EMOTIONAL QUOTIENT

For decades, a lot of emphasis has been put on certain aspects of intelligence such as logical reasoning, math skills, spatial skills, understanding analogies, verbal skills etc. Researchers were puzzled by the fact that while IQ could predict to a significant degree academic performance and, to some degree, professional and personal success, there was something missing in the equation. Some of those with fabulous IQ scores were doing poorly in life; one could say that they were wasting their potential by thinking, behaving and communicating in a way that hindered their chances to succeed. One of the major missing parts in the success equation is emotional intelligence, a concept made popular by the groundbreaking book by Daniel Goleman, which is based on years of research by numerous scientists such as Peter Salovey, John Meyer, Howard Gardner, Robert Sternberg and Jack Block, just to name a few. For various reasons and thanks to a wide range of abilities, people with high emotional intelligence tend to be more successful in life than those with lower EIQ even if their classical IQ is average. This emotional intelligence test will evaluate several aspects of your emotional intelligence and will suggest ways to improve it. Please be honest and answer according to what you really do, feel or think, rather than what you think is considered right in this test. Nobody is there to judge you, just yourself...and besides, there are many trick questions. Read every statement carefully and indicate which option applies best to you. There may be some questions describing situations that you may feel are not relevant to your life. In such cases, select the answer which you would most likely choose if you ever found yourself in such a situation. After finishing the test, you will receive a Snapshot Report with an introduction, a graph and a personalized interpretation for one of your test scores. You will then have the option to purchase the full results.

EQ TEST - http://testyourself.psychtests.com

EQ stands for Emotional Intelligence Quotient, which is similar to the intelligence quotient, or IQ. There is much debate surrounding the legitimacy of a definition of emotional intelligencequotient, however, primarily because there is no standard against which it can be measured. Research on EQ began with Yale psychologist Peter Salovey and John Mayer of the University of New Hampshire in the late 1980s. It is a concept that was further popularized by Daniel Goleman, another well-respected psychologist, who has written many books on the subject and is co-chair of The Consortium for Research on Emotional Intelligence in Organizations. While these and many other psychology experts view EQ as a scientific study of social behavior and relationships, the actual science behind measuring this factor is often convoluted at best.

Regardless of the actual scientific basis of measuring EQ, the concept is used in many different settings. It's very popular in the corporate world, where many businesses use EQ tests to help their employees determine and measure their emotional responses to various situations. While most such tests are administered on the basis that this factor can be modified or increased, there is dispute about whether emotional intelligence is standard or can be changed.

History
The earliest roots of emotional intelligence can be traced to Charles Darwin's work on the importance of emotional expression for survival and, second, adaptation.[2] In the 1900s, even though traditional definitions of intelligence emphasized cognitive aspects such as memory and problem-solving, several influential researchers in the intelligence field of study had begun to recognize the importance of the noncognitive aspects. For instance, as early as 1920, E.L. Thorndike used the term social intelligence to describe the skill of understanding and managing other people.[3] Similarly, in 1940 David Wechsler described the influence of non-intellective factors on intelligent behavior, and further argued that our models of intelligence would not be complete until we could adequately describe these factors.[2] In 1983, Howard Gardner's Frames of Mind: The Theory of Multiple Intelligences[4] introduced the idea of multiple intelligenceswhich included both interpersonal intelligence (the capacity to understand the intentions, motivations and desires of other people) and intrapersonal intelligence (the capacity to understand oneself, to appreciate one's feelings, fears and motivations). In Gardner's view, traditional types of intelligence, such as IQ, fail to fully explain cognitive ability.[5] Thus, even though the names given to the concept varied, there was a common belief that traditional definitions of intelligence were lacking in ability to fully explain performance outcomes. The first use of the term "emotional intelligence" is usually attributed to Wayne Payne's doctoral thesis, A Study of Emotion: Developing Emotional Intelligence from 1985.[6]However, prior to this, the term "emotional intelligence" had appeared in Leuner (1966).[7] Stanley Greenspan (1989) also put forward an EI model, followed by Salovey and Mayer (1990),[8] and Daniel Goleman (1995). The distinction between trait emotional intelligence and ability emotional intelligence was introduced in 2000.[9] [edit]Definitions Substantial disagreement exists regarding the definition of EI, with respect to both terminology and operationalizations. Currently, there are three main models of EI: Ability EI model Mixed models of EI (usually subsumed under trait EI)[10][11] Trait EI model

Different models of EI have led to the development of various instruments for the assessment of the construct. While some of these measures may overlap, most researchers agree that they tap different constructs. [edit]Ability

model

Salovey and Mayer's conception of EI strives to define EI within the confines of the standard criteria for a new intelligence.[12] Following their continuing research, their initial definition of EI was revised to "The

ability to perceive emotion, integrate emotion to facilitate thought, understand emotions and to regulate emotions to promote personal growth." The ability-based model views emotions as useful sources of information that help one to make sense of and navigate the social environment.[13][14] The model proposes that individuals vary in their ability to process information of an emotional nature and in their ability to relate emotional processing to a wider cognition. This ability is seen to manifest itself in certain adaptive behaviors. The model claims that EI includes four types of abilities: 1. Perceiving emotions the ability to detect and decipher emotions in faces, pictures, voices, and cultural artifactsincluding the ability to identify one's own emotions. Perceiving emotions represents a basic aspect of emotional intelligence, as it makes all other processing of emotional information possible.

2.

Using emotions the ability to harness emotions to facilitate various cognitive activities, such as thinking and problem solving. The emotionally intelligent person can capitalize fully upon his or her changing moods in order to best fit the task at hand. 3. Understanding emotions the ability to comprehend emotion language and to appreciate complicated relationships among emotions. For example, understanding emotions encompasses the ability to be sensitive to slight variations between emotions, and the ability to recognize and describe how emotions evolve over time. 4. Managing emotions the ability to regulate emotions in both ourselves and in others. Therefore, the emotionally intelligent person can harness emotions, even negative ones, and manage them to achieve intended goals. The ability EI model has been criticized in the research for lacking face and predictive validity in the workplace.[15] [edit]Measurement of the ability model The current measure of Mayer and Salovey's model of EI, the Mayer-Salovey-Caruso Emotional Intelligence Test (MSCEIT) is based on a series of emotion-based problem-solving items.[14][16] Consistent with the model's claim of EI as a type of intelligence, the test is modeled on ability-based IQ tests. By testing a person's abilities on each of the four branches of emotional intelligence, it generates scores for each of the branches as well as a total score. Central to the four-branch model is the idea that EI requires attunement to social norms. Therefore, the MSCEIT is scored in a consensus fashion, with higher scores indicating higher overlap between an individual's answers and those provided by a worldwide sample of respondents. The MSCEIT can also be expert-scored, so that the amount of overlap is calculated between an individual's answers and those provided by a group of 21 emotion researchers.[14] Although promoted as an ability test, the MSCEIT is unlike standard IQ tests in that its items do not have objectively correct responses. Among other challenges, the consensus scoring criterion means that it is impossible to create items (questions) that only a minority of respondents can solve, because, by definition, responses are deemed emotionally "intelligent" only if the majority of the sample has endorsed them. This and other similar problems have led some cognitive ability experts to question the definition of EI as a genuine intelligence.

In a study by Fllesdal,[17] the MSCEIT test results of 111 business leaders were compared with how their employees described their leader. It was found that there were no correlations between a leader's test results and how he or she was rated by the employees, with regard to empathy, ability to motivate, and leader effectiveness. Fllesdal also criticized the Canadian company Multi-Health Systems, which administers the MSCEIT test. The test contains 141 questions but it was found after publishing the test that 19 of these did not give the expected answers. This has led Multi-Health Systems to remove answers to these 19 questions before scoring, but without stating this officially. [edit]Mixed

models

The model introduced by Daniel Goleman[18] focuses on EI as a wide array of competencies and skills that drive leadership performance. Goleman's model outlines five main EI constructs (for more details see "What Makes A Leader" by Daniel Goleman, best of Harvard Business Review 1998):

1.

