REDACTED comments on Use your big girl words

[–] REDACTED@infosec.pub 2 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (25 children)

I genuinely don't understand your argument. Are you saying it's not a valid measurement system because humans came up with it? Just like everything else? What is your actual argument against emotional Intelligence as a metric besides that it was created by someone you don't like?

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 25 child comments

[+] TubularTittyFrog@lemmy.world 0 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (25 children)

[deleted]

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 25 child comments

[–] REDACTED@infosec.pub 2 points 3 months ago (24 children)

Yeah, I strongly disagree. It's a genuinely valid way to figure out someone better. While the tests and all that aren't really standardized, the idea is quite clear, and the idea works. Just because it was made mainstream, does not mean it's suddenly bad. Just because the origins are sketchy, does not mean the theory is invalid. It just essentially means one's ability to objectively assess your own and other's emotions, feel empathy (not just understand it, but feel it), low emotional intelligence people would be less rational about their own and everyone's else's emotions. You simply cannot argue against this. It's a skill/mechanism that makes society function better.

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 24 child comments

[–] TubularTittyFrog@lemmy.world 1 point 3 months ago (23 children)

Right, which is precisely why everyone things they are highly emotionally intelligent and it's everyone else that isn't!

such a genius metric, it is.

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 23 child comments

[–] REDACTED@infosec.pub 1 point 3 months ago (22 children)

No, that's just Dunning Kruger effect

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 22 child comments

[–] TubularTittyFrog@lemmy.world 0 points 3 months ago* (21 children)

where is the universally accepted metric for measuring emotional intelligence? clearly there must be a test or something by which we can judge others and ourselves and evalated this 'skill'.

oh right, there is none.

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 21 child comments

[–] REDACTED@infosec.pub 1 point 3 months ago* (20 children)

MSCEIT and BarOn Emotional Quotient Inventory (EQ-i 2.0)

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 20 child comments

[–] TubularTittyFrog@lemmy.world 1 point 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (19 children)

Right, so i google both those and find that neither of them is widely adopted or used. they are basically in infancy and have substantial history of use or acceptance... and a few papers both showing their methodology is highly suspect:

Results showed that this is not the case for most items: The answer indicated by experts as the most correct in several cases was not associated with the highest ability; furthermore, items appeared too easy to challenge individuals high in EI. Overall results suggest that the MSCEIT is best suited to discriminate persons at the low end of the trait. Results are discussed in light of applied and theoretical considerations.

and around we go.

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 19 child comments

[–] REDACTED@infosec.pub 1 point 2 months ago (18 children)

But the idea is still clear. Sure, you have essentially steered the argument to "tests are unreliable", but you haven't disproved the emotional intelligence itself. You said it - just a buzzword

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 18 child comments

[–] TubularTittyFrog@lemmy.world 1 point 2 months ago* (17 children)

i can't disprove the existence of god either.

are you sure i'm the one shifting the goalposts here?

my argument form the start was EQ is bullshit, a made up arbitrary metric that has no widespread acceptance. and that is true. And like all bullshit things, people mostly use it to bully and posture each other.

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 17 child comments

[–] REDACTED@infosec.pub 1 point 2 months ago (16 children)

I guess we will stay true to our beliefs. Being able to rationally understand emotions, reflect, feel empathy, etc. are not some foreign concepts, it's real, categorizable human psychology (and neurology?) behaviour.

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 16 child comments

[–] TubularTittyFrog@lemmy.world 1 point 2 months ago (15 children)

and they have no objective measure. you cannot measure a feeling of empathy and compare it across two people. empathy can't be measured like a discus throw or how fast you can run mile.

they are not measurable things, they are contextualized by culture, language, and society. what is empathetic in one society is considered cruelty in another. and further, it will vary a lot depending on relationship, familiarity, and social dynamics.

You may think you are the sole arbiter of these things, and you're welcome to do that in your personal life. but the arrogance it takes you can magically ID people's 'empathy' based on internet posts is just insane ego-projection and and your judgement of how much they say shit you agree with.

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 15 child comments

[–] REDACTED@infosec.pub 1 point 2 months ago (14 children)

Just because you can't objectively measure amount of love between two people, doesn't mean it's invalid theory. You are overthinking this too much, using weird arguments and then try to push a narrative that says "anything that isn't standardized is meaningless". By the same logic, pretty much every psychological/personal trait is a buzzword that cannot be objectively measured, and so it's meaningless. It's intellectually lazy argument.

And no, empathy or ethics or emotions are not race-based (referring to your previous argument where it could be different between groups)

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 14 child comments

[–] TubularTittyFrog@lemmy.world 1 point 2 months ago (13 children)

right, it can't be EQ is a stupid theory with a flawed metric that is essentailly useless... apparently if that's the case they ALL OF PYCHOLOGY IS NONSENSE.

are you serious with this crap? typical lemmy poster, can't let the bone go and becomes a dog and starts making massive generalizations that society will collapse if their one pet peeve issue needs to be their into a hyperbolic one.

it's fine, you can call me lazy, tell me i have low EQ, whatever makes you feel better about yourself man. The fact of the matter is EQ isn't taken seriously by psychologists and it's become yet another therapy-speak term, but hey, i'm clearly a gas-lighting narcissist, right?

