Trusted, Automoderated users
17,538
edits
Talk:High-EQ personality: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
no edit summary
No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 16: | Line 16: | ||
:Seems to be a framework eerily suited to a Chinese style nightmare 'social credit' system based on whatever is the norm at the time. The only personality traits researchers seem to have a grasp on is extroversion/introversion and the rest just seems open to speculation. And speculation is fine on the wiki. I have a very low opinion on whatever is currently academic psychological consensus about anything. These fields have a history of being overconfident about horribly wrong theses, that never has really ended. As well as an open desire to use psychology to enforce social norms rather than to simply understand humans. One would probably have to really go beyond an abstract and really parse individual studies to get any useful information in the psychological field I would think. [[User:William|William]] ([[User talk:William|talk]]) 12:27, 20 November 2019 (UTC) | :Seems to be a framework eerily suited to a Chinese style nightmare 'social credit' system based on whatever is the norm at the time. The only personality traits researchers seem to have a grasp on is extroversion/introversion and the rest just seems open to speculation. And speculation is fine on the wiki. I have a very low opinion on whatever is currently academic psychological consensus about anything. These fields have a history of being overconfident about horribly wrong theses, that never has really ended. As well as an open desire to use psychology to enforce social norms rather than to simply understand humans. One would probably have to really go beyond an abstract and really parse individual studies to get any useful information in the psychological field I would think. [[User:William|William]] ([[User talk:William|talk]]) 12:27, 20 November 2019 (UTC) | ||
::"And speculation is fine on the wiki" Agreed, but at least the names should make sense and at least they should already be used somewhere. The term seems to be used sparingly by redpillers and seemingly rarely if ever in context of BPD, so not sure what to make of it: http://redditsearch.io/?term=%22high%20eq%22&dataviz=false&aggs=false&subreddits=theredpill&searchtype=posts,comments&search=true&start=0&end=1574253215&size=100 Likewise, a Google search for "high-eq" "BPD" "redpill" has 4 results. | |||
::High-EQ means "people who master their emotions because they understand them, and they use an extensive vocabulary of feelings to do so" or something like that according to various website. Maybe the concept here women who are highly agreeable/emotional/manipulative/instable but too smart to be satisfied by cheap advances by beta males? Then the article should make this more clear. Not clear that this documents anything in the manosphere or a scientific concept (and the only related one, EQ, is on shaky grounds anyhow). [[User:Bibipi|Bibipi]] ([[User talk:Bibipi|talk]]) 12:46, 20 November 2019 (UTC) | |||