Self-awareness the ability to know one's emotions, strengths, weaknesses, drives, values and goals and recognize their impact on others while using gut feelings to guide decisions. 2. Self-regulation involves controlling or redirecting one's disruptive emotions and impulses and adapting to changing circumstances. 3. 4. 5. Social skill managing relationships to move people in the desired direction Empathy - considering other people's feelings especially when making decisions and Motivation - being driven to achieve for the sake of achievement.

Goleman includes a set of emotional competencies within each construct of EI. Emotional competencies are not innate talents, but rather learned capabilities that must be worked on and can be developed to achieve outstanding performance. Goleman posits that individuals are born with a general emotional intelligence that determines their potential for learning emotional competencies.[19] Goleman's model of EI has been criticized in the research literature as mere "pop psychology" (Mayer, Roberts, & Barsade, 2008). [edit]Measurement of the Emotional Competencies (Goleman) model Two measurement tools are based on the Goleman model: 1. The Emotional Competency Inventory (ECI), which was created in 1999, and the Emotional and Social Competency Inventory (ESCI), which was created in 2007.

2.

The Emotional Intelligence Appraisal, which was created in 2001 and which can be taken as a self-report or 360-degree assessment.[20] [edit]Bar-On model of emotional-social intelligence (ESI) Bar-On[2] defines emotional intelligence as being concerned with effectively understanding oneself and others, relating well to people, and adapting to and coping with the immediate surroundings to be more successful in dealing with environmental demands.[21] Bar-On posits that EI develops over time and that it can be improved through training, programming, and therapy.[2] Bar-On hypothesizes that those individuals with higher than average EQs are in general more successful in meeting environmental demands and pressures. He also notes that a deficiency in EI can mean a lack of success and the

existence of emotional problems. Problems in coping with one's environment are thought, by Bar-On, to be especially common among those individuals lacking in the subscales of reality testing, problem solving, stress tolerance, and impulse control. In general, Bar-On considers emotional intelligence and cognitive intelligence to contribute equally to a person's general intelligence, which then offers an indication of one's potential to succeed in life.[2]However, doubts have been expressed about this model in the research literature (in particular about the validity of self-report as an index of emotional intelligence) and in scientific settings it is being replaced by the trait emotional intelligence (trait EI) model discussed below.[10] [edit]Measurement of the ESI model The Bar-On Emotional Quotient Inventory (EQ-i), is a self-report measure of EI developed as a measure of emotionally and socially competent behavior that provides an estimate of one's emotional and social intelligence. The EQ-i is not meant to measure personality traits or cognitive capacity, but rather the mental ability to be successful in dealing with environmental demands and pressures.[2] One hundred and thirty three items (questions or factors) are used to obtain a Total EQ (Total Emotional Quotient) and to produce five composite scale scores, corresponding to the five main components of the Bar-On model. A limitation of this model is that it claims to measure some kind of ability through self-report items (for a discussion, see Matthews, Zeidner, & Roberts, 2001). The EQ-i has been found to be highly susceptible to faking (Day & Carroll, 2008; Grubb & McDaniel, 2007). [edit]Trait

EI model

Soviet-born British psychologist Konstantin Vasily Petrides ("K. V. Petrides") proposed a conceptual distinction between the ability based model and a trait based model of EI and has been developing the latter over many years in numerous scientific publications.[9][22] Trait EI is "a constellation of emotional selfperceptions located at the lower levels of personality."[22] In lay terms, trait EI refers to an individual's selfperceptions of their emotional abilities. This definition of EI encompasses behavioral dispositions and self perceived abilities and is measured by self report, as opposed to the ability based model which refers to actual abilities, which have proven highly resistant to scientific measurement. Trait EI should be investigated within a personality framework.[23] An alternative label for the same construct is trait emotional self-efficacy. The trait EI model is general and subsumes the Goleman and Bar-On models discussed above. The conceptualization of EI as a personality trait leads to a construct that lies outside the taxonomy of human cognitive ability. This is an important distinction in as much as it bears directly on the operationalization of the construct and the theories and hypotheses that are formulated about it.[9] [edit]Measurement of the trait EI model There are many self-report measures of EI,[24] including the EQ-i, the Swinburne University Emotional Intelligence Test (SUEIT), and the Schutte EI model. None of these assess intelligence, abilities, or skills (as their authors often claim), but rather, they are limited measures of trait emotional intelligence.[22] One of the more comprehensive and widely researched measures of this construct is the Trait Emotional Intelligence Questionnaire (TEIQue), which was specifically designed to measure the construct comprehensively and is available in many languages. The TEIQue provides an operationalization for the model of Petrides and colleagues, that conceptualizes EI in terms of personality.[25] The test encompasses 15 subscales organized under four factors: Well-

Being, Self-Control, Emotionality, and Sociability. The psychometric properties of the TEIQue were investigated in a study on a French-speaking population, where it was reported that TEIQue scores were globally normally distributed and reliable.[26] The researchers also found TEIQue scores were unrelated to nonverbal reasoning (Raven's matrices), which they interpreted as support for the personality trait view of EI (as opposed to a form of intelligence). As expected, TEIQue scores were positively related to some of the Big Five personality traits (extraversion, agreeableness, openness,conscientiousness) as well as inversely related to others (alexithymia, neuroticism). A number of quantitative genetic studies have been carried out within the trait EI model, which have revealed significant genetic effects and heritabilities for all trait EI scores.[27] Two recent studies (one a meta-analysis) involving direct comparisons of multiple EI tests yielded very favorable results for the TEIQue.[11][28] [edit]Alexithymia

and EI

Alexithymia from the Greek words "" (lexis) and "" (thumos) (literally "lack of words for emotions") is a term coined by Peter Sifneos in 1973[29][30] to describe people who appeared to have deficiencies in understanding, processing, or describing their emotions. Viewed as a spectrum between high and low EI, the alexithymia construct is strongly inversely related to EI, representing its lower range.[31] The individual's level of alexithymia can be measured with self-scored questionnaires such as the Toronto Alexithymia Scale (TAS-20) or the Bermond-Vorst Alexithymia Questionnaire (BVAQ)[32] or by observer rated measures such as the Observer Alexithymia Scale (OAS). [edit]Criticisms [edit]EI

of the theoretical foundation of EI

cannot be recognized as a form of intelligence

Goleman's early work has been criticized for assuming from the beginning that EI is a type of intelligence. Eysenck (2000)[33] writes that Goleman's description of EI contains unsubstantiated assumptions about intelligence in general, and that it even runs contrary to what researchers have come to expect when studying types of intelligence: "[Goleman] exemplifies more clearly than most the fundamental absurdity of the tendency to class almost any type of behaviour as an 'intelligence'... If these five 'abilities' define 'emotional intelligence', we would expect some evidence that they are highly correlated; Goleman admits that they might be quite uncorrelated, and in any case if we cannot measure them, how do we know they are related? So the whole theory is built on quicksand: there is no sound scientific basis." Similarly, Locke (2005)[34] claims that the concept of EI is in itself a misinterpretation of the intelligence construct, and he offers an alternative interpretation: it is not another form or type of intelligence, but intelligencethe ability to grasp abstractionsapplied to a particular life domain: emotions. He suggests the concept should be re-labeled and referred to as a skill. The essence of this criticism is that scientific inquiry depends on valid and consistent construct utilization, and that before the introduction of the term EI, psychologists had established theoretical distinctions between factors such as abilities and achievements, skills and habits, attitudes and values, and personality traits and emotional states.[35] Thus, some scholars believe that the term EI merges and conflates such accepted concepts and definitions.

