Challenge Match: Skyfloating vs maria_stardust: Subjective vs. Objective

The topic for this debate is ""Emotional Intelligence is Superiour to Intellectual Intelligence"

Skyfloating will be arguing the pro position and will open the debate.
maria_stardust will argue the con position.

Each debater will have one opening statement each. This will be followed by 3 alternating replies each. There will then be one closing statement each and no rebuttal.

Character limits are no longer in effect. You may use as many characters as a single post allows.

Editing is strictly forbidden. This means any editing, for any reason. Any edited posts will be completely deleted. This prevents cheating. If you make an honest mistake which needs fixing, you must U2U me. I will do a limited amount of editing for good cause. Please use spell check before you post.

Opening and closing statements must not contain any images, and must have no more than 3 references. Excluding both the opening and closing statements, only two images and no more than 5 references can be included for each post.

The Socratic Debate Rule is in effect. Each debater may ask up to 5 questions in each post, except for in closing statements- no questions are permitted in closing statements. These questions should be clearly labeled as "Question 1, Question 2, etc.

When asked a question, a debater must give a straight forward answer in his next post. Explanations and qualifications to an answer are acceptable, but must be preceded by a direct answer.

Responses should be made within 24 hours. One single 24 hour extension can be used by a member by requesting it in the thread. If 24 hours passes without response, you may proceed with your next post. Members who exceed 24 hours run the risk of losing their post, but may still post up until their opponent has submitted their next response.

This is a challenge match. The winner will receive 2 ranking points, the loser will lose two ranking points.

Emotional Intelligence is Superiour to Intellectual Intelligence...

...because we as humans are not primarily driven by reason and intellect but by emotions, feelings, gut-instinct, surivival instinct. The main aim of each and every one of us is to avoid feeling bad and achieve feeling good. Thats what drives us. Thats what drives society. Thats what drives the economy. Thats what drives politics. Thats what drives life.

The subject of "emotional intelligence", while not new to us commoners is a relatively new field in science and business, its importance is gradually being acknowledged. In the last two decades these are some of the new words and terms with which we have tried to put the importance of our feelings into a scientific or management-oriented framework:

Emotional Intelligence
Soft Skills
Social IQ
Relationship IQ
Motivational Training
Intercultural Competence
Emotional Competence
Levels of Emotion
Empathetic Management
Creativity

You see....if you ask an overly intellectualized person about Emotions, traditionally he wont have much to say on them than "chemical reactions" (although this view is slowly changing, as mentioned). But ask a Business-Person about them and he´ll have the entire area quantified, exemplified, studied, employees sent to Workshops on it, and so on. This tells us: When it comes down to Business (making money), emotional intelligence and the study thereof, is suddenly more important than pure intellectual intelligence (logic, reason).

Should my opponent...maria_stardust...decide to argue that "objective" is more important than "subjective", ask yourself this:

Why do we do the things we do? Anything. Look for partners. Have Sex. Go to the Gym. Surf the Internet. Drink Alcohol. Go watch a movie. Earn money. Why do we do it? We do it because we want to feel better and not necessarily because its sensible or logical.

Given the choice of doing a math-exercise or freshly falling in love, what would you choose? Of course the ocassional geek would derive more ecstasy from completing the math exercise. But in general, almost all of us would choose falling in love. The former is an example of the intellect at work, the latter is an example of emotions at work.

Ask the marketing and PR-specialist what he´s trying to achieve with his TV-commercials.

Ask the athlete what he´s trying to achieve when listening to loud music before he preforms.

Ask the police officer what he "just knows" about some people intuitively, without reasoning or information involved.

Ask people what they mean when they say:

The heart knows before the mind does


I dare say that without emotions our society would have fallen along time ago. Without rebellious anger, without sadness at the death of loved ones, without enthusiasm for new frontiers, without the joy of discovery, etc.etc....the world would no longer be.

Is that to say that intellectual reasoning is unimportant? Not at all. It is important but it is secondary to what drives us: Emotions.

I look forward to the debate on this refreshing subject with a very good opponent.

Since my esteemed opponent let the 24-hour deadline to post a response pass without apology I will now proceed with my next post. Lets hope it wasnt a knockout in the first round and she will be up and ready for the next response.

Emotions vs. Intellect

In this debate I will sometimes be citing the encyclopedia entry on emotional intelligence as a source as it contains the most conservative data on the subject.

Defining emotional intelligence
There are a lot of arguments about the definition of EI, arguments that regard both terminology and operationalizations. One attempt toward a definition was made by Peter Salovey and John D. Mayer (1990) who defined EI as “the ability to monitor one's own and others' feelings and emotions, to discriminate among them and to use this information to guide one's thinking and actions.” [9]

I very much like this definition and have been making use of it since years. Of course any housewife and farmer could have told you that 100s of years ago already - so again, it´s only “new” to academia who seem to have a hard time catching up with common knowledge. No surprise there since they base most of their studies on intellect.

In this sense emotions are an internal guidance system, leading the path. Something doesn`t feel quite right? That probably means that some thought, action or plan of action or it`s timing is not quite right. Listening to that feeling of “something not quite right” can spare you a lot of trouble later. Something feel “just right”? Then go for it! Not listening to that feeling could get you in trouble later.

Could everything be as simple as that? Has life given us the perfect inner navigational system by which we can determine what is good, true and right for us and what is not? Many professional therapists, healers, business coaches believe so.

