People with lower emotional intelligence are more likely to hold right-wing views, study finds

Nov 2005
9,220
3,685
California
Absolutely. The left use feelings and emotion, the right use reality and logic. IQ v EMI, it’s been known for years. It's just a different way of thinking.
This is a popular CLAIM of the right, but in reviewing the discussions on this forum it simply doesn't match up to reality.
The article in this very thread helps demonstrate a problem with the claim you just made...
... but instead of actually addressing the issue "using reality and logic" (as you claim), we instead get a lot of nonsense and eternally trying to shift the goal-posts.

So I guess the challenge is to you now to actually address the article from post #1 with "reality and logic"...
... or you can choose not to, effectively disproving your claim.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Lloyd Christmas
Nov 2005
9,220
3,685
California
It is not always so obvious that people are jumping to make arguments when they know absolutely nothing about the subject. :eek: That really makes the errors of logic obvious, doesn't it? If we were teachers and these were our students making arguments with no knowledge of what they are talking about, how might we encourage them to stop behaving like adolescents and do the learning they need to do before making an argument? I used to think I wanted to be a teacher, but I am finding my reaction to arguments made without knowledge are not how a teacher should respond to encourage learning. :confused: I am disappointed in me.
I don't think the comparison you are making is fair to you.

Teachers typically should have some level of control / discipline over the class-room to avoid spurious and unproductive outbursts (to some extent). The teacher sets the agenda
In high school (and even freshmen level of college) there are going to be people who resist learning and instead try to insert their own agenda.
At some stage, if the student rejects listening to the teacher and repeatedly provides active disruption to the learning process, other approaches (i.e. punishment) should be considered

The purpose and boundaries of this forum are profoundly different.
You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink.
You can present some people with information, but you can't make them think.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Athena
Nov 2005
9,220
3,685
California
If you’re going to be a teacher, i.e., impart facts and knowledge, you’re wasting your time in the west unless you’re prepared to adapt your morality to politics. If you are a lefty, you're in the right country and you can expect what you see on a forum to be normal behavior. Learn to develop a hard skin? :)
I stopped at you saying I am wasting my time. I feel insulted, so you get to go in the corner for having bad manners. That is my ignore list. I will have the reality I want and you can stay out of it. :D When we have social agreement about such things, we have social pressure and it works very well.
From my perspective, Cheshire Cat's comment wasn't really any serious attempt to communicate with you, but rather just an attempt to throw a back-handed partisan insult.
Spewing propagandic tropes...

In reality, I suspect I am not telling you anything you don't already know or at least I am not presenting you with any new opinion...

His statement of "If you are a lefty, you're in the right country and you can expect what you see on a forum to be normal behavior. is profoundly laughable. I don't know of any left-winger on this forum who has an opinion that the behavior seen on this forum is "normal". What I have seen is repeated comments that the trolls are allowed to roam freely and there is no concern for their attempts to disrupt topical discussion.
 
Sep 2017
88
17
Houston TX
I understand she said the title was bogus. And I've given up on people trying to reinvent the English language to deny the accuracy of the title.
The article never said extremism, nor is it relevant to do so. That is you trying to make it say something it didn't...

As I pointed out, people are reading wayyyy too much into the title.
I don't know why it's so hard to understand the logical fallacy being committed by other people's assumption on the title statement. Just because a characteristic#1 is noted to link to characteristic#2 does not say anything about the overall reality of people with characteristic#2.
That's akin to somebody assuming that a person with HIV must be gay.



I find such a question ironic considering we are talking about emotional intelligence.
Some people get bent out of shape because they hear "Happy Holidays" and think that means "war on Christmas". That doesn't mean that anything regarding the phrase "Happy Holidays".

Do some people have a lack of logical perspective on the title and they get an emotional reaction to it?
Yes.

Is the title grammatically correct is the more important question.



"There may be truth in what is said"?
Is the title grammatically correct?
If not, how would you make it grammatically correct?

If you have no grammatical contention with the title, then how would you rephrase the article title to avoid ruffling other people's emotions?
You are making an assumption that is both logically and mathematically false. Just because one variable (like low emotional intelligence) is correlated with a combination of other variables (like right-wing, authoritarianism, and social dominance orientation), it does not mean that it is also correlated with the individual variables. A good example would be the recent news on sexual orientation and genetics. Homosexuality is apparently correlated with some combination of genes, but not individually correlated with any particular gene.

So, if the only thing the data shows is that emotional intelligence is correlated with “a measure of right-wing authoritarianism and social dominance orientation,” there is no basis to state that it is correlated with the right wing. The title is bogus.
 
Aug 2019
238
143
Warwickshire UK
This is a popular CLAIM of the right, but in reviewing the discussions on this forum it simply doesn't match up to reality.
The article in this very thread helps demonstrate a problem with the claim you just made...
... but instead of actually addressing the issue "using reality and logic" (as you claim), we instead get a lot of nonsense and eternally trying to shift the goal-posts.

So I guess the challenge is to you now to actually address the article from post #1 with "reality and logic"...
... or you can choose not to, effectively disproving your claim.
It’s not a claim from the 'right.' I actually agree with the op. EMI is based on feelings and emotions. The word ‘emotional’ intelligence is the clue. You 're not aware of the dumbing down of education in America?
 
Aug 2019
238
143
Warwickshire UK
I stopped at you saying I am wasting my time. I feel insulted, so you get to go in the corner for having bad manners. That is my ignore list. I will have the reality I want and you can stay out of it. :D When we have social agreement about such things, we have social pressure and it works very well.
Oh dear, have I triggered and offended you and you want to be a teacher? Grow up first? That's not an insult, it's advice from a former teacher. :)
 
Nov 2005
9,220
3,685
California
It’s not a claim from the 'right.'
Actually, it is a claim from the right. Plenty of examples of right-wingers on this forum making that claim.

Furthermore, I am amused that you take issue with the "claim from the right" comment, but not my comment that the claim is just factually inaccurate.

I actually agree with the op. EMI is based on feelings and emotions. The word ‘emotional’ intelligence is the clue.
Thank you for sharing.

You 're not aware of the dumbing down of education in America?
What does that question have to do with the topic of this thread?
 
Aug 2019
238
143
Warwickshire UK
I would like to hear an answer to that. I do not think you will get one. Rinse and repeat is all you will hear from him.

I don’t do political correctness and I don’t expect coherent answers from a gathering of liberal millennials. I say what I think and if it offends I couldn’t give a toss. I write about what I know and laugh at the faux pas outrage it produces. My advice to the millennial liberals is don’t take yourselves so seriously kiddies; academics you are not. Stick to the one liners and sound bites. :) Let’s lighten up a bit with a song.

 
  • Like
Reactions: coldjoint
Nov 2005
9,220
3,685
California
You are making an assumption that is both logically and mathematically false. Just because one variable (like low emotional intelligence) is correlated with a combination of other variables (like right-wing, authoritarianism, and social dominance orientation), it does not mean that it is also correlated with the individual variables. A good example would be the recent news on sexual orientation and genetics. Homosexuality is apparently correlated with some combination of genes, but not individually correlated with any particular gene.
So, if the only thing the data shows is that emotional intelligence is correlated with “a measure of right-wing authoritarianism and social dominance orientation,” there is no basis to state that it is correlated with the right wing. The title is bogus.
The title says: People with lower emotional intelligence are more likely to hold right-wing views, study finds
Note. It does not say "it is correlated with the right wing"

It is logical to understand that right wing views are correlated with the right wing.
Or do you object to that assessment?