[Benjamin]

Has anyone else read this book? I thought it might be interesting to discuss the some of the ideas Goleman wrote about.

[WinterRose]

No, but I read social intelligence which I think was his next step. I felt that had a good bit to chew on.

[Benjamin]

I'll have to look for that. I was browsing the library and came across his emotional intelligence book.

[Rapunzel]

I've read it, or listend to it, or something, anyway. It is very much worth learning about emotional intelligence. One of the most important intelligences we need to develop, IMHO.

Rap

[WinterRose]

Benjamin - What were some of the ideas? What stood out to you most? I don't know if I'll get to read it any time soon looking at the stack of books I've got from the library at the moment - but I love hearing the new ideas.

[Benjamin]

Hi Rose, One thing that was pretty interesting was in the chapter on “social arts.” Goleman writes about the transfer of emotions. Emotions are contagious. When someone emits a strong positive emotion, we tend to adapt that emotion. The quality to transmit emotions is necessary in many occupations. A good car salesman will exude positiveness about a vehicle he is trying to sell, even without getting deep into the details about the car itself, and that emotion will often transfer to the buyer. Teachers who show enthusiasm in the subject they are teaching are effective in motivating students, but even more so if she can form an emotional bond with the students.

It’s not showing your emotions that is important; it’s the ability to transfer those emotions to others in a way that the other person will want to share those emotions. It’s a quality often found in great leaders and motivators. Take Martin Luther King, for example. He was able to connect with thousands of people while giving a speech. Senator Barack Obama seems to have that quality while Senator Hillary Clinton may be lacking in it. Even though both presidential candidates may have good ideas, the one who can establish the best rapport with the voters will probably be the democratic nominee.

Goleman calls this sharing of emotions synchrony. It involves not only the sending but also the receiving of and empathy for the emotions of others. People who are weak in sending or receiving emotions are often prone to problems in relationships. They can make people feel uncomfortable because they don’t develop any type of rapport with the other person.

People who were abused or neglected as children may lack synchrony in emotions. They didn’t develop a healthy bond with a parent and didn’t learn the healthy way to share emotions. Those who suffer from emotional problems are often overly emotional -- possibly out of frustration from not being able to connect with other people.

[WinterRose]

</font><blockquote><div id="quote"><font class="small">Quote:</font>
Emotions are contagious.

</div></font></blockquote><font class="post">
Amen! Sometimes I feel like an antennae for emotions - I can pick them up easily. Like a tuning fork resonating with other tuning forks, I guess.

He talks about this idea in Social intelligence as well and goes further into relationships. I really like the beginning because he touches on something that I've really been thinking about and that is how disconnected we all are. Even as we pass each other on the street - we don't connect. There is a lack of human contact. (And here I am communicating through a PC...)

I think our separateness is becoming fatal. It is not good for society. We are meant to be social creatures - but we are less and less social and more and more isolated.

I'm not saying electronic communication is altogether bad - it's a great tool and helps connect us when we are apart. However, I do not believe it is good for that to be the main mode of connection - it's just not full enough. Have you noticed at work how people will email someone just a few seats away instead of calling or better yet just going over there?

Ok, ok - soap box for Winter Rose.

[Benjamin]

You may be right that society is becoming less social, or at least less synchronous in our sharing of emotions since we do communicate so much these days using impersonal means of communication. I know what you mean about emailing someone in the next cubicle. I've done that myself. People in our industry are often a little introverted so we may be more apt to communicate that way.

I'm working from home these days and most of my communication is through email, but I really don't mind it. The workplace has always been an uncomfortable place for me. I like to be able to choose who I associate with. At work, you're forced to spend a lot of time with people you might not want to be with.

This topic of emotional synchrony is interesting. I haven't seen it in any other books, but it seems like it would be a major problem if you're not able to connect with other people emotionally. That would make for a lonely life.

[Perna]

I found this interesting site that kind of summarizes Goleman well.

http://www.funderstanding.com/eq.cfm

[Benjamin]

</font><blockquote><div id="quote"><font class="small">Quote:</font>
Perna said:
I found this interesting site that kind of summarizes Goleman well.

http://www.funderstanding.com/eq.cfm

</div></font></blockquote><font class="post">
What makes Goleman's book interesting is in the details, although the summary touches on some good things as well.