This leads us to an interesting side-note of something proponents of emotional intelligence seem to better grasp than old-timers: Feeling depressed is an appropriate response to something happening that is inappropriate. So while old-schoolers might say “feeling depressed is inappropriate, please take these pills”, the new generation of psychology would say “feeling depressed is quite appropriate considering that you are watching 3 Horror Movies on DVD every day”. (just as an example).

Socratic Question 1:
maria_stardust, being a female, do you grasp and process the following picture more intellectually or more emotionally? In other words, are you interested in the picture resolution, the photographers technical skills, the precise data of the person being pictured...or are you drawn to the aesthetics, style, emotional associations and fantasies it evokes?






Here´s one for the guys:





Pure intellectual reasoning is cold. It has no sense of beauty, inspiration or desire. Mr. Spock of Star Trek fame represents this cool intellectual neutrality quite well. You show him these pictures but they dont mean much to him. Its only a bunch of pixels on a piece of paper or the screen, right?

_____________________________


I hope all is well and I look forward to your participation dear debate opponent.



[edit on 16-7-2008 by MemoryShock]

I apologize for my late opening statement. Truth be told, the time stamps throw me off a little and I thought I had more time. My bad!

Before I begin, I would like to thank my opponent Skyfloating, for what I’m sure will be a spirited debate, and MemoryShock for setting everything up.

~~~~~

Emotional intelligence is superior to intellectual intelligence. NOT!

Skyfloating has painted a rather warm and fuzzy picture in regards to emotional intelligence. It was tender, heartwarming and all things peaches-and-cream. Chances are my opponent’s opening statement struck a chord with you. He reached for you on an emotional level, which was his intent. A very smart move considering the topic of debate.

However, let’s consider how he was able to reach this goal. Quite simply, he used a bit of psychology, a dash of empathy and a whole lot of intellect. Which is why my opponent, for lack of a better word, literally ROCKS! He’s got enough smarts, mental wherewithal and articulateness to run logical circles around most. In short, Skyfloating is an intellect. (Gosh, I hope he’s not blushing!)

Truth be told, emotions in their raw state can be extremely volatile. If left to their own devices, emotions would wreak havoc. Consider these choice terms:

• Crimes of Passion
  
• Road Rage
  
• Manic Depression
  
• Blinded by Love
  

Emotions must be tempered and reined in through logic and reasoning, otherwise the world would go amok. There is no doubt that emotions play an intergal role in our everyday lives. It allows for familial bonds and friendship. It allows the human spirit to reach the pinnacle of happiness or wallow in the depths of sorrow, and all that other mushy stuff.

But I argue it is intellect that moves society forward, puts food on the table and allows for new discovery. It is neither hard, nor cold or abstruse as some might make it out to be. If not for intellectual intelligence we would not have modern technology, medical advances, or even our everyday creature comforts. We, as humans, would more closely resemble the Yahoos, cretins who follow their every emotional whim, in Jonathan Swift’s work, Gulliver’s Travels.

My opponent will attempt to dazzle you with the latest buzzwords floating around the emergent field of Emotional Intelligence. You will hear how Corporate America is buying into this latest trend by sending key members of its workforce to workshops and seminars. He will no doubt demonstrate that social skills are a new currency in the business market. And, I tell you right now this is all true…

However, this by no means makes emotional intelligence more superior than intellectual intelligence. If anything, it means that business intellect has seen advantages that could be attained through better social skills. While emotions might keep the home fires buring, it is intellect that rules the boardroom. Because afterall, it is not emotion that runs business, it is logic and reasoning.

That is not to say that emotional intelligence is all pink hearts, rainbows and purring kittens. On the contrary, emotions work in tandem with intellect. It is a balanced yin/yang partnership. It is this partnership that keeps the world running, perhaps not perfectly smooth, but running nonetheless.

In short, it is intellect that keeps emotions in balance. Not the other way around.

Socratic Question for my opponent:

Question 1: Do you agree that it is intellect that keeps raw emotion in balance?

Question 2: Do you believe intellect plays a larger role than emotion in the field of science?

Question 3: Do you believe that intellect plays a larger role than emotion in the field of business?

Answers to Socratic Questions:

Question 1: I see you have brought out the big guns! (Literally!) I am attracted to this beautiful photo of Brad “Dump-Angelina-And-Run-Away-With-Me” Pitt in an emotionally lusty way. Yep, no doubt about it. This is a classic case of raw emotion unchecked by any type of intellect.

IQ Gets you Through School, EQ gets you through life

Before I address my opponents points I´d like to pre-pave my line of argumentation with some interesting reading from modern science (as opposed to the 18th Century science my opponent seems to be coming from):

Taken from: IQ vs. EQ

Compelling evidence recently has surfaced, leading scientists to believe that Einstein's superior intellectual ability may have been related to the region of his brain that supports psychological functions. In other words, according to Newsweek science reporter Steven Levy, "When it comes to appreciating the most famous brain of our century, it ain't the meat - it's the emotion."

_______________________

What's new is the recent identification of these skills under the singular phrase "emotional intelligence," with an accompanying scientifically based, systematized approach to personal development that's rapidly attracting attention within corporate and organizational settings today.
Research shows that emotional intelligence may actually be significantly more important than cognitive ability and technical expertise combined.

________________________

"From proven biological models, we now know that emotional intelligence is not just a new twist on relaxation techniques, it's about genuinely increasing the internal coherence and balance of a person. No longer is there any doubt that our emotional states affect our brain and its ability to process information."

