No, that wasn't at all what i was arguing. For politeness sake, i'll assume its a misunderstanding, although that is a bit hard to imagine at this point, since i'm being extremely explicit. I wasn't attacking the scientific field, but people using the phrase EQ in a conversion as if it in any way similar to IQ. It is you taking offense that suggests there may be overlap between these two groups, which is extremely worrying.
"Trying to produce scientific research" means actively applying the scientific method. I'm arguing that hasn't successfully happened with the phrase EQ. Do you have a counter example? And yes I'm arguing that falsifiable statements about celebrities' sexlives is closer to science than current pop culture notions about EQ, because at least the statements can be disproven.
HOW TO SCIENCE
Step 1: discard any statement that is not well defined enough that an experiment could dismiss it
Step 2: test the remaining statements by experiment, and dismiss them if they fail
Step 3: until new knowledge appears, the remaining statements are considered reliable scientific facts
Every statement i've ever read about EQ is discarded in step 1. Most statements in a gossip magazine are discarded in step 2. Hence, a gossip magazine is strictly more scientific than a book about EQ. As for if this an attack on researchers in this area: what the hell are you talking about? what research?
>Are you talking about researchers or someone else?
I'm referring to people who pretend EQ is established science. Those people would either be misinformed or intentionally fraudulent. I hope this group does not contain any actual researchers. That would be disturbing.
The phrase IQ is already very unfortunate, considering the common literal interpretation that it is the definite score of intelligence. To have any new research refer to EQ, to appropriate both the success -as-well-as the distorted nature of how IQ is interpreted by the general public, could be described anywhere from 'pseudo-science' to 'completely fraudulent'.
Things might be different if there was a single example of research establishing some EQ metric that was reproducible and i'm not the most up to date person. So, maybe you have an example of scientific research that backs up the notion that EQ could even exist by having some kind of reproducible metric? A single example would do. But without that example, the usage of the phrase EQ in ordinary conversation needs to be consistently corrected so nobody falsely assumes there are any reliable facts or any consensus even about what this term means, the way there are with the phrase 'IQ'. It it was called differently, this misconception wouldn't happen.
This is actually what made the OP on Quora so angry. The question raised suggested strong misconceptions in the general public. The watering down of the general trust of people in science because too much unproven soft science is appropriating the reputation of the hard science. EQ hasn't been proven to exist any more than it has been proven that water has memory (homeopathy) or that souls exists. Its quackery.