</font><blockquote><div id="quote"><font class="small">Quote:</font>
Basically, a student who learns to learn is much more apt to succeed.

</div></font></blockquote><font class="post">
That is very true. The most important thing we can get out of an education is learning how to learn. Once you have that, you're more likely to spend the rest of your life learning just for the sake of learning -- not just to earn a good grade.

</font><blockquote><div id="quote"><font class="small">Quote:</font>
Plus, happy people are more apt to retain information and do so more effectively than dissatisfied people.

</div></font></blockquote><font class="post">
This is a side effect of psychological problems often overlooked. When you're troubled or anxious, your memory is affected. It's more difficult to concentrate. You lose interest in things that may have at one time been fascinating to you. Your motivation is diminished. When you have trouble recalling vital information, you're treated as if you have an intelligence problem, which may further exacerbate the emotional problem. Also, happy people tend to sleep better. Poor sleep affects your concentration and memory.

[Benjamin]

Before I forget, something else Goleman wrote about was diversion tactics in treating emotional problems. In other words: find something else to do besides worry or feel bad about yourself.

I'll write more on it later, but how do others out there feel about that?

[Rapunzel]

Diversion tactics can work, at least for a while. Sometimes long enough to establish some kind of re-focus and acquire a better perspective. I think that's part of why we have the Social forum here.

[Benjamin]

</font><blockquote><div id="quote"><font class="small">Quote:</font>
Rapunzel said:
Diversion tactics can work, at least for a while. Sometimes long enough to establish some kind of re-focus and acquire a better perspective.

</div></font></blockquote><font class="post">
I think that's true, also. But it has to be part of a comprehensive program consisting of many approaches so that you're not just avoiding the problem. In other words it's just one angle in an attack from all angles.

[desperado]

This info is really interesting, Benjamin. I've definitely heard about the book, but didn't know much about it. Thanks.

[Perna]

I don't use the word "diversion" with myself but, rather, "distraction." I distract myself from my anxiety or rumination on how "bad" things are (which has nothing to do with actual problems or avoidance) so I focus on something more positive and "interesting." I don't believe when we're working on our actual problems that we need diversion/distraction as they are usually of interest to us. I don't believe "resting" between bouts of working on a problem is bad and often avoidance can help in that way. If we can't let go of an actual problem (as opposed to a worry, which is always useless in that it is about something that might happen in the future) then I believe it needs facing. That's why we have recurring dreams/themes in our lives, to bring us to face an actual problem. Avoiding doesn't work and eventually I realize that and "give it up" and start working on the problem itself. But our emotions and energies ebb and flow and sometimes we do need to take a break. I don't feel that's a bad thing unless it gets habitual so we're breaking more than we're working :-)

I've heard that Goleman's work on emotional intelligence has recievied severe criticism from people who study emotional intelligence in academia. Goleman's major claims are very controversial (if not outright false) and he seems more motivated by setting himself up as a consultant (to make lots of money) than to figure out the acutal nature of emotional intelligence (if there is any such thing). He ignores the major researchers in the field and don't be misled that his PhD has any relevance to this field. He also uses the term 'emotional intelligence' in a very idiosyncratic way (that is significantly out of touch with the way the experts use the term).

So...

I'm a bit sceptical. See (for example)

http://eqi.org/gole.htm#How%20Golema...20the%20public

(if you scroll down there is a lengthy discussion)

http://eqi.org/a_paul1.htm

(I nearly got suckered in because I was going to write a thesis on emotions at some point)

[Benjamin]

</font><blockquote><div id="quote"><font class="small">Quote:</font>
alexandra_k said:
I've heard that Goleman's work on emotional intelligence has recievied severe criticism from people who study emotional intelligence in academia. Goleman's major claims are very controversial (if not outright false) and he seems more motivated by setting himself up as a consultant (to make lots of money) than to figure out the acutal nature of emotional intelligence (if there is any such thing). He ignores the major researchers in the field and don't be misled that his PhD has any relevance to this field. He also uses the term 'emotional intelligence' in a very idiosyncratic way (that is significantly out of touch with the way the experts use the term).

