Intelligent idiots

[Gawdzilla Sama]

So, this thread is about fauxlosophers?

[Jason]

Crystallized Intelligence and Fluid Intelligence. That's all.

[Audley Strange]

So, this thread is about fauxlosophers?

Is there any other kind these days?

[Ronja]

Audley: my statement was about men, because I study and work with men. Since the spring of 2006 I haven't had another woman in my own study group, and very rarely before that, either. There usually are only a handful of us scattered in the lecture hall, among 100-200 men. Our department has only 5 % women. So I don't really have a meaningful experience of working with women.

However, on a general/theoretical level, I see no reason why your claim, about (some) women using their emotional intelligence unfairly, could not be true. My experience of women using their emotional intelligence destructively/selfishly is limited to a notorious pair, who bullied every woman who performed better than they did, out of that laboratory. I was the third woman thus ousted, and I made a hell of a noise about it, so one of them apparently saw the light and deserted her "friend." I still would not want to go back - I trust neither of them, and don't see any reason why I should in the future, either. But I regard this as even more strongly anecdotal evidence than my experience of men, because my sample size with women is so very, very small.

[Exi5tentialist]

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.

Really? I'm not at all sure that I've made any statement of certainty in the entire thread. But I might be wrong. How could any of us possibly know?

[Exi5tentialist]

So, this thread is about fauxlosophers?

Is there any other kind these days?

Not in Zilla's world. I think that anything that requires stringing more than 2 sentences together falls into the category of fauxlosophy, in that world anyway. Oh no, I've done it now: this is 3 sentences!

[Gawdzilla Sama]

So, this thread is about fauxlosophers?

Is there any other kind these days?

Not in Zilla's world. I think that anything that requires stringing more than 2 sentences together falls into the category of fauxlosophy, in that world anyway. Oh no, I've done it now: this is 3 sentences!

And that's four sentences more than you needed to say.

[Audley Strange]

Audley: my statement was about men, because I study and work with men. Since the spring of 2006 I haven't had another woman in my own study group, and very rarely before that, either. There usually are only a handful of us scattered in the lecture hall, among 100-200 men. Our department has only 5 % women. So I don't really have a meaningful experience of working with women.

However, on a general/theoretical level, I see no reason why your claim, about (some) women using their emotional intelligence unfairly, could not be true. My experience of women using their emotional intelligence destructively/selfishly is limited to a notorious pair, who bullied every woman who performed better than they did, out of that laboratory. I was the third woman thus ousted, and I made a hell of a noise about it, so one of them apparently saw the light and deserted her "friend." I still would not want to go back - I trust neither of them, and don't see any reason why I should in the future, either. But I regard this as even more strongly anecdotal evidence than my experience of men, because my sample size with women is so very, very small.

That's fair enough Ronja. BTW I never used the word unfairly did I? Surely if a tactic works, that is intelligence.

I have no issue in believing that many men don't fit into the catagory of emotional intelligence, because I'm not sure that it is not something invented to make people feel better about themselves. You know. "Oh sure you can't do maths or science, but you've got great emotional intelligence." It seems almost self contradictory to me.

In saying that, I have worked with children who had emotional issues and while I had a difficult time relating to them, others did not, because they could sympathise or empathise. That may well be incredibly useful, but I'm uncertain whether it could be be measured on a scale or if it should even be termed intelligence. Though considering what I said above, I think it possible that one could use emotions intelligently. Is that the same though or is that having the intelligence first and the ability to use emotions in that regard?

[Audley Strange]

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.

Really? I'm not at all sure that I've made any statement of certainty in the entire thread. But I might be wrong. How could any of us possibly know?

Actually, you are correct in that regard. My apologies. It works both ways eh? Heh.

[Ronja]

"Using emotions intelligently" is how I have always understood EI - but I have not studied EI seriously or compared the different definitions/approaches. If one behaves intelligently (constructively/long term profitably) regarding one's own emotions and those of others, that should IMO be covered by any meaningful definition of EI (but "should" is an admittedly dangerous word).

"Unfair" is a loaded and unclear word, sorry for that. What I meant was that these two women used their intelligence unfairly in relationship to their colleagues and employer. They operated to personally gain in the short term, but at the same time they endangered their own jobs in the long term, both by slowly growing reputations as troublesome employees and by making it harder for their group and thus the whole lab and the whole department to perform well.

[Audley Strange]

Yeah that does make a lot more sense when framed like that.

Cheers Ronja.

[Ronja]

.

[mistermack]

It's a good title, because it illustrates that there are many different types of intelligence, as well as aspects of intelligence.

Some people have phenomenal memory capacity, but not a lot of deductive reasoning ability.
I'm the opposite, in having a shit memory for the useful stuff, but am good at assessing and solving problems.

I have a friend who I totally leave behind in anything technical, but he's the self-made millionaire, buying and selling cars. His memory is astounding when money is involved.
But he wouldn't be up there in the IQ stakes. I think that IQ tests are ludicrous, they are so limited.

[Warren Dew]

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.

Arguing with an engineer is like mud wrestling with a pig. You both get filthy, but the pig loves it.

Groups composed entirely of this sort of person get along just fine. It's mixing them with people with high "emotional intelligence" that causes problems.

[laklak]

Emotional Intelligence.