PZ was in Toronto this weekend. (Actually, he still is in Toronto as I write this, but I am not.) Much to my surprise he didn’t make me any level of livid or even angry. I got disgruntled by a few of his points here and there – but overall I found on the topic that he was speaking to (education + science + religion) I generally agreed. But his talk spurred a discussion between me and a couple others about “those science types” and their “emotional intelligence”…or generally…lack there of. (I can hear teeth grinding already! Where’s the love?!)
I’ve read a crap load of books on “emotional intelligence”. Most of them I find to be a bit shaky and questionable, but I see some validity in the arguments and ideas that are being presented in a general term. Emotional intelligence, in very simple terms is one ability to interact with people, gage their emotions, have an idea about social discourses and the effect that their inputs will have on the overall social feel. One gages their own, and other’s, emotions and make what they deem to be appropriate judgments on how they should react. There are three main models that I’m not going to explain in any sort of depth. I imagine if you wikipedia it you’ll find them all nicely laid out for you.
In general they all have the same premise: see the emotion, capitalize on the emotion, understand the emotion and properly manage the emotion. Some say its the ability to fit into social groups and adhere to social norms, other say its the ability to manipulate and use people in those social groups. Either way, it all starts with those four basic function of using emotion.
Just as I am aware of what EQ is, I am also fully aware of all the problems that other people have pointed out in the philosophies, models and theories… so you don’t need to explain them to me. What I want to be clear on, for the purposes of this post, are what *I* mean when I say “EQ”… I mean having the skill to read, interact and appropriately mingle with and manipulate individuals or groups. I think that’s pretty straight forward… I am not claiming that we could call it a form of “intelligence” or that it is measurable or denying that there is an ability to fake this type of “intelligence very easily”… etc. There simply exists deep social skills that allow a person to literally read and gage the emotions of a person and use those to their advantage or use them to approach situations appropriately.
This is the part when you all start to get mad at me – all these “science types” have very little of this EQ. I will admit, up front, that some of them aren’t missing this important social quality but most indeed are. The sort of group we get at CFI, the people I knew in my physics program in first year, the types that talk to me after our science lectures… etc all have this shocking inability to blend into social settings. Not only that, but when I talk to them its as if they’re not registering any of the emotion that is attached with my words. If I’m joking, they don’t get it. If I’m being sarcastic, trying to get a serious point across or getting really angry – they don’t react. And it’s not like I’m an emotionally blank person…You can tell very clearly when I’m happy, sad, joking, angry… etc. well, if you’re able to gage emotions you can, anyway.
Not only does this make conversations that aren’t about science, rationality or critical thinking a total snorefest and completely awkward, but it’s also…why I think… it’s difficult and almost impossible for them to grasp the emotional happenings of the other side of things. Such as cultural relativism, (I’m not saying things like the definition for the word “book” should be accepted as relative, but things such as a definition of spirituality and religion…could very well be…or something) or seeing religion as something valuable to someone else. This is a problem because it’s a whole new area of narrow mindedness. The only things that are valid to them are what they have empirical evidence for – the emotional arguments for things are just not understood…instead, because they have a lack of understanding about science they’re just seen as carbon blobs. And when they attempt to make philosophical arguments it has to be totally logically sound instead of adding in some emotivism.
The lack of understanding of emotions, (or …as I learned from Larry Moran not too long ago – he just doesn’t care about emotions…) and inability to put themselves in the mindsets of other gives them no consideration of the effects that could be happening as a reaction of their actions toward others. Calling their entire value system and view of life as “ridiculous”? That’s just not acceptable, it hurts people. If they’re choosing to live the way they are, the most we can do is offer services, lectures and educational programs for them to be exposed to. If they choose not to use these resources, that’s fine. We don’t need to destroy their religions, we just need it out of the public sphere. There is a time and a place for emotional decision making such as creativity, empathy and comforting…, just as there is a time and a place for empirical/scientific or statistical decision making such as in the lab, school or when you’re attempting to find the scientific truth to life.
I’m sorry – but not everything in life can have science trailing right behind it, and just dismissing the emotions of people doesn’t make them disappear.
Comments
RSS
Digg!
