You forgot to return those books to the reserve desk, and now you owe $20. Do you tell yourself that "When I am involved in what I am reading, I often forget when it is due," or do you tell yourself that "I was so preoccupied with writing the report that I forgot to return the book." If you picked the latter statement, you might count yourself among those with a higher 'E.Q.'
This question comes from a test given to Metlife insurance salesmen to determine their emotional intelligence. Those with high emotional intelligence scores recovered better from bad sales days, handled rejection more easily and were less likely to quit. But E.Q. is not useful only to Metlife. As described in the Oct. 2 issue of Time Magazine, E.Q. may be just as important as I.Q. for determining success in both career and personal life.
In a study of four-year-olds, scientists gave a marshmallow to each of the children and told them that if they waited until the scientist came back into the room that they would receive another one. Some of the children immediately seized the marshmallow. Others sang to themselves or slept -- basically, they did anything but eat the marshmallow. Those who restrained themselves not only seemed to be better adjusted and more popular throughout their childhood, but also they handled stress and challenge much better than the marshmallow-seizers. Additionally, twelve years later, these children scored an average of 210 points higher on the SAT.
E.Q. is not a measure that shows up on an I.Q. test, but as the marshmallow study showed, a high E.Q. indicates traits that are as important or more important than raw intelligence. Put another way, high I.Q. will get you hired, but high E.Q. will get you promoted because those with high E.Q work better on teams and have better "people skills." But why the corollary to higher SAT scores in the marshmallow study?
One explanation is that those with high I.Q. also have a greater tendency to have high E.Q. This is not supported by the data. Researchers found subjects with high scores in both E.Q. and I.Q., low scores in both, and mixed scores. Take Adolf Hitler, for example. For anyone that has read Mein Kampf, it is not surprising that Hitler had a low I.Q. However, Hitler's E.Q. allowed him to put his finger on the post-war sentiment in Germany and take control of its government and people in his quest for world domination. In contrast leaders such as Woodrow Wilson and Jimmy Carter boasted high I.Q, but couldn't relate to their constituents. They never made the same connection as a Ronald Reagan or John F. Kennedy.
A better explanation is that the SAT measures not only I.Q., but also measures E.Q. Since E.Q. allows people to handle challenges and control stress better, this conclusion makes sense. But this raises the issue of content -- how much of the SAT measures I.Q. and how much E.Q.? Further, which is the better measure of success, E.Q. or I.Q.?
Researchers have come to an uneasy consensus that I.Q. accounts for about 20 percent of success. Some find this good enough reason to scrap the SAT. But as chronicled in the last two issues of Atlantic Monthly, the SAT was created to reflect a standard measure of intelligence and general preparation so that universities could select students on the basis of talent, not wealth or genealogy. Our system needs some standard measure.
More interesting than the debate surrounding the quantifying or relative importance of emotional intelligence is the fact that our educational system does little to address human emotional life. Such education was traditionally left to the family.
If we take on the responsibility to educate children in public schools about dealing with grief or stress or anger, it is difficult to work without the benefit of a moral compass. Most Americans find that moral compass in religion. But the public school system must preserve the separation of church and state -- morals and values can not be force-fed. The situation is not the easiest to resolve.
However, the debate is useful because if we are to cultivate better leaders and better workers, we must expand our understanding of how E.Q. can be influenced. We do know that emotional skills, just as intellectual ones, are morally neutral and can be used for good or evil. Can we increase E.Q. in students without attaching values? If so, are we merely creating a potential Hitler along with our J.F.K.?
The discovery of E.Q. raises many dilemmas, but on the whole, we should be heartened. E.Q. is the best thing going to oppose the racial hierarchy of power pronounced by Charles Murray and Richard Hernstein in last year's The Bell Curve (i.e., whites and Asians will always dominate blacks and Hispanics due to inherited intelligence). Society has come to accept that each of us has a wider range of characteristics that determine success besides our I.Q.
