This is not a good article. To start with, any of the clinical or popular discussions of emotional intelligence basically boil down to "empathy." Emotional intelligence is the ability to read yourself and read others. It's not a slavish need to act purely on emotion - the statement "For mechanics, scientists, and accountants, emotional intelligence was a liability rather than an asset" is only true if that "awareness" is paired with an inability to control one's behavior, which is an essential part of emotional intelligence. For another thing, the foundation of "dark side" is predicated on in one meta-study - no conclusions are drawn. Even the author says "Although more research is needed to unpack these results, one promising explanation is that these employees were paying attention to emotions when they should have been focusing on their tasks." In other words, it's possible that some jobs don't require as much emotional intelligence as others, but more study is needed. DUH. The Greeks broke rhetoric down to Ethos, Pathos, Logos in that order. Ethos: "I am trustworthy." Pathos: "I am compelling." Logos: "I am technically correct." The art of persuasion has not ever been and shall never be solely a matter of being right. Emotional intelligence, rather than having a "dark" side, both allows one to use one's emotions and be aware when one's emotions are being used. There's nothing "dark" about that. I really love this statement: "In a study in which people were assessed on their awareness of their own evil, researchers discovered that those who were aware of their own evil tended to be evil." DUH. This is the part where I link to one of my favorite articles on the subject.Implications for linking the EI fad in personnel selection to established psychological theory are discussed
In a study led by the University of Toronto psychologist Stéphane Côté, university employees filled out a survey about their Machiavellian tendencies, and took a test measuring their knowledge about effective strategies for managing emotions. Then, Cote’s team assessed how often the employees deliberately undermined their colleagues. The employees who engaged in the most harmful behaviors were Machiavellians with high emotional intelligence. They used their emotional skills to demean and embarrass their peers for personal gain.
That's a good link, thanks. That's pretty much how I summed that up too. I agree that the article is not the greatest and I certainly think that the headline is a bit ridiculous, but in general I find the subject of empathy to be an interesting one. For example, why is it surprising that particularly empathetic people would seek to use their knowledge for personal gain? Is that not how the professional culture of the US works? What I found interesting about the article I posted, was that it doesn't mention advertising even once. Advertising these days is increasingly emotionally intelligent and advertisers have shown that they are fantastic at getting people to believe any number of things by appealing to them emotionally. This is something that I feel like most people overlook, especially on the internet. I was surprised that in the link you posted, advertising is mentioned, though only in passing. I would say that persuasion actually has very little to do with being right and quite a bit to do with guiding a person to feel that something is right or correct. I'd also say that persuasion and emotional intelligence as used by advertisers (of all kinds, including people that "spin" things) can result in evil, though it might not be evil in and of itself."In a study in which people were assessed on their awareness of their own evil, researchers discovered that those who were aware of their own evil tended to be evil."
The art of persuasion has not ever been and shall never be solely a matter of being right.
I think "influence" "persuasion" and "manipulation" are the same thing seen through three opinions. That's why the Greeks broke Logos and Ethos out - logic need not be ethical; ethics need not be logical. If anything, current research isn't so much challenging assumptions as it's challenging idealism. It's pretty idealistic to presume that a persuasive person would never be a manipulative person but a realist would recognize that the two positions are not separated by judgement but by aspersion. I shared it. It's worth talking about. But the article is pretty fluffy.
Yeah, that makes sense. If not opinions, then certainly those labels could be used given intent. I guess I should have posted this with a discussion question, as that's what I was looking for by posting the article. Notes for next time!I think "influence" "persuasion" and "manipulation" are the same thing seen through three opinions. That's why the Greeks broke Logos and Ethos out - logic need not be ethical; ethics need not be logical.
I shared it. It's worth talking about. But the article is pretty fluffy.