make intelligent but limited inferences, although that path usually seems to cause a cacophony of derision here, and the occasionally inexplicable mention of bacon.

Sure but inferences come from the reader or listener, thus no matter how intelligent they may be they could be, and often are entirely wrong. However I don't think your inferences were the problem as much as your certainty that you were right.

If you are as your named yourself, an existentialist, I'm sure you have an understanding that such can be problematic in communication.