[edit]EI

has little predictive value

Landy (2005)[36] claimed that the few incremental validity studies conducted on EI have shown that it adds little or nothing to the explanation or prediction of some common outcomes (most notably academic and work success). Landy suggested that the reason why some studies have found a small increase in predictive validity is a methodologicalfallacy, namely, that alternative explanations have not been completely considered: "EI is compared and contrasted with a measure of abstract intelligence but not with a personality measure, or with a personality measure but not with a measure of academic intelligence." Landy (2005) Similarly, other researchers have raised concerns about the extent to which self-report EI measures correlate with established personality dimensions. Generally, self-report EI measures and personality measures have been said to converge because they both purport to measure personality traits.[22] Specifically, there appear to be two dimensions of theBig Five that stand out as most related to self-report EI neuroticism and extroversion. In particular, neuroticism has been said to relate to negative emotionality and anxiety. Intuitively, individuals scoring high on neuroticism are likely to score low on selfreport EI measures. The interpretations of the correlations between EI questionnaires and personality have been varied. The prominent view in the scientific literature is the Trait EI view, which re-interprets EI as a collection of personality traits.[37][38][39] [edit]Criticisms [edit]Ability

of measurement issues

EI measures measure conformity, not ability

One criticism of the works of Mayer and Salovey comes from a study by Roberts et al. (2001),[40] which suggests that the EI, as measured by the MSCEIT, may only be measuring conformity. This argument is rooted in the MSCEIT's use of consensus-based assessment, and in the fact that scores on the MSCEIT are negatively distributed (meaning that its scores differentiate between people with low EI better than people with high EI). [edit]Ability

EI measures measure knowledge (not actual ability)

Further criticism has been leveled by Brody (2004),[41] who claimed that unlike tests of cognitive ability, the MSCEIT "tests knowledge of emotions but not necessarily the ability to perform tasks that are related to the knowledge that is assessed". The main argument is that even though someone knows how he should behave in an emotionally laden situation, it doesn't necessarily follow that the person could actually carry out the reported behavior. [edit]Ability

EI measures measure personality and general intelligence

New research is surfacing that suggests that ability EI measures might be measuring personality in addition to general intelligence. These studies examined the multivariate effects of personality and intelligence on EI and also corrected estimates for measurement error (which is often not done in some validation studies). For example, a study by Schulte, Ree, Carretta (2004),[42] showed that general intelligence (measured with the Wonderlic Personnel Test), agreeableness (measured by the NEO-PI), as well as gender had a multiple R of .81 with the MSCEIT. This result has been replicated by Fiori and Antonakis (2011),;[43] they found a multiple R of .76 using Cattells Culture Fair intelligence test and the

Big Five Inventory (BFI); significant covariates were intelligence (standardized beta = .39), agreeableness (standardized beta = .54), and openness (standardized beta = .46). Antonakis and Dietz (2011a),[44] who investigated the Ability Emotional Intelligence Measure found similar results (Multiple R = .69), with significant predictors being intelligence, standardized beta = .69 (using the Swaps Test and a Wechsler scales subtest, the 40-item General Knowledge Task) and empathy, standardized beta = .26 (using the Questionnaire Measure of Empathic Tendency)--see also Antonakis and Dietz (2011b),[45] who show how including or excluding important controls variables can fundamentally change resultsthus, it is important to always include important controls like personality and intelligence when examining the predictive validity of ability and trait EI models. [edit]Self-report

measures are susceptible to faking

More formally termed socially desirable responding (SDR), faking good is defined as a response pattern in which test-takers systematically represent themselves with an excessive positive bias (Paulhus, 2002). This bias has long been known to contaminate responses on personality inventories (Holtgraves, 2004; McFarland & Ryan, 2000; Peebles & Moore, 1998; Nichols & Greene, 1997; Zerbe & Paulhus, 1987), acting as a mediator of the relationships between self-report measures (Nichols & Greene, 1997; Ganster[clarification needed]et al., 1983). It has been suggested that responding in a desirable way is a response set, which is a situational and temporary response pattern (Pauls & Crost, 2004; Paulhus, 1991). This is contrasted with a response style, which is a more long-term trait-like quality. Considering the contexts some self-report EI inventories are used in (e.g., employment settings), the problems of response sets in high-stakes scenarios become clear (Paulhus & Reid, 2001). There are a few methods to prevent socially desirable responding on behavior inventories. Some researchers believe it is necessary to warn test-takers not to fake good before taking a personality test (e.g., McFarland, 2003). Some inventories use validity scales in order to determine the likelihood or consistency of the responses across all items. [edit]Claims

for the predictive power of EI are too extreme

Landy[36] distinguishes between the "commercial wing" and "the academic wing" of the EI movement, basing this distinction on the alleged predictive power of EI as seen by the two currents. According to Landy, the former makes expansive claims on the applied value of EI, while the latter is trying to warn users against these claims. As an example, Goleman (1998) asserts that "the most effective leaders are alike in one crucial way: they all have a high degree of what has come to be known as emotional intelligence. ...emotional intelligence is the sine qua non of leadership". In contrast, Mayer (1999) cautions "the popular literature's implicationthat highly emotionally intelligent people possess an unqualified advantage in lifeappears overly enthusiastic at present and unsubstantiated by reasonable scientific standards." Landy further reinforces this argument by noting that the data upon which these claims are based are held in "proprietary databases", which means they are unavailable to independent researchers for reanalysis, replication, or verification.[36] Thus, the credibility of the findings cannot be substantiated in a scientific way, unless those datasets are made public and available for independent analysis. In an academic exchange, Antonakis and Ashkanasy/Dasborough mostly agreed that researchers testing whether EI matters for leadership have not done so using robust research designs; therefore, currently there is no strong evidence showing that EI predicts leadership outcomes when accounting for personality and IQ.[46] Antonakis argued that EI might not be needed for leadership effectiveness (he referred to this

as the "curse of emotion" phenomenon, because leaders who are too sensitive to their and others' emotional states might have difficulty making decisions that would result in emotional labor for the leader or followers). A recently-published meta-analysis seems to support the Antonakis position: In fact, Harms and Cred found that overall (and using data free from problems of common source and common methods), EI measures correlated only r = .11 with measures oftransformational leadership. [47] Interestingly, ability-measures of EI fared worst (i.e., r = .04); the WLEIS (Wong-Law measure) did a bit better (r = .08), and the Bar-On measure better still (r = .18). However, the validity of these estimates does not include the effects of IQ or the big five personality, which correlate both with EI measures and leadership.[48] In a subsequent paper analyzing the impact of EI on both job performance and leadership, Harms and Cred[49] found that the meta-analytic validity estimates for EI dropped to zero when Big Five traits and IQ were controlled for. Joseph and Newman[50] meta-analytically showed the same result for Ability EI, but further demonstrated that self-reported and Trait EI measures retain a small amount of predictive validity for job performance after controlling Big Five traits and IQ. Newman, Joseph, and MacCann[51] contend that the greater predictive validity of Trait EI measures is due to their inclusion of content related to achievement motivation, self efficacy, and self-rated performance. [edit]NICHD

Pushes For Consensus

The National Institute of Child Health and Human Development has recognized the divide on the topic of emotional intelligence explains the need for the mental health community to agree on some guidelines to describe good mental health and positive mental living conditions. In their section, "POSITIVE PSYCHOLOGY AND THE CONCEPT OF HEALTH," they explain, "Currently there are six competing models of positive health, which are based on concepts such as being above normal, character strengths and core virtues, developmental maturity, social-emotional intelligence, subjective well-being, and resilience. But these concepts define health in philosophical rather than empirical terms. Dr. [Lawrence] Becker suggested the need for a consensus on the concept of positive psychological health...[52] [edit]EI,

