Cheers Yabby – have already put my order in with hubby for either or both books to start with.

This is really interesting and the more I think about it of course knowing more would be of huge benefit for the kids I get who do come with some very confused emotions.

And obviously I have a bit to learn on the subject that could help me too.

A long time ago I read a lot about transactional analysis. I don’t think it got very popular but it always made sense to me.

Examinator/Protagoras, can you suggest something else for me to read to balance what I learn about the emotion/hormone stuff?

Fractelle:”About my moniker for the Renderosity site: PIXEL - darn, why didn't I think of that - very cute and clever.”

I thought it suited you perfectly.

yabby ready How he misled the public, read Others' Criticism of Golema
1. He makes unsupported claims about the power and predictive ability of emotional intelligence.

2. His own, self-created definition of emotional intelligence includes aspects of personality and behavior which are not correlated to emotional intelligence as it is scientifically defined. He also interchanges terms such as emotional literacy, emotional health, emotional skill, and emotional competency. He never defines any of these other terms, but he equates them all to emotional intelligence.

3. He tries to make us believe he is presenting something new, when in fact much of what he is reporting has been studied for years under personality research.

4. He implies that anyone can learn emotional intelligence and fails to acknowledge either the relatively fixed nature of the personality traits he includes in his definition of EI or the differences in innate potential among individuals.

5. He presents himself as the sole expert in emotional intelligence and fails to give adequate credit to Mayer, Salovey, Caruso and others.

6. He represents his work as "scientific" when it does not hold up to scientific scrutiny.

7. His personal beliefs about what is "appropriate" contradict the academic theory concerning the value of our emotions. He still seems to regard emotions as largely something to be controlled and restrained, rather than something to be valued.

8. He has claimed that his ECI -360 test is the "genuine article" when it comes to testing for emotional intelligence, but no one in the academic community seems to think it is even a measure of EI, let alone the "genuine" one.

9. When he wrote his book in 1995 he wanted us to believe the book was about emotional intelligence, but there is strong evidence that Goleman was not intending to write a book about emotional intelligence when he started writing. It seems much more probable that he was actually writing a book about emotional literacy and then later changed the title of the book to "Emotional Intelligence" so his book would have more sales appeal.
http://eqi.org/gole.htm#How%20Goleman%20misled%20the%20public

Emotional Intelligence: Science & Myth

" It is questionable whether civilization is falling apart quite so catastrophically. In any case, while it is plausible that school-based programs for EI are beneficial, there is no convincing evidence showing dramatic changes in adaptation..." p. 546

"In the absence of definitive research findings, we cannot be sure that the myths are entirely false. However, at the least, these sweeping claims are inadequately supported by empirical evidence, and thre are solid indications from existing ability and personality research that the claims made are either false or highly overstated. Indeed, while Goleman's (1995) vision has been widely disseminated, much of the empirical research in the area is more sober in its conclusions. It is surprising that exaggerated and very possibly false statements can command such widespread public acceptance." p. 546-7

"Goleman (1995, 2000) seeks to give EI scientific credibility by linking the construct to brain structures such as amygdala and orbitofrontal cortex...Nevertheless, there is no evidence that individual differences, in the normal range, map in any direct way to variation in brain function." p. 545 "To equate EI with neurological properties of brain systems is conceptually naive and of little use in explaining empirical data on huma emotion function." p. 538

"Goleman (1995), and to some extent Bar-On (1997, 2002) appear to claim that all desirable aspects of emotional function reflect a general factor of EI. Such a factor would be on par with IQ in bringing together many apparently distinct personal qualities. We have seen that tests of EI fail, thus far, to meet psychometric criteria, or even to correlate highly with one another. In addition, the extensive literature on personality shows that qualities such as resilience under stress, self-control, sensitivity to others and social assertiveness are distinct constructs that relate to different fundamental personality dimensions, and to differing psychological processes." p. 545
http://eqi.org/roberts1.htm#Their%20criticism%20of%20Goleman

As I read Goleman, I get the impression that he believes we need to control our emotions. In other words, he seems to believe that if we are out of balance as a society, it is in the direction of being too emotional, too impulsive. On page xiii, for example, he says that self-restraint is one of the "two moral stances" that our times call for (...the other being "compassion", which I agree with to the extent he defines compassion as understanding and empathy rather than sympathy and pity).

I agree that our society is out of balance, but I believe it is out of balance in the direction of over-intellectualization. I believe we are over-socialized to repress, suppress, disown, deny, medicate away,. etc. our emotions. I advocate that we listen to our feelings, that we get in touch with them, that we learn to identify them and then look for the message in them to see what we can learn from them.

That said, I do believe there are certain segments of society which are indeed overly impulsive, and this impulsiveness and lack of self-control contributes to violence, rage and other forms of socially destructive behavior.

Generally speaking, though, for those of us who have endured college, graduate school, the corporate world, etc., I suggest that we would do ourselves a favor to re-connect with our child-like feelings and our gut-level instincts. When we listen to our own inner voices, as it were, we find our own unique paths.

This, I believe, is highly preferable to conforming to the prevailing social standards, to trying to live up to the expectations of others, and to doing what we have been socialized to believe we "should" do.
http://eqi.org/gole.htm#An_example_of_Goleman's_EQ?

Yabby,

I don't know AS so I can't reasonably say what his proclivities are however you still don't get the point or don't want to.
In your adolescent mode of conversation... if I remember my adolescence. That status was more the norm than an oddity...sitting on a tram with the hot sun on my lap got the same response. I don't recall trying to mount rape or bash every female I fancied....good grief I would have been in constant violence with almost half the e students of Villa Maria (girls school). I say half ...30 secs each 300 girls I was never a super man. If Thoughts would have been read I would have been incarcerated...or was that have been cast....nah.

Your knowledge of anatomy/body functions is woeful A full bladder or a warm bed will do that...

A male erection doesn't license/ justify actions of violent or rape they still have some control/responsibility.

Providing you're not in the latter of your groupings(80+) in which case (more than your hormones would have waned or is missing). Might I solemnly suggest you don't try that defense out in court. I'm not sure sex offenders are allowed on the net in there.

Protagoras/dickie: << The bitch goes through the painful process of delivery, drops the puppies so the heinous Yabby can take to them with an axe. >>

What?

I haven't really been paying too much attention to this thread, but without any context that's just nuts.