6,353
edits
Talk:High-EQ personality: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
m
no edit summary
No edit summary |
mNo edit summary |
||
| Line 19: | Line 19: | ||
::"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. | ::"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 websites. Maybe the concept here is 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) | ::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 websites. Maybe the concept here is 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) | ||
::William, while I appreciate your concerns about the possible politicization of the GFP (it has already received strong criticism due to the association of the concept with racialist theories and John Phillipe Rushton, evidence for his application of the theory seems to be quite mixed btw:https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0191886919304994), I'm more concerned in regards to this article with the evidence that suggests that what folk psychology perceives as "EQ" is better represented by the GFP. There is quite some convincing evidence that is is correlated with social effectiveness. (being linked to supervisor ratings, college rated likability, performance on tests of social skills), that it does correlate very strongly with emotional self regulation, ''g''/IQ (https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0160289614001317) and other things that are generally socially desired. This does not mean that people higher in the GFP are in any way "better" than those lower in it (some personality traits, such as psychoticism, that are generally linked with lower GFP have been demonstrated to be linked to some socially desired things, such as leadership skills and creativity for instance). The GFP represents traits that are socially desirable because more intelligent and agreeable people adapt their behavior to the social norms that surround them in order to be more effective at attaining their goals and building social ties. So this criticism doesn't really negate the existence of such a construct. | |||
(https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0191886916303774 a review of the literature regarding GFP: "It can also easily be replicated that this GFP in personality measures significantly relates to other meaningful criteria measures, such as (other-rated or objective) job performance or social behavior.) | |||
"I have a very low opinion on whatever is currently academic psychological consensus about anything." I understand your skepticism, and agree this is a sound attitute to take in response to much of what comes out of the field of psychology. | |||
However, several enduring and now nearly universally accepted concepts have come out of psychology, such as IQ/''g''. So while the field does have major problems (reproducibility crisis, publication bias, allegations of corrupt peer review processes etc.) it has also resulted in some advancement of human knowledge, and constructs that appear to have convincing evidence behind them shouldn't be so easily dismissed imo. | |||
Whereas the EQ concept has pretty much been debunked. Perhaps the creator of this article could alter the article to clarify what he means by his concept of "EQ" vs what the term used to represent in the field of psychology, as he appears to use it in a more "memey" manner. | |||
[[User:Altmark22|Altmark22]] ([[User talk:Altmark22|talk]]) 13:24, 20 November 2019 (UTC) | |||