There you have it: Emotional Intelligence, significantly more important than cognitive ability and technical expertise combined. Why? Because it determines how the latter two will play out. Being the causal, determining factor makes it more important as per debate topic.

Here I found some rather enlightening definitions by a business coach named
Susann Dunn:

DEFINITIONS

EQ - is a measure of your emotional intelligence, or your ability to use both your emotions and cognitive skills in your life. Emotional intelligence competencies include but are not limited to empathy, intuition, creativity, flexibility, resilience, coping, stress management, leadership, integrity, authenticity, intrapersonal skills and interpersonal skills.

IQ - a number used to express the apparent relative intelligence of a person that is the ratio multiplied by 100 of the mental age as reported on a standardized test to the chronological age. IQ is the measure of cognitive abilities, such as the ability to learn or understand or to deal with new situations; the skilled use of reason; the ability to apply knowledge to manipulate one's environment or to think abstractly as measured by objective criteria (as tests); mental acuteness; logic and analytical skills.

I`d like to invite the readers to carefully compare EQ and IQ and think about what abilities you would prefer to have.

_______________________________________

On to my opponents socratic questions:

Question 1: Do you agree that it is intellect that keeps raw emotion in balance?

Yes, I absolutely agree. Intellect helps to channel emotions in the right directions. That´s why its the second most important trait we have. Emotions are the primary driving force of humans, intellect is the secondary filtering unit of humans so to speak.

Question 2: Do you believe intellect plays a larger role than emotion in the field of science?

Only at first sight. Looking a bit deeper you, the readers and the debate judges will realize that no scientific undertaking, project or discovery is made without a motivation to do so. This motivation is driven by desire, such as the desire to achieve, the desire to be acknowledged by others, the desire to excel, the desire to progress. Again, emotion is the underlying force.

Question 3: Do you believe that intellect plays a larger role than emotion in the field of business?

No. Intellect plays an important role but again, absolutely nothing will be done or achieved without an underlying motivation...such as fear of monetary loss or the desire to climb new heights.

__________________________________________

Now to address some of the points in my opponents post:
She writes:

“Which is why my opponent, for lack of a better word, literally ROCKS!”

“I see you have brought out the big guns! (Literally!) I am attracted to this beautiful photo of Brad “Dump-Angelina-And-Run-Away-With-Me” Pitt in an emotionally lusty way”

Not only does my opponent concede early on in this debate that she is more interested in emotion (rather than seeing the picture as a bunch of pixels) but she also expresses herself in an emotional tone. This is highly appreciated by the readers who would otherwise find this debate stale and boring. But it also proves my point!

“Quite simply, he used a bit of psychology, a dash of empathy and a whole lot of intellect”

My participation in this debate is driven my emotion, not intellect. Intellect is what is organizing my thought-process. But the reason for me doing this is: I desire to learn, I desire to win, I desire to communicate.

If left to their own devices, emotions would wreak havoc.

Crimes of Passion
Road Rage
Manic Depression
Blinded by Love

Fortunately the debate topic is not whether emotions are good or bad but which of both – intellect or emotion – is more important. I thank my opponent for pointing out the overwhelming effect of lower emotions. There is no doubt that raw, unfiltered emotions are not good. Nevertheless they get the better of us and win in the end. Emotion always overrides intellect eventually. If we´d set up a challenge match between the two, emotion would eventually win.

Try winning a sports match without emotion

Try “reasoning” with someone who is heartbroken.

“He will no doubt demonstrate that social skills are a new currency in the business market. And, I tell you right now this is all true… “

I thank my opponent for again conceding the debate title this early in the debate.

Socratic Question:

1.Does the fact that you are more interested in running off with Brad Pitt than counting the pixels on the picture and categorizing them by colour not make it blatantly clear what is more important?

Emotional Zeitgeist?

originally posted by Skyfloating
I´d like to pre-pave my line of argumentation with some interesting reading from modern science (as opposed to the 18th Century science my opponent seems to be coming from)

Ah, a little meat. Let’s see what type of science back my opponent’s claim that emotional intelligence is superior to intellectual intellegence. This tidbit is from the IQ vs. EQ article that Skyfloating was kind enough to share with us.

"Emotional intelligence refers to the capacity for recognizing our own feelings and those of others, for motivating ourselves, and for managing emotions well in ourselves and in our relationships," says Daniel Goleman in his book "Working with Emotional Intelligence" (1999). It describes abilities distinct from, but complementary to, academic intelligence - the purely cognitive capacities measured by IQ.

Daniel Goleman, just who is this fellow? He is a science journalist turned business consultant, and a self-professed expert in the field of emotional intelligence. He has authored two books on the subject, “Emotional Intelligence” and “Working with Emotional Intelligence.” Goleman is the man who took the premise of a couple psychology academics and brought it mainstream. He is the go-to guy in this field. It is his version of emotional intelligence that has set scientific tongues wagging.

An excerpt from Promotional Intellligence, an article published in Salon:

Goleman greatly expanded the boundaries of emotional intelligence, including in it a range of qualities, like zeal and persistence, not usually associated with emotion. He equated high emotional intelligence with "maturity" and "character," a correspondence that Salovey and Mayer vehemently resisted. And he made sweeping claims for the construct, including the cover-worthy assertion that our emotional intelligence predicts our success more accurately than IQ.
Upon seeing the book, and especially the comparison to IQ, Mayer says that his first reaction was: "This is not the case, this isn't true." Then he thought, "Uh-oh, I hope it wasn't our fault."