Stumble
Tweet
This coincides with an idea I had recently had about awkwardness. I claimed that it can be a major cause of increased intelligence. For example, if someone feels out of place in society (or lacks EQ), they will search for a method of being accepted by society. And while this person increases his knowledge, he does not increase his ability to fit fluently in society. So we end up with intelligent but insensitive people.
As long as societies’ goals or norms disapprove of a search for knowledge, it will continue its excommunication of those who crave it. (Seeing as I’m a high school student in the south, my environment may be a bit different from yours. I’m hoping college will be different.)
Any advise on increasing EQ for an awkward person?
I acknowledge that the people who are best at science are often not as good at emotional pursuits (this stands to reason, really; if the two traits are independent, then just by chance, the best at one will probably not be the best at the other).
However, it does not follow that the things which scientists disagree with, even those that appear to be based on emotion, are valid because scientists “don’t get it.” Cultural relativism is, actually, blatantly absurd, and in fact, I can say this will full rational and *emotional* authority. Rationally: merely given the premise “The Holocaust was immoral,” I can infer that cultural relativism is completely without merit. Emotionally: The notion that morality is founded purely in judgments of particular cultural values is disgusting and abhorrent to practically anyone you could ask—with the possible exception of the few anthropologists and sociologists who contend that it is correct—but these people may be insincere (if you asked them, “If my culture says it’s okay to torture you to death, is that okay?” they would probably not be able to honestly answer “yes”), and even if they are not, they are a tiny minority of people, and most people, if asked, are appalled by the notions of cultural relativism.
And even if religion is consoling, comforting, “feels right,” or serves any manner of emotional purposes, for anyone or everyone—it’s still NOT TRUE. Truth does not depend upon emotions, it depends upon reason. So frankly, anyone who defends religion on grounds of “emotional intelligence” doesn’t seem to have much of the ordinary brand of rational intelligence.
“Calling their entire value system and view of life as “ridiculous”? That’s just not acceptable, it hurts people. ”
A) Religious people regularly, indeed, almost continuously, say far worse. E.g. “You deserve to suffer eternal torment because of your beliefs.” Secular people have learned to be docile little bitches, so we sit down and take it. But turning around and saying, “You’re wrong. Yeah. Really wrong. About a lot of stuff.” is entirely fair.
B) As a matter of rational fact, their entire value system and world view probably IS ridiculous, if it is actually based upon their religion. Most people’s values and world view are actually quite secular anyway—they don’t actually believe in stoning adulterers or giving away all their possessions to the church—but insofar as someone’s beliefs are religion, as a matter of fact, those beliefs really ARE ridiculous, and obviously so. It is not immoral to state an obvious and important truth—even in a tactless way!
“as a matter of fact, those beliefs really ARE ridiculous, and obviously so. It is not immoral to state an obvious and important truth—even in a tactless way!”
I don’t think Katie is talking about people who want to stone adulterers or preach about the sinfulness of contraceptions – those are in the minority. Who she is referring to are the vast majority of religious people whose views on religion are less literal, or who just have never seriously thought about such things. In those cases, if you want to be effective, you really shouldn’t call their beliefs ridiculous, even if you know they are. It is a simple matter of human psychology – people don’t want to be called stupid.
With regards to cultural relativism:
Rationally: Accepting a premise is not the same as refuting its antithesis.
To clarify a bit…
Anyone who has travelled can observe that cultural traditions vary a great deal throughout the world, and similarly these traditions result in different societies placing different value on things. Hypothetical examples are rarely helpful in this area because they are by their nature artifical and lack both detail and the social context, which is central to any understanding of cultural relativism. Cultural relativism simply demands that one not view ‘one culture’ (ie western culture) as the standard by which all other cultures are measured. It doesn’t, like many people seem to think, define all cultures as ‘equal’ in value.
Also, cultural relativism is not the same as moral relativism. They are distinctly different concepts.
To understand the difference between ‘moral relativism” and moral objectivism (or even absolutism) you have to understand that they are built on different ‘premises’, so there is no logical way for any to disprove the other.
Absolutist: The holocaust was wrong.
Objectivist: The holocaust was wrong.
Relativist: The holocaust was wrong.
All three can say this ‘rationally’, but they will mean different things. The first is a statement that asserts a universal truth, an ideal. The second identifies something that is true independent of the individual who made the statement, that is, something that is independently verified. The last is an assessment made by an individual, which only requires internal consistency within the context it was stated.
