There is no such thing as IQ either its also a conceptual model. But agree there is no such thing as EQ.
It's a concept which we use to describe certain abilities in humans but there is no IQ sitting somewhere. While EQ is definitely close to be "fraudulent" it's still sitting on a gradient with EQ being the best model we have when externally accessing someones mental abilities but it's not a thing, it's a human construct.
It's just two different ways of using the word "thing" - each as valid as the other. Either party could switch to the other's viewpoint without changing anything about how they see the world, they'd simply be defining a word differently.
So no it's not just about defining it differently it's about whether you believe red is "out there" or whether it's "in your mind" if you can't see why that's important then that's your problem not mine.
Give me an example of an experiment they'll predict different results for and I'll believe you. ;) If there isn't one, then your belief isn't paying rent - and arguing whether red is "out there" is as meaningful as arguing whether Wulky Wilkinson is a post-utopian.
> http://lesswrong.com/lw/i3/making_beliefs_pay_rent_in_antici...
But agree there is no such thing as EQ.
It's not the same with BMI, which is about setting out guidelines for a healthy weight. That is something that's more appropriate to describe numerically.
But that has been done, over and over again. By the established standard of "how to measure mental things", IQ is a very useful concept, while EQ is not.
The argument Peterson (and a few others) are making is that there is no incremental validity of EQ compared to other personality traits. That just means that EQ cannot explain more variance than these personality traits + IQ. Therefore, it is a useless concept. (I tend to agree with this argument.)
Describing mental capacity with a number is pretty straightforward, actually. You can test it yourself: Read 2 random digits. Immediately repeat them. Then do that for 3, 4, and so on. There will be a number (typically between 5 and 7) when you cannot repeat the sequence without error anymore.
There you have it: A measure for mental capacity.
If you really think IQ is garbage, how come we can ask people some weird questions, and actually predict based on these questions how successful they will be at age 40? In social science, there are few if any instances where there is such a strong connection between a measure and an outcome.
Things like IQ and personality assessments (which IMO are really what EQ is a proxy for) are guideposts, but their predictive power is only effective in context and understanding the accuracy of the assessment.
When people use these as gatekeepers it's problematic.
There you have it: A measure for mental capacity."
Not really. Almost anyone can get better at games like that without expanding their mental capacity. Here's a selection of well established tricks for enhancing memory recall:
http://lifehacker.com/top-10-tricks-to-boost-your-memory-and...
IQ isn't about skill, it's about capacity. Also, it's biased towards certain forms of intelligence. I happen to have a good memory, but that doesn't make me equally adept at all forms of human activity. EQ was an attempt to highlight this shortfall.
So, yes, "memory span" is a measurement of mental capacity: Following a clear procedure, it assigns numbers to a construct we call "short term memory capacity".
What you argue against is the validity of the measurement, which is another matter. I see your point about "IQ being about capacity", but your original claim was that it is a "false assumption that you can describe mental capacity with a number". A measurement is essentially a model of something, so by definition it reduces something complex to something more simple so that we can study it.
EQ was the work of a journalist who did not have the background in Psychology to understand that there never was a shortfall to begin with. Differential and personality psychology has been working for decades on these topics. EQ has added no insights.
I have no problem with that. My problem is with how that measurement is used in wider society. I'll explain further later in this comment.
> "So, yes, "memory span" is a measurement of mental capacity: Following a clear procedure, it assigns numbers to a construct we call "short term memory capacity"."
Perhaps you're misunderstanding why I'm hammering on the 'capacity' angle. When someone is tested as having an IQ of 200, the collective understanding of that number is that it's a number that's more or less fixed (outside of illness or old age). If someone gets an IQ test score of 200 one day they're not expected to get a score of 150 another day. Whether that's accurate from a scientific point of view or not, that's how it's seen within society at large.
So, from that more general perspective, capacity is seen as total capacity. It's this I have an issue with, not how it's used within academic journals. I've never taken a formal IQ test, so this isn't a personal issue for me, I only object on the point that a model with a single metric can describe total mental capacity.
> "A measurement is essentially a model of something, so by definition it reduces something complex to something more simple so that we can study it."
Fine, but are we measuring the human or the model? Let's say I design a competing model of human intelligence that only loosely overlaps with IQ but still has the potential to predict future success. At this point, do we need a new model that can encompass both? Does the existence of this competing model make it clearer that each approach has limitations? If you don't want to get into discussions about the above, why do we measure intelligence in a fixed way but not other human traits? Why isn't there a formal model describing capacity for love? What gives us the confidence to simplify one trait to a model but not others? Is it because we have faith in the testability of those models? Isn't then the foundation of the model a style of questioning that promotes reproducible results? How do we choose the subset of potential questions that best capture the full range of intelligence?
> "EQ was the work of a journalist who did not have the background in Psychology to understand that there never was a shortfall to begin with. Differential and personality psychology has been working for decades on these topics. EQ has added no insights."
Perhaps there wasn't a shortfall in the world of psychology, but there was a perceived shortfall in public discourse. I think this is the crux of our disagreement, you're approaching IQ from the scientific angle, I'm approaching IQ in terms of how its used outside of science. Scientists should be the authority in how the model is measured, but that model doesn't solely have an impact in the scientific community, it has also become a cultural touch point representing intelligence. Whether that is an appropriate use of IQ or not is up for debate, and for all its flaws I see EQ as a way of furthering that debate.
Most of the correlation with high income is because their skills are needed by society, but go back 300 years and you wouldn't find the same correlation going even further back it would matter even less.
Furthermore high IQ doesn't mean more likely to be entrepreneur or creator of new things.
So yes IQ is a very strong model but it's relation to success is much weaker.
If you measure square footage, people will just fill the building with superfluous Hilbert curves.
If you try to measure number of bathrooms or number of bedrooms, people will just make apartment complexes filled with dollhouses.
If you try to measure profit(directly or from imputed rent), people will set up fake corporations and pay themselves outrageous sums of rent.
So all of these measures are worthless and it's impossible to value real estate, because they can each be gamed and so are unable to be used to make any predictions.
Do you mean measure it accurately based on a single metric?
http://www.highiqpro.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/Morrison...
As the linked post describes, EQ is ill-defined, and lacks predictive power over any particular outcome.
The article wasnt stating that people dont have more or less or different social skills. But that they currently arent measurable in a scientific way (and likely never will be).
The phrase EQ is therefor completely and intentionally fraudulent. Like the word "scientology".
IQ doesn't purport to "describe mental capacity". It assesses mental capacity and allocates a score. This score is information that can be used to deduce ability, and to the end it serves its purpose perfectly.
Decisions based on IQ is another thing entirely.
Beyond that, labels are hard for people to get rid of, even those we assign to ourselves. In the effort to categorise everything we grossly limit the potential of the individual. As Kierkegaard put it; "Once you label me you negate me.".
But as we know - all models are wrong, but some are useful...