IQ and job performance

Research of EI and job performance shows mixed results: a positive relation has been found in some of the studies, in others there was no relation or an inconsistent one. This led researchers Cote and Miners (2006)[53] to offer a compensatory model between EI and IQ, that posits that the association between EI and job performance becomes more positive as cognitive intelligence decreases, an idea first proposed in the context of academic performance (Petrides, Frederickson, & Furnham, 2004). The results of the former study supported the compensatory model: employees with low IQ get higher task performance and organizational citizenship behavior directed at the organization, the higher their EI. A meta-analytic review by Joseph and Newman[50] also revealed that both Ability EI and Trait EI tend to predict job performance much better in jobs that require a high degree of emotional labor (where 'emotional labor' was defined as jobs that require the effective display of positive emotion). In contrast, EI shows little relationship to job performance in jobs that do not require emotional labor. In other words, emotional intelligence tends to predict job performance for emotional jobs only. A more recent study suggests that EI is not necessarily a universally positive trait.[54] They found a negative correlation between EI and managerial work demands; while under low levels of managerial work demands, they found a negative relationship between EI and teamwork effectiveness. An explanation for this may suggest gender differences in EI, as women tend to score higher levels than

men.[50] This furthers the idea that job context plays a role in the relationships between EI, teamwork effectiveness, and job performance. Another interesting find was discussed in a study that assessed a possible link between EI and entrepreneurial behaviors and success.[55] In accordance with much of the other findings regarding EI and job performance, they found that levels of EI only predicted a small amount of entrepreneurial behavior. [edit]EI,

self-esteem, and drug use

A 2012 study cross examined emotional intelligence, self-esteem, and marijuana dependence.[56] Out of a sample of 200, 100 of which were dependent on cannabis and the other 100 emotionally healthy, the dependent group scored exceptionally low on EI when compared to the control group. They also found that the dependent group also scored low on self-esteem when compared to the control. Another study in 2010 examined whether or not low levels of EI had a relationship with the degree of drug and alcohol addiction.[57] In the assessment of 103 residents in a drug rehabilitation center, they examined their EI along with other psychosocial factors in a 1 month interval of treatment. They found that participants' EI scores improved as their levels of addiction lessened as part of their treatment.

Sample EQ test

Emotional Quotient
I have been wanting to blog about EQ (Emotional Quotient) for a while now. Ever since a friend of mine introduced the idea to me really. It is intriguing. I dont understand all the ins and outs of it, but basically it goes something like this. IQ (intelligence Quotient) is a measure of your intellectual capability and to a certain degree, places limits on what you should be able to accomplish in the way of higher education. There are quite a few break downs or reference charts but heres an example breakdown fromwikipedia:

IQ Range (15SD) 1-24

Intelligence Classification Profound Mental Retardation Severe Mental Retardation Moderate Mental Retardation Mild Mental Retardation Borderline Mental Retardation Average Intelligence Bright Moderately Gifted Highly Gifted Exceptionally Gifted Profoundly Gifted

2539

4054 5569 7084 85-114 115-129 130-144 145-159 160-175 Over 175

I couldnt find one that I have seen before, but for each classification there is an expected limit to the level of education an individual would be able to complete. (i.e., somewhere around Moderately Gifted and above would be able to accomplish a Ph-D). So if IQ is a measure of intellectual ability, EQ is a measure of emotional ability or, as I have seen a few places, Emotional Intelligence. Though some seem to think its a bunch of hogwash, the theory is that even if someone has a lower IQ but a high EQ it would allow them to accomplish things beyond what is expected of their IQ classification. When my friend was telling me about all this, he mentioned that IQ cannot really be changed or improved, but EQ can. Interesting. So I just took a random emotional litercy test (the emotional IQ test was $8.99) and it was 12 questions long (and FREE). They described it this way: Emotional intelligence is not merely about controlling emotional responses for ones own benefit an; that of others. It is also about using emotion where suitable. Emotion is, after all, at the

heart of that sincerity which reassures, persuades and affords confidence; emotion triggers flight or fight, sometime-appropriately; emotion is necessary if we are to cope, for example, with bereavement; emotion can lie at the source of our greatest joys. The emotionally intelligent are like parents to their emotions, acknowledging their needs, loving them, indulging them where appropriate, encouraging their creativity yet restraining them from foolish, destructive or discourteous behaviour. To extend the metaphor, the emotionally intelligent are neither of the school which believes that emotions should be repressed seen but not heard, nor of that which would allow the little darlings to express themselves freely to the discomfort or dismay of others. Emotional literacy with regard to others can only be learner by reference to the ABC of ones own emotions. If, therefore, you are not at ease with your own emotions, you will find it hard to relate to others and to respond appropriately to them. After answering the questions heres what it said: Your robust attempts to master your emotions are praiseworthy but frequently ill-judged and unsympathetic. You defend yourself from unworthy emotions by simulating appropriate responses, but you tend to give rent-free space in your head to people and things which were better considered, understood and consigned to the emotional data-bank for subsequent use. Try allowing emotions, even emotions which seem unworthy anger, fear, frailty, depression, etc. into harmless contexts such as when listening to music or watching films, explore them and acknowledge them. They are part of the armoury of wisdom. Although I get a little lost in the language they use here, I think theres some truth to their summary. Food for thought.

EMOTIONAL LITERACY
The term emotional literacy has often been used in parallel to, and sometimes interchangeably with, the term "emotional intelligence". However, there are important differences between the two. Emotional Literacy is a term that was used first by Claude Steiner (1997) [1] who says: Emotional Literacy is made up of the ability to understand your emotions, the ability to listen to others and empathise with their emotions, and the ability to express emotions productively. To be emotionally literate is to be able to handle emotions in a way that improves your personal power and improves the quality of life around you. Emotional literacy improves relationships, creates

loving possibilities between people, makes co-operative work possible, and facilitates the feeling of community.[2] He breaks emotional literacy into 5 parts: 1. Knowing your feelings.

2. Having a sense of empathy.

3. Learning to manage our emotions.

4. Repairing emotional damage.

5. Putting it all together: emotional interactivity. Having its roots in counseling, it is a social definition that has interactions between people at it heart. According to Steiner emotional literacy is about understanding your feelings and those of others to facilitate relationships, including using dialogue and self-control to avoid negative arguments. The ability to be aware and read other peoples feelings enables one to interact with them effectively so that powerful emotional situations can be handled in a skillful way. Steiner calls this "emotional interactivity". Steiners model of emotional literacy is therefore primarily about dealing constructively with the emotional difficulties we experience to build a sound future. He believes that personal power can be increased and relationships transformed. The emphasis is on the individual, and as such encourages one to look inward rather than to the social setting in which an individual operates.
Contents
[hide]

1 British context 2 Culturally situated emotional literacy 3 Emotional intelligence/literacy in education 4 See also 5 References

[edit]British

context

In Britain the term emotional literacy is often used and has developed, building on the work of Steiner and Goleman [3] as a social construction - as opposed to the more individualistic emotional intelligence with the attempts to measure it as if emotions were measurable in a relatively rational way [4][5][6]. Educators did not like the way that emotional intelligence focused so much on the individual and there were clear attempts to avoid the narrow EQ tests that were in use for two reasons:

1. The idea of an EQ test had resonance with discredited psychometric measures of

intelligence such as IQ tests.