~~~~~

"The claims made for emotional intelligence were unrelated to anything we have ever claimed," Mayer states flatly. In particular, the assertion that emotional intelligence is more valuable than IQ in predicting success "is nothing that you will ever find in anything we wrote." Goleman arrived at that conclusion himself -- and the methods he used to get there are distinctly unscientific.

It is John Mayer ( University of New Hampshire) and Peter Salovey (Yale) who first collaborated on the original premise of emotional intelligence. They are the originators of the field. They developed the original model upon which Goleman based and then bastardized his work.

Goleman’s contention that states emotional intelligence is more valuable than intellect is not based on any scientific fact.He is not a scientist. This is merely his OPINION, a huge difference. Yet, his work is considered by many to be a scientific endeavor with hard evidence to support his claims. Sadly, this is not the case.

originally posted by Skyfloating

originally posted by maria_stardust
“He will no doubt demonstrate that social skills are a new currency in the business market. And, I tell you right now this is all true… “

I thank my opponent for again conceding the debate title this early in the debate.

I thank my opponent for taking my remarks out of context. There’s a difference between stating something is “the new currency” and “a new currency.” One is a difinitive statement, the other isn’t. In other words, I haven’t conceded anything. Except, perhaps in my opponent’s deepest dreams.

The truth is Goleman has created a cottage industry in the business sector by touting this line. His implication that emotional intelligence plays a greater role in success than IQ has Corporate America jumping on the bandwagon. In essence, Goleman is selling the business sector fool’s gold.

Answer to Socratic Question
Question 1: In short, no. You displayed a pretty piece of eye candy. Nothing more. Unlike your contention, there is nothing intellectual to be gained by counting pixels and catagorizing colors.

Socratic Questions for my opponent
Question 1: Can you provide any actual scientific evidence for emotional intelligence?

Question 2: Do you believe that Daniel Goleman has been misleading as far as declaring his version of emotional intelligence to be rooted in scientific fact? Specifically his claim that emotional intelligence is more valuable than IQ.

Effectiveness is the Measure of Truth


For a more fluent reading experience I will now be switching to 1-to-1 debate by countering each of my opponents points as they were put forward. Spaces in quotation marks are authored by maria_stardust.

Daniel Goleman, just who is this fellow? He is a science journalist turned business consultant, and a self-professed expert in the field of emotional intelligence. He has authored two books on the subject, “Emotional Intelligence” and “Working with Emotional Intelligence.” Goleman is the man who took the premise of a couple psychology academics and brought it mainstream. He is the go-to guy in this field. It is his version of emotional intelligence that has set scientific tongues wagging.
It is John Mayer ( University of New Hampshire) and Peter Salovey (Yale) who first collaborated on the original premise of emotional intelligence. They are the originators of the field. They developed the original model upon which Goleman based and then bastardized his work.

Seasoned Debaters will recognize this tactic as attacking the messenger instead of addressing the message. Its a stale and outdated method intended to manipulate opinion rather than uncover information. Where though, are the rebuttals of the points brought up?

And not even this was done with full conviction. Telling the readers who Golemans work is based on does nothing to discredit the message/information itself.

This is, in fact, so unconvincing that I wouldnt be surprised if maria_stardust has read and embraced the popular books by Goleman herself and is now only feigning to be in disagreement with them.

Goleman’s contention that states emotional intelligence is more valuable than intellect is not based on any scientific fact.He is not a scientist. This is merely his OPINION, a huge difference. Yet, his work is considered by many to be a scientific endeavor with hard evidence to support his claims. Sadly, this is not the case.

We are now finally approaching the core-concept of this debate ladies and gentlemen, which is also reflective of the public debate on "IQ vs. EQ". One side of the debate repeats the mantra of "There is no hard scientific evidence to support this, blablabla" (seasoned readers will get tired of hearing this phrase). Interestingly, the very people who take on this side of the issue are also the ones who lack emotional intelligence and the success (business-wise) that comes with it. Business-people think differently than scientists. They are under pressure to perform and bring in the money. Thats why new effective ideas are first embraced by business people. Their motto is:

Effectiveness is the Measure of Truth

Their evidence is not based on theoretical musings and laboratory testing, it is based on day to day experience in the hardcore jungle of economy. This immediatly calls for a few socratic questions to my opponent:

Socratic Question 1. Do you seriously think Business People and Corporations widely embrace ideas which are not effective?

Socratic Question 2. Is the fact that the Economy has embraced and promoted the concept of "emotional intelligence" an indicator that it works?

The truth is Goleman has created a cottage industry in the business sector by touting this line. His implication that emotional intelligence plays a greater role in success than IQ has Corporate America jumping on the bandwagon. In essence, Goleman is selling the business sector fool’s gold.

While eagerly bashing Goleman, my opponent ignores the following:

1. Golemans message / information
2. That I did not only cite Goleman
3. The information I provided from my own knowledge and experience without the need to refer to published authors
4. That there are easily a few thousand more leading figures promoting "emotional intelligence". One such figure is easily the nations most succesful real-estate investor Donald Trump, who as we know from his bestselling books, never fails to mention the superiority of emotional drive over intellectual knowledge.

