I know EQ has been debunked by psychometricians long time ago including Jordan Peterson.
This statement will be enough for the majority of the people (i. e. those who're not interested in science, psychology, etc.) to conclude that EQ is an invalid, false term. But it's not the case. Let me introduce some opposite information:
1.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emotional_Intelligence 2.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligence_quotient 3. "The relation between emotional intelligence and job performance: A meta-analysis"
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/job.714
So, no matter how we will perceive it (only "1 Q" /a "Q"/ or "IQ + EQ") it's important to include the emotions (their
existence, their
understanding, their
use and their
management).
The question isn't dumb. It makes a good sense. But the answers will vary a lot.
a) We should know if the both guys (males) are the same attractive (status, looks, etc.; everything that matters to the certain girl/female). For the purpose of the study (understanding), we should determine the male A and the male B as nearly (~100%) equal i the girl's (female's) perception about all that she cares (for example, if she doesn't care about he poetry we can't ignore the fact that one of them is a poet but if she cares about the money, we can't ignore the fact that one of them is a billionaire and the other one is a beggar. So we should imagine that we're talking (thinking) about nearly equal guys.) Otherwise, there will be that "Chad effect" (no matter what he says, I like him, because he's so hot!) or the equal "Stacy effect" (no matter what she says, I like her, because she's so hot!)
b) Once we accept the condition that male A and male B are "the same" in the female's head and she's just willing to choose the one with the better (to her; according to her) personality, well then we may conclude that some females will choose male B because of his more warm, intelligent, etc. attitude
but there will be always those females who will still choose male A because he's more "strong", "not a baby", "what a power", "wow, he's ignoring me! He's really something!" and "what a real man!!!"
c) Some PUAs (the PUA is something that I think as mostly not accurate and mostly useless but there are some good points in the different PUAs' theories) even will strongly recommend behavior type "male A" because they think that showing more emotions, respect, being needy, etc. is a very counter-productive case. So, to them, the male A is more EQmaxxed then the male B, who will be perceived (according to those PUAs) as a needy, not skillful, naive and so on, i. e. as a low-EQ male (and even a low-IQ man)...
And I think that there would be better examples of a good (better) EQ in this (incels, male-female; female-male; love) field. Like what? Well, let me think about something simple.
- Case 1:
- I hate you! I don't want to see you again!
- I am sorry... take your time. If you want, we can talk again about it after a week. - Case 2
- I hate you! I don't want to see you again!
- Me too, bitch! I'm going to report you right now to your parents about what you did! And this is not all! I'll post all about it in Facebook! Oh, just wait!!! You'll feel sorry you was born! I swear, you crazy moron!!!
Topic: Don't forget 'EQmaxxing'! (Read 637 times)