2. People were also concerned with the way that pupils could be subject to even more
control through the introduction of emotional intelligence into the curriculum [4][5][7][8]. The National Curriculum in England and Wales emphasized a range of cognitive skills that were controlled through exams. Educators saw the need to expand the range of skills that pupils required and were also concerned with social inclusion. The Labour Government provided an overarching rationale for this with its promotion of well-being [9][10]. However, when the Department of Children, Schools and Families developed a scheme for schools called the Social and Emotional Aspects of Learning (SEAL) it was based on Golemans definition of emotional intelligence [11][12]. Hence any distinctions between the terms emotional intelligence and emotional literacy were blurred. Even so, key educators in Britain continued to use the term emotional literacy. Emotional literacy took on an aspect that was concern with personal growth. For example, the importance of developing relationships is, to a degree, in Weares definition: The ability to understand ourselves and other people, and in particular to be aware of, understand, and use information about the emotional states of ourselves and others with competence. It includes the ability to understand, express and manage our own emotions, and respond to the emotions of others, in ways that are helpful to ourselves and others.[13] Similarly, the organization Antidote [14] defined emotional literacy as: the practice of interacting with others in ways that build understanding of our own and others emotions, then using this understanding to inform our actions. These definitions acknowledge both the individual and other people and so inter-personal relationships and the need for dialogue are included. Sharp [15] has taken a broad approach to emotional literacy in a Local Education Authority (LEA) where he considers its development is important for teachers as well as pupils. However, there was still an underlying assumption about the individual and how they develop as if they were culturally isolated and separate from factors such as religion and gender[4]. Also, the development of emotional literacy was justified by arguing that its introduction would help to improve other factors such as behavior, attendance and academic achievement. Boler [4] researched four of the emotional programs in America. She pointed out that the programs tended to view pupils as individuals who are in need of development through enabling them to control their impulses. This can mean that pupils are to become responsible for their own control and that other social factors can be ignored. It is possible that these programs can open the way for greater control of pupils with even their emotions being assessed. On the one hand the development of emotional literacy programs can be seen as progressive, but on the other the focus seems quite inward, as there is little reference leading to any broader concept of social and political reform [7]. In the same way that Goleman [11] discusses emotional intelligence educational programs, emotional literacy programs can also be more about coping with the social and political status quo in a caring,

interactive and emotionally supportive environment than with any systematic attempt to move beyond it to social improvement. [edit]Culturally

situated emotional literacy

Matthews (2006) [7] argues against the concept of emotional intelligence and for a developed definition of emotional literacy. His starting point is that all social and emotional interactions take place in a cultural context and that generally all emotions are felt because of interactions with other people. He argues that a group may, for example, contain men and women and people from a range of ethnicities. One could judge a persons emotional literacy by observing what they brought to the situation, the way they interacted and the degree to which they showed empathy, and, the recognition of "self" and "others". The way that one can reliable gauge the emotional literacy of a person is to see them interacting in a group and see how they behave towards other people of different genders, sexuality and social class. Hence, it makes little sense to talk about emotional literacy of a person as if it were separate from such factors you may be able to empathize with people of your own sex, but not different sexualities or religions. Also, one may think that they can empathize with the other sex, or another religion, but the other person may not agree with them. Indeed, the views of other people are essential in deciding upon such factors. There is always a social context and in any context power differentials operate. Any form of paper and pen test will only give access to what a person thinks, not to the important view of how others think. For example, many men (and women) would say that they were not sexist, yet a person from the opposite sex not agree! Similarly with racism. This is key point, a person cannot tell how well they, say, empathize, only other people tell them if they are. A manager may think they are self-confident, open and friendly, but others find him or her aggressive and bullying. Hence, according to Matthews, emotional literacy is a social process that takes place in a social setting, is something that is never really achieved, and has to be seen in conjunction with others. This indicates that key components of emotional literacy, which is a continual process, that includes dialogue, acceptance of ambiguity and the ability to reflect. Judgments are made on a person's individual-in-group emotional literacy. He argues: Emotional literacy involves factors such as people understanding their own and others' emotional states; learning to manage their emotions and to empathize with others. It also includes the recognition that emotional literacy is both an individual development and a collective activity and is both about self-development and the building of community so that ones own sense of emotional well-being grows along with that of others, and not at their expense. Emotional literacy involves connections between people and working with their differences and similarities while being able to handle ambiguity and contradiction. It is a dynamic process through which the individual develops emotionally and involves culture and empowerment. For example, it includes understanding how the nature of social class, 'race' and gender (sexism and homophobia) impinge on peoples' emotional states to lead to an understanding of how society could change. Hence it incorporates an understanding of power exchanges between people and a challenging of power differentials.[16]

On this view emotional literacy is developed to help people understand themselves, others and the power connections between them. Matthews links emotional literacy to equality and social justice. Emotional literacy is not just to be "nice", but also to know when to stand up for viewpoints and fight for a case. It is not about more control over people, but less. As McIntosh and Style [17] argue schools are always involved in social, emotional and power relations, yet "power relations are a taboo subject in K-12 schooling and in the majority culture of the United States. Power relations are therefore little understood systemically. Students, however, learn about power by watching, by imitating, by avoidance of what they fear". [edit]Emotional

intelligence/literacy in education

In general, most of the criticisms of courses to promote pupils' emotional development have been directed at those that develop emotional intelligence. For example, there are the courses developed in the USA and Britain [12][18][19]. The critiques of these courses include that:

1. Emotional intelligence/literacy courses can lead to more control over pupils with them
being more defined in their behavior [4][6]. 2. The assessment of emotional intelligence/literacy can lead to pupils being labeled as inadequate. 3. Emotional intelligence courses can locate problems in the individual that are also a function of how society is organised. 4. When courses are taught it is often assumed that pupils are emotionally ready to deal with what is on the curriculum, whereas they may not be.

5. The whole agenda of teaching emotional development can lead to pupils being seen as
deficit in emotional control and so can depress their potential to have faith in future goals [20]

6. Emotional intelligence courses have moral and ethical aspects that are not made
explicit [21]. Matthews has tried to avoid some of the difficulties. For example, his strategies for the classroom mean that pupils only develop when, and in what areas, they are able. Emotional development between the genders has been the focus of research [7][22][23] with a small reference to 'race'[24]. But these are limited in strategies and do not tackle fully the critiques

SOCIAL EMOTIONAL LEARNING

Social emotional learning (SEL) is a process for learning life skills, including how to deal with oneself, others and relationships, and work in an effective manner. In dealing with oneself, SEL helps in recognizing our emotions and learning how to manage those feelings. In dealing with others, SEL helps with developing sympathy and empathy for others, and maintaining positive relationships. SEL also focuses on dealing with a variety of situations in a constructive and ethical manner.[1]
Contents
[hide]

1 Historical Influence 2 15 Skills involved in SEL 3 Illinois Learning Standards for SEL 4 Benefits 5 SEL in Education 6 SEL and Parents 7 SEL and Learning Disabilities 8 Published resources 9 Notes

[edit]Historical

Influence

During the mid 1990s, Daniel Goleman published his book Emotional Intelligence: Why It Can Matter More Than IQ, which popularized the concept of emotional intelligence. The term social emotional learning (SEL) emerged from the research in social competence programs which could be applied to emotional intelligence.[2] [edit]15

Skills involved in SEL

The following 15 skills listed are involved and promoted in SEL: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. "Recognizing emotions in self and others" "Regulating and managing strong emotions (positive and negative)" "Recognizing strengths and areas of need" "Listening and communicating accurately and clearly" "Taking others' perspectives and sensing their emotions" "Respecting others and self and appreciating differences" "Including identifying problems correctly" "Setting positive and realistic goals" "Problem solving, decision making, and planning" "Approaching others and building positive relationships" "Resisting negative peer pressure" "Cooperating, negotiating, and managing conflict and nonviolently" "Working effectively in groups" "Help-seeking and help-giving" "Showing ethical and social responsibility" [3]