So...

I'm a bit sceptical. See (for example)

http://eqi.org/gole.htm#How%20Golema...20the%20public

(if you scroll down there is a lengthy discussion)

</div></font></blockquote><font class="post">
That's one of the reasons I thought it might be interesting to discuss the book.

> That's one of the reasons I thought it might be interesting to discuss the book.

ah. sure :-)

[Benjamin]

</font><blockquote><div id="quote"><font class="small">Quote:</font>
alexandra_k said:
> That's one of the reasons I thought it might be interesting to discuss the book.

ah. sure :-)

</div></font></blockquote><font class="post">
Thank you for calling me a liar. I've found that people who lie a lot tend to go around accusing other people people of lying. But that's another topic of discussion.

As far Goleman's ideas being discredited, that's just not true. Most of his ideas, although not original, are accepted as being correct. Alexandra, the site you referenced is written by a guy named Steve Hein, who doesn't hold any degrees in psychology. He's an MBA.

I didn't say or mean to imply that you were a liar.

I accepted your explanation and when I read your explanation I was like 'aha, i see that you are genuine in wanting to have a discussion about Goleman's ideas'.

With respect to the link I posted I wasn't meaning to cite the guy as being an authority. What I was meaning to do was to provide a link to some information / arguments as to why it is that Goleman's work is considered problematic in academic circles. One can follow up the claims (by checking out the sources that he cites) and make up ones own mind.

The guy who made the link does indeed have something of a personal agenda. Having a personal agenda isn't necessarily a bad thing, however, as it often inspires one to really think about precisely what is problematic with what Goleman (for example) is saying.

[Benjamin]

Sorry about the misunderstanding, Alexandra.

</font><blockquote><div id="quote"><font class="small">Quote:</font>
The guy who made the link does indeed have something of a personal agenda. Having a personal agenda isn't necessarily a bad thing, however, as it often inspires one to really think about precisely what is problematic with what Goleman (for example) is saying.

</div></font></blockquote><font class="post">
The problem with having an agenda is you don't look at facts objectively; You only looking for facts that support your agenda.

The guy seems to be a little odd. He appears to be in his 50s and on his resume, he lists a paper route that he had as a kid as one of his job experiences. He also lists mowing lawns. I get the impression he was just a spoiled rich kid.

> Sorry about the misunderstanding, Alexandra.

No problem. It can be hard to assess tone and the like online.
(I probably could have been a little more verbal to convey what I was intending a little better).

One must guard against ad hominum attacks (attacks against the person rather than engaging in critique of their claims). Of course I started it with trying to undermine Goldman's credibility in academia... So now we turn to undermining the credibility of his critics...

But sooner or later...

We should probably assess what he does say (and the arguments against it) on their merits ;-)

[Benjamin]

It might be kind of fun to do a psychological evaluation of this Steve Hein character, also. :lol

[Wants2Fly]

Hello Benjamin, thank you for starting this thread. And thank you, too, to Perna, Alexandra and others for the substantive insights.

This conversation directly touches on the issue I cam to this discussion fretting about -- my inability to make that positive emotional connection with so many of my students. Indeed, I was a child with a dysfunctional childhood that did not provide me with examples for expressing emotions constructively.

I am an introvert in a society that values extroverts; I am thoughtful and cannot always think quickly on my feet to provide great empathic nurturing responses. And, when I am deepest in thought, I tend to be a defensive communicator (and yes, I'm using that phrase consistent with communication discipline research). I do my best to implement so-called immediacy behavior -- eye contact, turning to face a student, leaning into the conversation, listening before speaking, paraphrasing, etc., but I feel that all too rarely does it project as genuine, rather than a mask I wear.

I have excellent teaching methodologies and I have mastered my field so that I can hold forth with little preparation on most topics that I am required to teach.

I am going to see if my library has a tape set about this book that I can borrow.