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 13 child comments

[–] REDACTED@infosec.pub 1 point 2 months ago (12 children)

I never said you have low EQ. You said it yourself - no objective way to measure it, and I myself have never thought about others EQ, I just recognize it as group/complex of psychological/personal traits that affect your neurological behaviour.

However, it is interesting to me how angry/personal you seem about this argument. I'm going to assume this isn't your first time talking about this, and getting disagreed with.

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 12 child comments

[–] TubularTittyFrog@lemmy.world 1 point 2 months ago* (11 children)

I disagree with the entire pop psychology industries existence. It's not personal, it's a moral social issue.

It's psychological junk food that destroys people's psychological health and turns them into self-help junkies. It's the equivalent of people believing that McDonald's is healthy food and they will lose weight and lower their cholesterol by consuming it.

but hey, you like your McDs. Lots of people do.

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 11 child comments

[–] REDACTED@infosec.pub 1 point 2 months ago* (10 children)

Your comparison is so wild.. And your assumptions are not really matching my real world experience. I wish you the best, but there's obviously no point to continue

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 10 child comments

[–] TubularTittyFrog@lemmy.world 1 point 2 months ago* (9 children)

this entire thread you've postured yourself as 'above me'.

I love it. Do they have a test for delusions of social superiority? How do you think you'd score on it? [

i have this other radical idea... maybe your real world experience isn't all that there is in the world... maybe other people experience the world differently?

and yeah there is no point to 'continue' when you can't acknowledge that your experience is inherently limited and flawed and is likely only shared with a tiny percentage of other people who are very similar to you. which is what is called in-group bias!

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 9 child comments

[–] REDACTED@infosec.pub 0 points 2 months ago (8 children)

Just because I try to be respectful and talk like an adult, does not mean I'm postering myself above others. If my way of talking makes you think less of yourself, that really isn't my problem.

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 8 child comments

[–] TubularTittyFrog@lemmy.world 1 point 2 months ago (7 children)

Just because I try to be respectful and talk like an adult,

this literally implies that other folks talk like children and aren't respectful and then pushes back that I must be uncomfortable.

imply imply imply, never be honest or straightforward. argue in bad faith and then accuse the other person of doing so, etc. falsely report the other persons comments even though they are right there in front of you, and then backtrack your own claims when confronted.

It's fine, your in good company with most on people on this site. A total lack of self awareness and a strong sense of delusion in your own superiority based on 'knowledge' you don't really possess, but rather belief that you idealize. Because you feel a certain way, and you are the best, and it MUST be true. And if anyone questions you, they are questioning everything you believe in, so you take it personally.

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 7 child comments

[–] REDACTED@infosec.pub 1 point 2 months ago (6 children)

Pulls out a mirror

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 6 child comments

[–] TubularTittyFrog@lemmy.world 1 point 2 months ago* (5 children)

'no but u'

yeah this is how every bad faith lemmy poster resorts too.

that, or you can also tell me how i'm a nazi/facist. that's usually the other retort they go to.

because it can't be that your might possible be wrong or incorrect, it's that I must want want to mass murder babies or something.

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 5 child comments

[–] REDACTED@infosec.pub 1 point 2 months ago (4 children)

Genuine question - are you on drugs?

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 4 child comments

[–] TubularTittyFrog@lemmy.world 1 point 2 months ago* (3 children)

Yeah, the drug called reality and accountability.

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 3 child comments

[–] REDACTED@infosec.pub 1 point 2 months ago (2 children)

Doubt it, because it's wild how can one go from "I don't think EQ exists/is a good measurement of anything" to "you think I'm a Nazi" without me even mentioning anything from politics, how did you even come to that leap. Thinking of Nazis, you could have just used the Hitler as an argument for EQ being bad measurement because it's safe to assume he measures in both directions at the same time.

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 2 child comments

[–] TubularTittyFrog@lemmy.world 1 point 2 months ago (1 child)

I never made that leap.

I was mocking your own logical leaps, which is typical of a lemmy poster who can't let go of the fact they are wrong, so they must demonize someone else to discredit the legtimiacy of their comments.

And yet you keep going here, eating your own tail at this point. You're conflating everything I said into a incoherent mess because you clearly lack the ability to understand my original criticisms in the first place.

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 1 child comment

[–] REDACTED@infosec.pub 1 point 2 months ago*

I never made that leap.

You literally wrote it

I was mocking your own logical leaps, which is typical of a lemmy poster who can't let go of the fact they are wrong, so they must demonize someone else to discredit the legtimiacy of their comments.

This is so ironic. Do point out where I attempted to demonize you, like you did with me.

And yet you keep going here, eating your own tail at this point. You're conflating everything I said into a incoherent mess because you clearly lack the ability to understand my original criticisms in the first place.

I already said the discussion is over and we will both stay true to our beliefs. No need to become toxic here - just because someone disagrees with you, doesn't mean they're lacking ability to understand things. You really need to understand this to avoid further conflicts, which should not even be a conflict. I'm just answering your comments which don't seem to end.