Socratic Question 3:

I assume all these extremely succesful people are idiots who "cant get their facts straight?"

You displayed a pretty piece of eye candy. Nothing more. Unlike your contention, there is nothing intellectual to be gained by counting pixels and catagorizing colors.

Nice attempt at downplaying the power of images in influencing our emotions (and with that ultimately our opinions and actions).

Socratic Questions for my opponent
Question 1: Can you provide any actual scientific evidence for emotional intelligence?

Yes. But you´ve already done it for me by citing the works of John Mayer (NH University) and Peter Salovey (Yale University) in the field of emotional intelligence. But lets not kid ourselves here: Its common psychological textbook knowledge that everything we do and dont do is determined by our emotions. We dont really need a Peter Salovey or Daniel Goleman or even a Donald Trump to tell us that.

Socratic Question 4:

So rather than battling each other with name-dropping, how about explaining, from your own experience: How is IQ superiour to EQ?

Question 2: Do you believe that Daniel Goleman has been misleading as far as declaring his version of emotional intelligence to be rooted in scientific fact? Specifically his claim that emotional intelligence is more valuable than IQ.

No. Any envious scribe can make the claim of someone else being "wrong". It doesnt take much to make that claim. But not many will have the strength to publish two bestselling books on these subjects.

Socratic Question 5:

Am I correct in assuming that you are denying that emotions are the primary driving force behind our actions?

In closing this post I would like to go back to the example of Donald Trump who we all know as a bigger-than-life wise-crack from Television, bestselling books and as a insanely succesful enterpreneur (and Im not saying that he doesnt annoy the hell out of me): He and people like him (athletes, hollywood-stars, musicians) never fail to point out that intellectual know-how is important but that desire and passion are the true secrets to their success and far, far, far, far, far superiour to the knowledge gained by regular schooling.

Likewise, if you, dear reader, want to go out and experience life to its fullest you are better advised to rely on your passion than on some silly IQ test.

Apparently Science Doesn’t Matter

… I´d like to pre-pave my line of argumentation with some interesting reading from modern science…

There you have it: Emotional Intelligence, significantly more important than cognitive ability and technical expertise combined.

Let’s face it, science was going to have to rear its head in this debate sooner or later. Skyfloating has implied that there is a scientific basis for his stance that emotional intelligence is superior to intellectual intelligence. When I point out there is no scientific evidence to support this claim, he shoots back with this:

One side of the debate repeats the mantra of "There is no hard scientific evidence to support this, blablabla"…

Notice how easy it is for my opponent to dismiss the basis of science (which he initially embraced) in regards to emotional intelligence. I believe that the non-technical term for this kind of turnabout is called a flip-flop, not to be confused with the footwear.

Then there is this little gem:

Seasoned Debaters will recognize this tactic as attacking the messenger instead of addressing the message. Its a stale and outdated method intended to manipulate opinion rather than uncover information.

Nice little bait-and-switch tactic here. Readers, please note, that although my opponent would like to contend that I have pressed forth with an ad hominem attack, this is not the case. I have made no personal attack against Daniel Goleman.

Daniel Goleman, by virtue of his two best-selling books, is considered by most to be the authority on the subject of emotional intelligence. He based his books on the work of two academics, John Mayer ( University of New Hampshire) and Peter Salovey (Yale) who first collaborated on the original premise of emotional intelligence. Goleman took this premise and surmised, without scientific evidence, that emotional intelligence is more valuable then intellect.

The simple truth is I stated an irrefutable fact.

There is no scientific evidence that supports emotional intelligence is superior to, or more important than, intellectual intelligence.

My opponent, being on the warpath and all, continues with his “attacking the messenger not addressing the message” rant:

While eagerly bashing Goleman, my opponent ignores the following:

1. Golemans message / information
2. That I did not only cite Goleman
3. The information I provided from my own knowledge and experience without the need to refer to published authors
4. That there are easily a few thousand more leading figures promoting "emotional intelligence". One such figure is easily the nations most succesful real-estate investor Donald Trump, who as we know from his bestselling books, never fails to mention the superiority of emotional drive over intellectual knowledge.

Allow me address each of these points:
1. Goleman’s contention that EQ is more valuable then IQ has been addressed and is without scientific merit.
2. My opponent has also cited Bruce Cryer and Susann Dunn who both embrace Goleman’s work.
3. What specific personal knowledge and experience is my opponent referring to?
4. Is my opponent suggesting I openly take into account the few thousand more leading figures promoting emotional intelligence and Donald Trump?

Just because my opponent desires his stance in this debate to be correct, doesn’t necessarily make it true. He has yet to provide a shred of evidence to back this claim.

EI and the Workplace

My opponent has been quick to point that emotional intelligence is being promoted in the workplace. This is normally accomplished through seminars, training workshops and EI tests. The main reason that emotional intelligence has been embraced by Corporate America are rooted in claims that emotional intelligence is more valuable than IQ in determining success.

Excerpt from Just say NO to Training Fads.

Is the effort sustainable? It isn't enough to pass information on to employees; they also have to understand how to use their new knowledge. People can have a lot of information and not do anything with it. When that's the case, nothing changes.

