Confused about this[edit source]
EQ stands for emotional (intelligence) quotient. It should be pointed out that this is a fake concept without grounding in scientific observations as it can entirely be reduced to IQ + agreeableness.
So the following seems false:
High-EQ people have lower levels of creativity and innovation potential, difficulty giving and receiving negative feedback
--unsigned commend by User:Bibipi
I noticed this also and agree. Maybe a section with criticism on the EQ concept and the inclusion of the model of "EQ" that is said to have more scientific validity, i.e. The General Factor of Personality?(https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/unique-everybody-else/201211/personalitys-big-one-reality-or-artifact) Altmark22 (talk) 21:21, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
- The main relevance of "high-EQ personality" to the project is that occasionally you'll run into such people and need to attach a label to the set of characteristics and behaviors you observed in them. It's kind of like "BPD girl" -- we don't really have a good scientific understanding of BPD, but we've been able to come up with some diagnostic criteria so that we can at least attach a label to them, so that when we say, "BPD girl" people know what kind of person we're talking about. E.g., a girl who probably cuts herself, is suicidal, is prone to extreme idealization and devaluation of romantic partners, etc.
- From the incel's point of view, the main relevance is that these high-EQ girls may seem like BPDs at first because of their charisma and consequent popularity, but it's going to be basically impossible to fuck them, in contrast to BPD girls. The other thing is, high-EQ girls are going to be less likely to be bunny-boilers because they don't have that same impulsiveness overriding their conscientiousness 2601:5CD:C200:9BE0:DD87:D7DF:595F:1BD7 23:04, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
- Arguments about Big 5 vs. GFP just seems to be political arguments as to whether or not to frame 'bad personality' in terms of unidimensional political/social adherence or not. The GFP seems like a pretty awful framework for those who want the psychiatric business out of enforcement of social norms. From your article
"Similarly, it might be more appropriate to consider the so-called general factor of personality, not as a higher-order continuous factor, but as a particular combination of traits that happens to be socially desirable"
- 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. 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 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). 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 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, it's linked to 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 are generally more adroit in regards to adapting their behavior to the social norms that surround them;in order to be more effective at attaining their goals and building/maintaining 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. Altmark22 (talk) 13:24, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
- A separate article on the GFP or criticism section in the EQ page is absolutely fine, I was just arguing for no reason other than to understand the GFPWilliam (talk) 13:41, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
Move to Emotional intelligence?[edit source]
Currently the content of the article is fairly general in that critique part, but more specific in the lede. One could reverse this and move the entire thing to Emotional intelligence and then also link this article with other concepts like game, charme and social skills. Bibipi (talk) 17:58, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
The Harvard Business Review article has the best description of the archetype that I've seen, in terms of setting forth a description of a person I can relate to having known[edit source]
There are really only maybe a couple girls I can think of though who obviously fit into that category. If the girl is also good-looking, she can have quite a powerful effect, but even if she isn't, she can be pretty popular in the social circle.
Actually, the more I think of it, the more girls I can think of in retrospect who seemed to potentially fit that archetype. They're the type who don't really end up with enemies that much because they mostly keep everything positive and don't really get nasty or harsh with anyone. If anyone hates on them, it's usually out of frustration or jealousy or whatever. 2601:5CD:C200:9BE0:C817:DE83:7A83:314F 18:19, 20 November 2019 (UTC)