That said, I don’t think the OP was addressing any of these issues. Understanding and addressing the psycho-social needs of others is important if one wants to communicate ideas or even fit into society. We are social animals and religion, in many ways, promotes social cohesion, at least within the belief group.
Many sciency types are introverts and individualists and have little interest or need for the social support mechanisms that others need and benefit from.
In a modern context where we are less dependent on our social relationships for actual survival, its easy for those with fewer emotional needs to ignore, or disparage, those needs in others. This is somewhat dangerous however given the fact that these more individualistic types tend to be fewer in number and their lack of understanding of social cues can escalate simple disagreement to conflict.
And as far as ‘truth’ goes, science isn’t about truth, science is about consistent, repeatable, and verifiable observation, people who say they know the ‘truth’ invariably end up looking stupid.
Read: How to Win Friends and Influence People
Seriously, its a social retard’s best friend…
Katie has a point. There’s a reason why 20% of the senators in the United States are Jewish even though they make up only 2% of the population. Meanwhile, atheists and agnostics make up 16% of the population and are represented by one out of 435 congressmen (3 if you consider Buddhism as atheism) – Pete Stark of California. Also consider that Pete Stark wasn’t elected as an atheist, but revealed that he was an atheist to his (generally very liberal) constituents after being in office.
Part of the reason is that atheism has been unfairly tied in with communism as a side effect of the Cold War. But another major factor is the fact that too many of us lack the tact to discuss matters with people of faith and also simply lack the numbers or the organization of the Religious Right to push through their agenda.
I would argue that mocking and insulting peoples’ religion as a means of trying to get them to convert is fruitless at best, and drives people away and makes you look like an intolerant douchenozzle at worst. Discussing matters of faith with those with faith should be lumped into two categories – (1) convincing moderates that you have a legitimate difference in opinion on faith, but hold many of the same base moral values regardless and (2) sounding moderate and reasonable when talking with fundamentalists to make THEM look bad.
I admit this may be hard for some people to swallow, but there are only three ways I see atheism making more inroads in society. The first would be some sort of paradigm shift where religion is discredited on a major scale or mass sympathy for the atheists. The second would be imposition – by force – by a small group of radical atheists on other peoples’ belief systems much like during the Communist Revolution(s). The third would be for a bunch of milquetoast atheists to make inroads with liberal and moderate religious people while soft-pedaling issues that matter specifically to atheists (ie getting rid of “In God We Trust”). I don’t know about you, but I can’t under any circumstances endorse #2 and don’t see #1 happening any time soon.
“Cultural relativism simply demands that one not view ‘one culture’ (ie western culture) as the standard by which all other cultures are measured. It doesn’t, like many people seem to think, define all cultures as ‘equal’ in value.”
Is that an universal statement, or a culturally relative statement? If it is universally true that no particular culture has a monopoly on moral truth, then the statement is perfectly sensible, and I indeed agree with it: We should not presuppose that our own culture (whatever that is!) is absolutely correct in all respects.
If, on the other hand, you are claiming a culturally relative obligation to respect cultural differences, your statement makes no sense! Western culture is, if anything, an imperialist culture! If I follow the cultural context in which I was raised, I ought to be imposing that culture on everyone. This is not hypothetical at all; it’s the actual state of affairs!
“All three can say this ‘rationally’, but they will mean different things. The first is a statement that asserts a universal truth, an ideal. The second identifies something that is true independent of the individual who made the statement, that is, something that is independently verified. The last is an assessment made by an individual, which only requires internal consistency within the context it was stated.”
In other words, the first is overstepping the bounds of what can rationally be stated, the second is actually asserting something which makes sense and is probably correct, and the third is expressing an emotional assessment no more meaningful than “I don’t like broccoli.” Which sounds like a more sensible basis for morality to you?
“And as far as ‘truth’ goes, science isn’t about truth, science is about consistent, repeatable, and verifiable observation, people who say they know the ‘truth’ invariably end up looking stupid.”
That may actually be our problem. To you, “truth” means absolute, undeniable, perfect, eternal, perfect knowledge, which is of course obviously impossible. So, you say that “truth” is impossible. But that’s not what truth is! A really sensible definition of “truth” would mean the best kind of knowledge which we can actually get, namely the strongly verifiable, but still not absolutely certain, sort of knowledge we can get from science. You are arguing that we cannot in some absolute, sacred sense Know anything, and I nod, and say, “yes, but we can certainly still in an ordinary sense know things; don’t confuse the two.”