For instance, a lot of good work is being done around the concepts of emotional intelligence and what makes a star performer. Unfortunately, according to Horsmon, to date nobody has been able to come up with an application or scenario that helps employees acquire the competencies that make a star performer.

Also, most emotional intelligence testing relies on self-reporting methods. In other words, it is up to the person taking the test to be truthful in their responses. This is certainly opens up a whole can of worms for proponents of EI. Consider a scenario where a potential employee, or even an employee vying for a promotion is required to take an EI test. (By the way, this is not a far-fetched or implausible scenario.) What is to prevent a person from manipulating the outcome of the test? It’s an honor system.

Excerpt from Emotional Intelligence: Criticism on measurement issues.

It has been suggested that responding in a desirable way is a response set, which is a situational and temporary response pattern (Pauls & Crost, 2004; Paulhus, 1991). This is contrasted with a response style, which is a more long-term trait-like quality. Considering the contexts some self-report EI inventories are used in (e.g., employment settings), the problems of response sets in high-stakes scenarios become clear (Paulhus & Reid, 2001).

There are a few methods to prevent socially desirable responding on behavior inventories. Some researchers believe it is necessary to warn test-takers not to fake good before taking a personality test.

It is apparent that emotional intelligence in the workplace is not without its pitfalls.

Answers to Socratic Questions

Socratic Question 1. Do you seriously think Business People and Corporations widely embrace ideas which are not effective?

Yes, there are several ideas that are often consider business fads that fall to the wayside, and the corporate world is full of them. Here are a few you may have heard of:

Outsourcing, Benchmarking , Best Practices, Matrix Management, Customer Centric, Value Creation, Core Competence, Quality Circles, Team-Based Management, Strategic Alliances, Chaos Management, Rightsizing, Reengineering, Business Process Redesign, Data Warehousing, One-to-One Marketing, Intrapreneurs, Sigma Six…

Socratic Question 2. Is the fact that the Economy has embraced and promoted the concept of "emotional intelligence" an indicator that it works?

Please refer to the list of business/management fads above. Each one of these fads were embraced by Big Business searching for the next big thing. So, no, the fact that it is being promoted in the business arena is not an indicator that it works.

Socratic Question 3: I assume all these extremely succesful people are idiots who "cant get their facts straight?"

Nothing like a little baiting, eh. This question is a classic case of entrapment. No matter how carefully I may answer this, my opponent can easily twist my words to meet this agenda. To specifically answer your question, I am not claiming or inferring that anyone is idiotic in regards to this topic.

Considering Trump is the only name that you specifically mentioned, I would say this. His assertion, according to you, that emotional drive is superior to intellectual knowledge, is merely his perspective. There is not a shred of evidence to support this claim, hence it is not a fact.

Socratic Question 4: So rather than battling each other with name-dropping, how about explaining, from your own experience: How is IQ superiour to EQ?

There’s no need to, for I’m not claiming that IQ is superior to emotional intelligence. My stance is that emotional intelligence is not superior to intellectual intelligence. It is your obligation to prove your claim, which has yet to occur.

Nice try on your attempt to turn the tables, though.

Socratic Question 5: Am I correct in assuming that you are denying that emotions are the primary driving force behind our actions?

No, your assumption is not correct. This brings to mind the age old question concerning the chicken and the egg. As far as I can tell, research has not shown if emotions are the driving force behind our actions, or vice versa. However, I do believe that emotion and intellect work in tandem.

Socratic Questions

Any envious scribe can make the claim of someone else being "wrong". It doesnt take much to make that claim. But not many will have the strength to publish two bestselling books on these subjects.

Question 1: Does the mere fact that Goleman did publish two best-selling books make him ”right”?

Their evidence is not based on theoretical musings and laboratory testing, it is based on day to day experience in the hardcore jungle of economy.

Question 2: The Economy seems to be sliding down hill. Is this an indication of EI’s failure in the business world?

Question 3: In addition to Trumps many successes, he also has a long, long record of failures under his belt, and he wears a bad hair piece. (sidenote: this last bit is a fine example of an ad hominem attack) Can we really trust his judgement as far as his assertion that emotional intelligence is superior to intellectual intelligence?

Wrapping it up with passion


In both science and business a theory is supported by providing as many reasons as possible for its validity and workability. The thin string my opponent keeps holding on to is the mantra "there is no scientific evidence for EI". I recommend my opponent look up the meaning of the word "evidence" (as opposed to proof). This phrase is widely used to deflect from ones own shortcomings but does nothing to further our learning. Looking back at this debate I ask the debate-judges: Did my opponent provide REASONS why intellectual intelligence is superiour to emotional intelligence?. No. My opponent mainly contradicted what I said. Did I provide reasons and examples for my case? Yes. And more to come.

Why emotions are more important than intellect

A) Many different fields have produced work on emotions. Among these are psychology, sociology, psychiatry, anthropology, ethology, archaeology, economics, criminology, law, political science, history, geography, education, philosophy, neuroscience, linguistics and literature.

B) Without emotional awareness there will be a lack of:

Team Identity
Motivation
Emotional Awareness
Communication
Conflict Resolution
Stress Tolerance
Positive Mood


C) Emotions, not facts win political votes

An interesting article on the politics of emotion

If you have ever wondered why Democrats have only won two out of the last seven Presidential elections, then Drew Westen may have the answer.

