Å·±¦ÓéÀÖ

There are some interesting things in the book, things that are hard to disagree with, such as emotional skills and self-knowledge are important. I think a lot of people who liked this book focused on that self-help aspect. I have no problem with that. My problems with this book stem from the wider claims Goleman makes for EQ as a mental function.

Goleman bases this aspect of his theory on some whopping assumptions. The biggest one is the idea that emotional intelligence even exists. The main aspects of EQ he posits (self-awareness, social-awareness,etc.) aren't objectively measurable and there is no proof that they even correlate with one another on a neurological level, which we would see if these aspects were part of a measurable form of human intelligence.

Another assumption is that there is an acceptable norm of emotional intelligence. This raises the question, what about people who don't meet the norm? Under Goleman's narrow definition, people with autism, even many on the high-functioning end of the spectrum, would not qualify as possessing a desirable EQ level, neither would the introvert who prefers books to people. It is here that I found Goleman's ideas to be particularly objectionable. There's a whiff of something truly unpleasant here. However, we know that even people with severe autism are able to learn emotional skills.

Goleman makes the grand claim that, throughout history, great leaders all had high EQ levels. (As a historian, this made me cringe when I first read it.) Unless one has access to a person's psychiatric records, it is always extremely problematic to make all but the most qualified claims about the psychology of historical figures.

The EQ theory has many of the same flaws as theories of IQ. Older IQ tests assumed that intelligence was easily measured and that there was a single kind of intelligence. One frequently encountered people who had low IQ scores but who functioned intelligently or had highly advanced skills in some areas but not others. We now speak of multiple intelligences, seeing them as a skills set. We might be born with a tendency to some intelligences over others, but these are shaped by enviromental factors and can be influenced through learning, rather than something neurologically innate.

I'm willing to accept the idea that people are born with a range of abilities to recognize and respond to emotional interaction. I think these emotional responses are learned behaviors to a much greater degree than Goleman would allow. The problem with books like Goleman's is that it presents one side of a very contentious debate, but it might be the only book on the subject many people will read.