15.
[edit]Illinois

Learning Standards for SEL

There are three goals for SEL in the Illinois Learning Standards. Goal 1 - "Develop self-awareness and self-management skills to achieve school and life success." Goal 2 - "Use social-awareness and interpersonal skills to establish and maintain positive relationships." Goal 3 - "Demonstrate decision-making skills and responsible behaviors in personal, school, and community contexts." [4] [edit]Benefits The benefits of SEL can be found both in a school and home setting. For instance, SEL improves positive behaviors while reducing negative behaviors. Positive behaviours include improved social emotional skills, improved attitudes about self and others, and improved behaviour within the classroom. Negative behaviours that are reduced include conduct problems and emotional distress. Furthermore, SEL skills are maintained throughout life; even into adulthood, they can help to foster success.[5] Moreover, SEL can help to improve several skills including nonverbal communication skills, socially compentent behaviour, and social meaning and reasoning. Nonverbal communication is important because the majority of emotional meaning is conveyed without spoken words, and instead utilizes paralanguage, facial expressions, gestures and postures, interpersonal distance, and touch, rhythm and time.[6] Social skills also play an important role in interpreting, encoding and reasoning social and emotional information that are associated with the social behaviour exhibited by the child.[7] Finally, social meaning and reasoning are important in problem solving. Social meaning is the ability to interpret others' emotions and language, and to be able to respond appropriately, whereas social reasoning is that ability to identify a problem, set goals and evaluate the possible solutions available.[8] [edit]SEL

in Education

Teachers, counselors and parents can play an important role in facilitating SEL. To begin, learning social and emotional skills is similar to learning other academic skills. Implementing a prevention program in schools can help to increase competence and learning in students which may be applied to more complex situations in the future. Teachers can accomplish this in the classroom through effective and direct classroom instructions, student engagement in positive activities, and involving parents, students and the community in planning, evaluating and implementing the program into the classroom.[9] For instance, a program known as the Strong Start: A Social and Emotional Learning Cirriculum was evaluated in a classroom setting for children in second grade. The results of the study illustrated that the Strong Start curriculum program fostered tools important for social and emotional competence, which was evident through increased positive peer interactions and reduction in negative interal emotions.[10] Also, a program known as Roots of Empathy was created by Mary Gordon in Toronto, Canada of 1996.[11] The globalization of the evidence-based classroom program promotes increasing social and emotional competencies, and empathy in children.[12] Furthermore, counselors can also play an important role in facilitating SEL. The role of a counselor is to promote academic and social development for students. The expertise and leadership roles that counselors fulfill can be applied to a student environment that promotes social and emotional development. However, this type of initiative involves tending to students of all backgrounds, through classroom counselling for all students in SEL. Counselors should collaborate with teachers, students, parents and administration to design and implement a program to promote SEL.[13]

[edit]SEL

and Parents

It is important to also recognize that the facilitation can happen both at school and home. Acquiring nonverbal communication skills is important for developing SEL skills, since the majority of emotions are conveyed without words. Teachers and parents can improve nonverbal communication skills through the technique of emotional coaching. Emotional coaching is a technique developed by John Gottman and can provide guidance about emotions for children through a step process. Step 1: One needs to be aware of the learner's emotions, Step 2: Recognition of uncomfortable feelings can be a gateway for teaching and guidance opportunities, Step 3: Emotions exhibited need to be validated rather than evaluated, Step 4: Learners need help in labeling these emotions, Step 5: Finally, the problem that led to the emotions needs to be solved.[14] Furthermore, at home SEL can be fostered through the emphasis of sharing, listening, confidence, and tending to matters. A child's emotional and social development can grow by promoting and practicing these behaviours.[15] [edit]SEL

and Learning Disabilities

It is recognized that the majority of children with learning disabilities have difficulties with social relationships. More specifically, there are three SEL skill areas that can be addressed and improved for children with learning disabilities. Firstly, it is difficult for children with learning disabilities to recognize emotions of self and others. However, academic implications to improve the skill may involve reading or hearing a story and understanding the emotions of the characters and the plot. Secondly, it is difficult for children with learning disabilities to regulate and manage strong emotions, both positive and negative. Improving this skill may involve conversing with the teacher about these emotions and recording these emotions on a scaled thermometer. Lastly, it is often difficult for children with learning disabilities to recognize their strengths and areas of need too. Until the Last Child is a vehicle to promote positive connections between school contributions and recognizing strengths. Also, Ability and Time of Ability is a program used to help identify strengths of students and then have them work together at set times.[16]

SOFT SKILLS
Soft skills is a sociological term relating to a person's "EQ" (Emotional Intelligence Quotient), the cluster of personality traits, social graces, communication, language, personal habits, friendliness, and optimism that characterize relationships with other people.[1] Soft skills complement hard skills (part of a person's IQ), which are the occupational requirements of a job and many other activities. Soft skills are personal attributes that enhance an individual's interactions, job performance and career prospects. Unlike hard skills, which are about a person's skill set and ability to perform a certain type of task or activity, soft skills relate to a person's ability to interact effectively with coworkers and customers and are broadly applicable both in and outside the workplace. A person's soft skill EQ is an important part of their individual contribution to the success of an organization. Particularly those organizations dealing with customers face-to-face are generally more successful, if they train their staff to use these skills. Screening or training for personal habits or traits such as dependability and conscientiousness can yield significant return on investment for an

organization.[2] For this reason, soft skills are increasingly sought out by employers in addition to standard qualifications. It has been suggested that in a number of professions soft skills may be more important over the long term than occupational skills. The legal profession is one example where the ability to deal with people effectively and politely, more than their mere occupational skills, can determine the professional success of a lawyer.[3] Soft Skills are behavioral competencies. Also known as Interpersonal Skills, or people skills, they include proficiencies such as communication skills, conflict resolution and negotiation, personal effectiveness, creative problem solving, strategic thinking, team building, influencing skills and selling skills, to name a few.

SOCIAL INTELIGENCE
Not to be confused with social knowledge, social consciousness, collective intelligence, or group intelligence. Social intelligence describes the exclusively human capacity to effectively navigate and negotiate complex social relationships and environments.[1] Psychologist and professor at the London School of Economics Nicholas Humphrey believes it is social intelligence or the richness of our qualitative life, rather than our quantitative intelligence, that truly makes humans what they are for example what it's like to be a human being living at the centre of the conscious present, surrounded by smells and tastes and feels and the sense of being an extraordinary metaphysical entity with properties which hardly seem to belong to the physical world.[2] Social scientist Ross Honeywill believes social intelligence is an aggregated measure of self and social awareness, evolved social beliefs and attitudes, and a capacity and appetite to manage complex social change. A person with a high social intelligence quotient (SQ) is no better or worse than someone with a low SQ, they just have different attitudes, hopes, interests and desires.[3] Social intelligence according to the original definition of Edward Thorndike, is "the ability to understand and manage men and women, boys and girls, to act wisely in human relations".[4] It is equivalent to interpersonal intelligence, one of the types of intelligences identified in Howard Gardner's Theory of multiple intelligences, and closely related to theory of mind.[citation needed] Some authors have restricted the definition to deal only with knowledge of social situations, perhaps more properly called social cognition or social marketing intelligence, as it pertains to trending socio-psychological advertising and marketing strategies and tactics. According to Sean Foleno, Social intelligence is a persons competence to comprehend his or her environment optimally and react appropriately for socially successful conduct.[citation
needed]

Contents
[hide]

1 Social intelligence quotient (SQ) 2 Social intelligence hypothesis

3 Differences between intelligence and social intelligence 4 Additional views 5 Measuring social intelligence 6 See also 7 References 8 External links

