As a psychologist, I have been exposed to the idea of emotional intelligence on several occasions throughout my personal and professional life. In the same way that people vary in IQ, it is theorised that people also seem to vary in EQ. I have believed this for some time because, on the surface, it seemed to make sense.

But taking a closer look, I find myself far less convinced.

Emotional Intelligence was originally coined as a suite of emotion-focused skills, including the ability to identify and regulate one's own emotions, as well as the capacity to recognise others' emotions and manage one's relationships accordingly. Some include concepts like "Empathy" as core to this skill set.

While the concept was first introduced in the 1960s, it wasn't popularised until the 1990s, thanks in large part to Daniel Goleman's book, "Emotional Intelligence: Why It Matters More Than IQ".

The concept's popularity exploded in large part due to who it was marketed towards — businessmen. The idea was that your EQ could determine your success as a leader, and that mastering EQ-related skills would help you succeed in your career.

While the idea of being in touch with your emotions has rarely been popular in largely male-dominated spaces, the idea of "improving your EQ" in order to "become a better leader" was far more approachable. It was more like a masculine-coded business self-help guide for personal development with just enough real psychology sprinkled in to make it seem legitimate.

And since a cohort of successful business folks liked and endorsed the book, the concept of emotional intelligence stuck. Today, books are still written, and lectures at seminars and conferences are still given to help boost our EQ.

Hell, I've written at least a half dozen articles on the topic myself!

And nowadays, we are all heartfelt leaders who are in touch with our emotions and capable of recognising our own moods while being thoughtful and reactive to the emotions of others. Right..?

Not quite.

Emotional Intelligence Was Only Ever Meant To Be An Analogy

It attempts to take what we understand about Intelligence (IQ) and just assume that emotions must be the same. Real IQ tests, such as the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale, Fifth Edition (WAIS-V), test five different abilities:

  • (1) Verbal Comprehension, (2) Visual-Spatial Reasoning, (3) Fluid Reasoning, (4) Working Memory, and (5) Processing Speed.

Psychologists use standardised measures (glorified mini-games) to test these and other skills. Performance on specific cognitive skills is objectively measurable, and abilities are quantifiable.

Emotional Intelligence Doesn't Work Because:

  • Emotions are subjective and culturally biased.
  • Being proficient in identifying and navigating one emotion doesn't always translate to being able to successfully navigate others.
  • Being proficient in navigating your own emotions doesn't mean you'll be good at navigating others' emotions (and vice versa).
  • The scientific community has no consensus on "how many emotions there are," and assumptions about emotions are largely based on stereotypes and "emojification".

We likely handle different emotions better or worse, based on everything from our personality to our personal history and lived experience.

Likewise, we need a different set of "skills" for different emotions.

After all, different emotions inspire and motivate different reactions. Happiness is different from anger. Anxiety is different from excitement. Disgust is different from love. Resentment is different from jealousy.

Differences are emotions feel obvious to us, but the same person who learns valuable stress management skills to decrease their "anxiety" doesn't necessarily translate to their ability to navigate other emotions. To say that there is a single concept, or "Emotional Intelligence," that makes us better at navigating all emotions, doesn't actually make sense.

What emotional intelligence does do is… teach basic social skills to people who otherwise treat other humans like economic units. It reminds leaders in business careers that their employees are, in fact, human and that perhaps treating them like humans and not machines will improve their productivity.

That being said, there is evidence to suggest that humans vary in their sensitivity to emotions more broadly, where some people experience emotions more intensely or experience a wider range of distinct emotions. There is likely some correlation between the perceived amount that you feel and efforts to manage those feelings successfully.

What We Need Instead (And What I'm Working On)

I'm ditching the idea of emotional intelligence.

Instead of believing that there is one concept that globally impacts all emotions, we need to be able to treat each emotion as its own skill set to master. We have to come up with a satisfying taxonomy of emotions, and for each, present a method for improving our relationship with that emotion specifically.

In the same way that doing an exercise for my biceps does not strengthen my legs, learning one empathy skill doesn't improve our capacity for all emotions. To be well-rounded, we must exercise each of the body parts independently. Likewise, we must be willing to attend to each emotion as an independent yet interconnected skill.

I believe that there are somewhere between 27 and 30 emotions, and I am working to catalogue each of them with valuable insights and practical action steps to improve each of them! Unfortunately, that is the cliffhanger that this article ends on…

What do you think? Are you hopping off the emotional intelligence bandwagon with me or still convinced that something like EQ must exist somewhere out there..?