I have just finished reading his book, The Political Brain: The Role of Emotion in Deciding the Fate of the Nation, which was published recently.

Using the best available evidence from neuroscience, psychology and politics, Westen makes a convincing and compelling argument why candidates who appeal to our emotions win elections.

D) All achievements and all progress are driven by desire

An interesting reference: EQ vs. IQ: Why do smart people fail?

E) Emotions have formed the path of history and society. Consider:

Love
Fear
Desire
Hate
Sadness
Enthusiasm
Anger
Frustration
Happiness

All my opponent can offer in this debate is: "Daniel Goleman stole his info from a Yale scholar". So what? That wouldnt change the fact that everything we know is driven by the emotions just listed.

F) Big Business & Big Money recognize emotions as the driving force.

Another interesting reference: What is more important IQ or EQ?

_______________________________________

Answers to my opponents Socratic Questions:

Question 1: Does the mere fact that Goleman did publish two best-selling books make him ”right”?

No. It makes him succesful.

Question 2: The Economy seems to be sliding down hill. Is this an indication of EI’s failure in the business world?

No. Thats a result of various political and global factors not pertinent to the topic of this debate. EI is a new and emerging area of knowledge and practice which already has and will continue to help businesses.

Question 3: In addition to Trumps many successes, he also has a long, long record of failures under his belt, and he wears a bad hair piece. Can we really trust his judgement as far as his assertion that emotional intelligence is superior to intellectual intelligence?

I would trust my own heart more than I do anybody elses assertion. And I recommend the reader do likewise.

______________________________________

To address my opponents points in the last post:

Yes, there are several ideas that are often consider business fads that fall to the wayside, and the corporate world is full of them. Here are a few you may have heard of:

Outsourcing, Benchmarking , Best Practices, Matrix Management, Customer Centric, Value Creation, Core Competence, Quality Circles, Team-Based Management, Strategic Alliances, Chaos Management, Rightsizing, Reengineering, Business Process Redesign, Data Warehousing, One-to-One Marketing, Intrapreneurs, Sigma Six…

It is highly ignorant to call some of these practices "fads" and "ineffective". Six Sigma, Outsourcing, Benchmarking, Best Practices, Value Creation and Strategic Alliances are common, many-times-proven and succesful business practices.

As far as I can tell, research has not shown if emotions are the driving force behind our actions

I ask the debate judges to take special note of this statement by my opponent.

Why do you go to the gym? To get in better shape? Why do you want to be in better shape? To feel better.

Why do you go to work? To earn money? Why would you want to earn money? To buy stuff? Why do you buy stuff? To feel better.

Why else do you work for money? Because you are scared of not being able to pay the rent?

Why do you do the things you do? You do them in order to avoid feeling pain and gain feeling pleasure. Actions are emotionally driven. This is basic textbook psychology. This is common sense.

Next thing you know my opponent is going to ask me for "scientific research that such a thing as love exists".

external-source-data:

EI: Critisism on Measurement Issues
Some researchers believe it is necessary to warn test-takers not to fake good before taking a personality test.

What do personality-tests have to do with emotions being the primary driving force (as opposed to intellect) of humankind? Nothing. Showing that people fake personality-tests has little to do with the argument of this debate (except to maybe show that even here emotion (fear) is the driving force.

______________________________________

The Debate Topic was "Emotional Intelligence is Superior to Intellectual Intelligence". The Debate topic is not "Intellect is unimportant". Just like my opponent, I believe both emotions and intellect to work in tandem. But when asking which is more of a driving force in society, history, politics, advertisement, business I believe I have shown, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that emotion wins the game.

In support of this dear readers and judges, consider any random advertising campaign. Does it appeal more to the intellect or more to the emotions? Well of course the emotions. Consider which newspapers sell more: Those appealing to the intellect or those appealing to the emotions? Undeniably those headlines and pictures that arouse emotions sell more.

For this reason it is important to not only undergo intellectual education but also emotional education: To be better equipped to deal with what really runs this world.

I would like to thank maria_stardust for an excellent debate, memory shock for his dedication to this Forum and the judges for taking their time to read our heated debates.