[edit]Social

intelligence quotient (SQ)

The social intelligence quotient or SQ is a statistical abstraction similar to the standard score approach used in IQ tests with a mean of 100. Unlike the standard IQ test however it is not a fixed model.[3] It leans more to Piagets theory that intelligence is not a fixed attribute but a complex hierarchy of informationprocessing skills underlying an adaptive equilibrium between the individual and the environment.[5] An individual can therefore change their SQ by altering their attitudes and behaviour in response to their complex social environment.[3] [edit]Social

intelligence hypothesis

The Social Intelligence Hypothesis in science asserts that complex socialization politics, romance, family relationships, quarrels, making-up, collaboration, reciprocity, altruism in short, social intelligence (1) was the driving force in developing the size of human brains and (2) today provides our ability to use those large brains in complex social circumstances.[2] It was the demands of living together that drove our need for intelligence. This idea is called the Social Intelligence Hypothesis. Professor of early history at Reading University, Steve Mithen, believes there are two key periods of brain expansion that contextualize the social intelligence hypothesis. The first was around two million years ago when brains expanded by about 50%. So humans went from brain size of around 450cc to a brain size of around 1,000cc by 1.8 million years ago. Archaeologists noting this change in primates asked; why are brains getting larger and what is it providing? Brains wouldn't get larger just for any reasons because brain tissue is metabolically very expensive, so has to be serving an important purpose. Mithen believes the social intelligence hypothesis suggests the expansion of brain size around two million years ago was because people were living in larger groups, more complex groups, having to keep track of different people, a larger number of social relationships that required a larger brain to do so. Social intelligence therefore gives us the answer to that first expansion of brain size two million years ago.[6] The second increase in brain size happened between 600,000 and 200,000 years ago, and during that period the brain reached its modern capacity. Trying to explain that second expansion in brain size is still a very challenging question. Mithens view is that it is directly related to the evolution of language. Language is probably the most complex cognitive task we undertake. Language is directly related to social intelligence because we mainly use language to mediate our social relationships.[6]

So social intelligence was a critical factor in the expansions of brain size there is a co-evolution between social and cognitive complexity.[7] And today social intelligence is pivotal in managing the complexity of being social animals. [edit]Differences

between intelligence and social intelligence

Its not enough just to be clever according to Professor Nicholas Humphrey. Autistic children, for example, are sometimes extremely clever. They're very good at making observations and remembering it all. However, it is argued they have low social intelligence. Chimpanzees are very clever at the level of being able to make observations and remember things. They can remember better than humans can, but they, again, are inept at handling interpersonal relationships.[dubious discuss] So something else is needed. What is needed is a theory of mind, a theory of how other people work from the inside. For a long time the field was dominated by behaviorism. Scientists believed that one could understand human beings, rats, or pigeons (for example) only by observing their behavior and finding correlations. More recent theories indicate that this is not true; one must consider the inner structure behaviour.[2] Both Nicholas Humphrey and Ross Honeywill believe it is social intelligence or the richness of our qualitative life rather than our quantitative intelligence that truly makes humans what they are for example what it's like to be a human being living at the centre of the conscious present, surrounded by smells and tastes and feels and the sense of being an extraordinary metaphysical entity with properties which hardly seem to belong to the physical world. This is social intelligence. [edit]Additional

views

Social intelligence is closely related to cognition and emotional intelligence, and can also be seen as a first level in developing systems intelligence.[citation needed] Research psychologists studying social cognition and social neuroscience have discovered many principles which human social intelligence operates. In early work on this topic, psychologists Nancy Cantor and John Kihlstrom outlined the kinds of concepts people use to make sense of their social relations (e.g., What situation am I in and what kind of person is this who is talking to me?), and the rules they use to draw inferences (What did he mean by that?) and plan actions (What am I going to do about it?)[citation needed] More recently, popular science writer Daniel Goleman has drawn on social neuroscience research to propose that social intelligence is made up of social awareness (includingempathy, attunement, empathic accuracy, and social cognition) and social facility (including synchrony, self-presentation, influence, and concern).[8] Golemans immense research indicates that our social relationships have a direct effect on our physical health and the deeper the relationship the deeper the impact. Goleman states that some physical effects of our relationships upon our health are the blood flow of ones body, one's breathing, one's mood (such as fatigue and depression), and even decreased power of one's immune system.[8] Educational researcher Raymond H. Hartjen asserts that expanded opportunities for social interaction enhances intelligence.[citation needed]Traditional classrooms do not permit the interaction of complex social behavior. Instead children in traditional settings are treated as learners who must be infused with more and more complex forms of information. Few educational leaders he adduces have taken this position as a starting point to develop a school environment where social interaction could flourish.[citation needed]If we follow this line of thinking then children must have an opportunity for continuous every day interpersonal experiences in order to develop a keen well developed 'inter-personal psychology'.[citation needed]As schools are structured today very few of these skills, critical for survival in the real world, are allowed to develop.

Because we so limit the development of the skills of "natural psychologist" in traditional schools our students as graduates, enter the job market handicapped to the point of being incapable of surviving on their own.[citation needed]In contrast those students that have had an ability to develop their skills as a "natural psychologist" in multiage classrooms and at democratic settings rise head and shoulders over their less socially skilled peers. They have a good sense of self, know what they want out of life and have the skills necessary to begin their quest.[9] The issue here is psychology versus social intelligenceas a separate and distinct perspective, seldom if ever articulated. An appropriate introduction contains certain hypothetical assumptions about social structure and function, as it relates to intelligence defined and expressed by groups, constrained by cultural expectations that assert potential realities, but make no claims or assertions that there is an "exterior" social truth to be defined and mappedthis perspective pursues the view that social structures can be defined with the admonition that what is mapped into the structure and how that information is stored, retrieved, and decided upon are variable, but can be contained in an abstract and formal grammar a sort of game of definitions and rules that permit and project an evolving intelligence. Two halves of the coin: one half psychology; the other half social. Unfortunately, most references to social intelligence relate to an individual's social skills. Not mentioned, and more important, is how social intelligence (speaking of a group or assembly of groups) processes information about the world and shares it with participants in the group(s). Are there social structures or can they be designed to accumulate and reveal information to the individual or to other groups. Some social structures are obviously pathological: recently I came across a statement that describes a government as a pathocracy, run by sociopaths. The bigger question is how groups and societies map the environment (both ecological, social, and personal) into a social structure. How is that structure able to contain a worldview and to reveal that view to the participants? How are decisions made? [edit]Measuring

social intelligence

Social Intelligence or SQ is a statistical abstraction similar to the standard score approach used in IQ tests with a mean of 100. Scores of 140 or above are considered to be very high.[10] SQ has until recently been measured by techniques such as question and answer sessions. These sessions assess the person's pragmatic abilities to test eligibility in certain special education courses, however some tests have been developed to measure social intelligence. This test can be used when diagnosing autism spectrum disorders, including autism and Asperger syndrome. Other, non-autistic or semi-autistic conditions such as semantic pragmatic disorder or SPD, schizophrenia, dyssemia and ADHD, are also of relevance. This test can also be used when assessing people that might have some sort of a disorder such as schizophrenia or ADHD.[citation needed] People with low SQ are more suited to low customer contact roles, since they may not have the required interpersonal communication and social skills for success on the frontline.[citation needed]These people may work better in an occupation that limits social interaction.[citation needed]People with SQs over 120 are considered socially skilled, and may work well with jobs that involve direct contact and communication with other people.[citation needed] The following example chart shows (assuming a person aged 17 is being tested, with an average SQ of 100 for that age) how a person's social age can be higher or lower based on scores in the SQ test:[citation needed]

SQ

Social Age

120 (above average - socially mature for age) 20.4

110

18.7

100 (average)

17

90

15.3

80

13.6

70 (below this level, help is recommended)

11.9

60

10.2

50

8.5

40

6.8

30

5.1

20

3.4

LIFE SKILLS
Life skills are problem solving behaviors used appropriately and responsibly in the management of personal affairs. They are a set of human skills acquired via teaching or direct experience that are used to handle problems and questions commonly encountered in daily human life. The subject varies greatly depending on societal norms and community expectations.