In respect,

Skyfloating

This has been a lively and enjoyable debate. I would like to take this moment to thank my respected opponent, Skyfloating, MemoryShock and all the judges who volunteer their time and effort.

~~~~~

Emotional Intelligence: Beyond the Hype

originally posted by Skyfloating
Did my opponent provide REASONS why intellectual intelligence is superiour to emotional intelligence?

The topic for this debate is "Emotional Intelligence is Superiour to Intellectual Intelligence." However, my opponent is insistant that I should make an argument as to why intellectual intelligence is superior to emotional intelligence. This is not, and should not be the case.

In fact, I have maintained that there is an obvious correlation between emotions and intellect, but there is not definitive evidence as to whether or not one is superior to the other.

originally posted by Skyfloating
The subject of "emotional intelligence", while not new to us commoners is a relatively new field in science…

It is painfully obvious my opponent is trying to steer this debate away from science. The fact remains that emotional intelligence is a valid field of science, first and foremost. There is no wiggling out from beneath this stone. Could it be the only reason he is distancing himself from this issue is because it doesn’t support his premise?

Just saying…

No doubt, emotions and intellect both play vital roles in our lives. Both are indicative of our human nature. It also should be noted that both intelligences mature with age. But perhaps what we should really take into consideration is that our emotions and intellect are so closely intertwined, that it would be folly to declare that one is superior to the other without empirical evidence.

I dare say the only way to establish, once and for all, whether emotional intelligence is superior to intellect would be to test it by the scientific method. As much as my opponent scoffs at the notion that science is even relevant to this particular issue, it is the only way to establish the TRUTH of the matter.

As it stands, the science of emotional intelligence has yet to provide evidence of its superiority over IQ.

All my opponent can offer in this debate is: "Daniel Goleman stole his info from a Yale scholar". So what?

Talk about taking things way out of context...

I have never implied that Goleman stole information at all. I said his work is based on the scientific research of two scholars, to which he inserted his own bias. By declaring emotional intelligence is more valuable than IQ without scientific data to back it up, renders his work to be nothing more than an opinion and not a fact.

Let’s face it. It’s NOT how we FEEL that really counts. It is the FACTS that matter in this instance. That said, the following fact is irrefutable:

There is no scientific evidence that supports emotional intelligence is superior to intellectual intelligence.



Business as Usual…

It is highly ignorant to call some of these practices "fads" and "ineffective". Six Sigma, Outsourcing, Benchmarking, Best Practices, Value Creation and Strategic Alliances are common, many-times-proven and succesful business practices.

One business office’s fad is another one’s fashion. All one has to do is google: "(insert practice) + fad" to find that each and every one of these practices, including emotional intelligence, has been labeled or considered a fad by many in the corporate world. Just because a practice has been embraced at some point down the line, doesn’t mean it won’t eventually fall by the wayside.

The fact remains that Big Business is notorious for jumping onto whatever shiny new bandwagon comes rolling into town. Emotional intelligence just happens to be the current trend. Until, of course, the next big thing comes around the corner. By the way, this is not an if kind of scenario, it is a when. Time has a tendancy to change fast in the corporate world.

What do personality-tests have to do with emotions being the primary driving force (as opposed to intellect) of humankind? Nothing. Showing that people fake personality-tests has little to do with the argument of this..

Judges, please note that the personality tests my opponent is referring to, are the exact same tests issued under the guise of emotional intelligence. In fact, that is basically what EI tests are, personality tests. Businesses and corporations who advocate emotional intelligence as an active part of their business practices must take into account the critical issues that are inherent within the field.

Once again, emotional intelligence in the context of Big Business is not without its pitfalls.



What’s with all the Drama?

Skyfloating has gone to great pains to point out the importance of emotion in the various aspects of our lives. However, I would like to invite the judges and readers alike, to take this one step further. All the points regarding emotion that my opponent has made can be equally applied to intellect.

A) Intellect is as important as emotion across all fields of science, literature and the fine arts.

B) Intellect is as important as emotion regarding, but not limited to:

Humanity
Identity
Collaboration
Motivation
Communication
Conflict Resolution
Stress Management
Humor
Sports
Politics
Philanthropy
Education

C) Intellect is as important as emotion regarding politics and policies.

D) All achievements and progress are driven by intellect and and emotion.

E) Intellect and emotion play a vital role in history and society.

F) Corporate America recognize intellect and emotion to be equally important.



What Does It All Mean?

Needless to say, this has been a spirited debate. However, the only thing that has been shown is that it is impossible to discern beyond a shadow of a doubt, whether or not emotion is indeed superior to intellect, or vice versa. That said, there does appear to be evidence that suggests that emotions and intellect work in tandem. To which side does the scale tip, only time and science can tell.

Until science can provide empirical evidence that states otherwise, emotional intelligence is NOT superior to intellectual intelligence.

A very entertaining read, Lady and Gent....

The debate is now in the judges hands...

The judges have spoken and...

...Skyfloating has taken this one by majority decision.

The judges comments...

The first thing swaying my opinion of this debate in Skyfloating’s favor was the missed opening statement by maria_stardust, The strict time allotment of structured debates here is paramount in my opinion, and Skyfloating took an advantage when he posted his first reply 7 minutes after the allotted time for an extension expired.

All In all through this debate it would seem that Skyfloating did dominate Maria_Stardust in nearly every aspect. Maria’s responses were filled with emotion further giving credence to Skyfloating’s argument.

Maria failed in using superior logic and discipline in refuting Skyfloatings argument, giving him a key advantage in this debate. Also a main factor in this debate was the emphasis on emotional intelligence with little argument for intellectual intelligence.

First of all, I would like to say that I really enjoyed reading this debate. I find the subject matter very interesting, and I think both candidates did a wonderful job.

However, I believe that Skyfloating brought up many good points in his argument for the fact that emotional intelligence is superior to intellectual intelligence. Naturally, all feelings for either person aside, I felt like I had just got done reading an article that proved to me that EI is in fact superior to IQ. Maria_stardust did not have much to hold onto during this debate other than continuously sticking to the claim that there is no scientific evidence to back Skyfloating's argument. However, Skyfloating cited things that, IMO, go above and beyond scientific fact. He cited real life examples and scenarios that people can identify with. In my opinion, Skyfloating has clearly won this debate.

Congratulations to both Fighters and I look forward to seeing more from both.

Congrats, Skyfloating!

This was a well-fought debate! There's nothing like swimming with the sharks!

Thanks for the dance maria_stardust. I think we both put up a real fight.