Contents
[hide]

1 Enumeration and Categorization 2 Youth: Behavior Prevention vs. Positive Development 3 Life Skill Development in Adults 3.1 Parenting 4 See also 5 References

[edit]Enumeration

and Categorization

UNICEF states "there is no definitive list" of life skills but enumerates many "psychosocial and interpersonal skills generally considered important." It asserts life skills are a synthesis: "many skills are used simultaneously in practice. For example, decision-making often involves critical thinking ("what are my options?") and values clarification ("what is important to me?"). Ultimately, the interplay between the skills is what produces powerful behavioural outcomes, especially where this approach is supported by other strategies..."[1] Life skills can vary from financial literacy,[2] substance abuse prevention,[3] to therapeutic techniques to deal with disabilities, such as autism.[4][5] Life skills curricula designed for K-12 often emphasizes communications and practical skills needed for successful independent living for developmental disabilities/special education students with an Individualized Education Program (IEP).[6] However, some programs are for general populations, such as the Overcoming Obstacles program for middle schools and high schools.[7] [edit]Youth:

Behavior Prevention vs. Positive Development

While certain life skills programs focus on teaching the prevention of certain behaviors the Search Institute has found those programs can be relatively ineffective. Based upon their research The Family and Youth Services Bureau, a division of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services advocates the theory of Positive Youth Development[8] as a replacement for the less effective prevention programs. Positive Youth Development, or PYD[8] as it's come to be known as, focuses on the strengths of an individual as opposed to the older methods which tend to focus on the "potential" weaknesses that have yet to be shown. The Family and Youth Services Bureau has found that individuals who developed life skills in a positive, rather than preventative, manner feel a greater sense of competence, usefulness, power, and belonging. [edit]Life

Skill Development in Adults

Beyond the K-12 domain, other life skills programs are focused on social welfare and social work programs, such as Casey Life Skills.[9] This program covers diverse topics: career planning,

communication, daily living, home life, housing and money management, self care, social relationships, work and study skills, work life, pregnancy and parenting.[10] [edit]Parenting Life skills are often taught in the domain of parenting, either indirectly through the observation and experience of the child, or directly with the purpose of teaching a specific skill.[11]Yet skills for dealing with pregnancy and parenting can be considered and taught as a set of life skills of themselves. Teaching these parenting life skills can also coincide with additional life skills development of the child.[12][13] Many life skills programs are offered when traditional family structures and healthy relationships have broken down, whether due to parental lapses, divorce or due to issues with the children (such as substance abuse or other risky behavior). For example, the International Labor Organization is teaching life skills to ex-child laborers and risk children in Indonesia to help them avoid the worst forms of child labor.[14]

PEOPLE SKILLS
According to the Portland Business Journal, people skills are described as:[1] understanding ourselves and moderating our responses talking effectively and empathizing accurately building relationships of trust, respect and productive interactions.

A British definition is the ability to communicate effectively with people in a friendly way, especially in business.[2] The term is not listed yet in major US dictionaries.[3][4] The term people skills is used to include both psychological skills and social skills, but is less inclusive than life skills.
Contents
[hide]

1 History 2 Educational importance/impact 3 See also 4 References 5 Further reading 6 External links

[edit]History Guidelines relating to people skills have been recorded from very early times. Two examples of early human guidelines can be found in the Old Testament. Firstly in Leviticus 19:18 it says: Do not seek

revenge or bear a grudge against your people, but love your neighbor as yourself and secondly from Solomons wisdom in Proverbs 15:1 it says: A gentle answer turns away wrath, but a harsh word stirs up anger.[5] However the Bible also condemns 'flattery' (Psalms 5:9) Human relations studies became a movement in the 1920s, as companies became more interested in the soft skills" and interpersonal skills of employees. In organizations, improving people skills became a specialized role of the corporate trainer. By the mid-1930s, Dale Carnegie popularized people skills in How to Win Friends & Influence People andHow to Stop Worrying & Start Living throughout America and later throughout the world. In the 1960s, US schools introduced people skills topics and methodsoften as a way to promote better self-esteem, communication and social interaction. These encompassed psychologist Thomas Gordons Effectiveness Training variations as well as many other training programs.[6] By the 1980s, "traditional education" and a back-to-basics three Rsemphasis largely pushed aside these programs, [7] with notable exceptions.[8] [edit]Educational

importance/impact

A significant portion of the deaths in the United States can be attributed to psychosocial[9] deficits in people skills for stress management and supportive social connection.[10]Business, labor and government authorities agree that wide-ranging people skills are necessary for 20th-century work success in the SCANS report.[11] At least one foundation, Alliances for Psychosocial Advancements in Learning (APAL), has made support of SCANS-related people skills a major priority.[12] UNESCO research found that young people who develop speaking/listening skills and getting to know others have improved self-awareness, social-emotional adjustment and classroom behavior; selfdestructive and violent behavior also were decreased.[13] The Collaborative for Academic Social and Emotional Learning (CASEL) has identified 22 programs in the US that are especially comprehensive in social-emotional learning coverage and effective in documented impacts.[14]

EMPATHY
Empathy is the capacity to recognize feelings that are being experienced by another sentient or semisentient (in fiction writing) being. Someone may need to have a certain amount of empathy before they are able to feel compassion. The English word was coined in 1909 by Edward B. Titchener as an attempt to translate the German word "Einfhlungsvermgen", a new phenomenon explored at the end of 19th century mainly by Theodor Lipps. It was later re-translated into the German language (Germanized) as "Empathie", and is still in use there.[1]
Contents
[hide]

1 Etymology 2 Theorists and definition 3 Contrast with other phenomena

o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o

3.1 Perspective-taking 4 Development 5 Neurological basis 6 Lack of Empathy 6.1 Indifference to others' suffering 6.1.1 Psychopathy 6.1.2 Narcissistic personality disorder 6.2 Enjoyment of others' suffering 6.2.1 Sadistic personality disorder

7 Anger and distress 7.1 Anger 7.2 Distress 8 Autism spectrum disorders 8.1 Alexithymia 8.2 Theory of mind 8.3 Mirror neuron activity 8.4 Cognitive versus affective empathy 8.5 Oversensitivity 8.6 Sex differences and autism 9 Practical issues 10 Ethical issues 11 Disciplinary approaches 11.1 Psychotherapy 11.2 Education 11.3 Evolution of empathy 11.4 Fiction 11.5 History 11.6 Business 11.7 Philosophy 12 Measurement 13 Gender differences 14 See also

15 References 16 External links

[edit]Etymology The English word is derived from the Greek word (empatheia), "physical affection, passion, partiality" which comes from (en), "in, at" + (pathos), "passion" or "suffering".[2] The term was adapted by Hermann Lotze and Robert Vischer to create the German word Einfhlung ("feeling into"), which was translated by Edward B. Titchener into the English term empathy.[3] Alexithymia from the Ancient Greek words (lexis) and (thumos) modified by an alpha-privative literally "without words for emotions"is a term to describe a state of deficiency in understanding, processing, or describing emotions in oneself.[4][5] Note that in modern Greek the word empathy () translates as "hatred" or "spitefulness" (a situation of causing passion, rather than mutual relation to one's passion); is the correct modern equivalent of empathy.