Getting back to the original topic… (ah, how I hate how relativism so quickly dominates any ethical discussion into which it sticks its grimy little nose! Relativism of any sort renders all discussion incoherent, so you pretty much have to kill it right away before you can even talk about anything; but someone always tries to bring it back.)
“Many sciency types are introverts and individualists and have little interest or need for the social support mechanisms that others need and benefit from.
In a modern context where we are less dependent on our social relationships for actual survival, its easy for those with fewer emotional needs to ignore, or disparage, those needs in others. This is somewhat dangerous however given the fact that these more individualistic types tend to be fewer in number and their lack of understanding of social cues can escalate simple disagreement to conflict.”
A) I don’t think anyone is so introverted as to not need any kind of social support mechanism. The need to belong and feel loved is important to everyone, even scientists.
B) Disparaging religion is not disparaging the need for social relationships. I have never, will never, disparage the need for social relationships. Frankly, I can’t think of very many scientists who have disparaged the need for social relationships; maybe Newton? Newton was renowned for his arrogance and antisociality. But he is definitely the exception; most scientists have deep emotional needs and deep respect for emotional needs. People need to feel loved, feel like they belong; I understand that, and share these feelings, as do the vast majority of scientists. Disparaging religion is disparaging RELIGION; it is disparaging a specific set of factual and ethical claims, all of which are patently indefensible on a wide variety of rational grounds. Religious people say things that ARE NOT TRUE. In every other field, we call that what it is: If accidental, being wrong; if intentional, lying. Yet somehow simply because people wrap themselves up in religion and pretend that their whole identity has been attacked whenever one of their pet absurdities is rationally challenged—we think that it is wrong to extend to religious beliefs the same reasoning we would apply to any other factual or ethical claim.
“Katie has a point. There’s a reason why 20% of the senators in the United States are Jewish even though they make up only 2% of the population. Meanwhile, atheists and agnostics make up 16% of the population and are represented by one out of 435 congressmen (3 if you consider Buddhism as atheism) – Pete Stark of California.”
Yes, there’s a reason… but its not clear what that reason is. You seem to think it’s obviously the atheists’ fault; but then is it the fault of Blacks and gays that they are underrepresented in Congress as well?
“Discussing matters of faith with those with faith should be lumped into two categories – (1) convincing moderates that you have a legitimate difference in opinion on faith, but hold many of the same base moral values regardless and (2) sounding moderate and reasonable when talking with fundamentalists to make THEM look bad.”
We should indeed acknowledge our commonalities with religious moderates, especially on core moral values like justice, liberty, fairness, and harm.
But “a legitimate difference of opinion” drastically overstates the legitimacy of religious beliefs. They are scientifically false, in the same way, and just as much so, as belief in a flat Earth or in the existence of unicorns is scientifically false. If someone said to me, “I believe that leprechauns are dancing on Mars,” I would say, “Well, you’re wrong; there are no leprechauns, and we’re pretty sure nothing lives on Mars.” I think most of you would say that too. Yet when someone says, “I believe that Jesus Christ answers my prayers,” I do the same thing, yet all of you suddenly behave differently.
And honestly, making fundamentalists “sound bad” accomplishes precisely NOTHING. They already “sound bad,” everyone knows they “sound bad”; yet they are getting increasingly powerful in the world today. Sarah Palin could become Vice President or even President of the United States! She thinks the world is 6,000 years old, that all gays and atheists are going to burn in hell, that witchcraft is real, and that the End of Days is probably coming in her lifetime! And she is considered a viable candidate for one of the highest offices of one of the most powerful nations in the world! It’s not enough that she “sounds bad”; we need to stand up and fight against this sort of people! We need to be willing to make people angry and offended, or we could very soon see a world where instead of being angry and offended, innocent people are simply dead, murdered in the name of imaginary gods.
Katie
I’m struggling to understand what exactly is occuring here. I think to call people idiots or dolts is itself a mark of accuser, not necessarily the accused. It gets no way and closes off the conversation. But it seems that you woven that into the criticism of faith, which is not necessarily true. We can criticise many beliefs we do not agree with and as Patrick has put it, we critique beliefs where we find them to be irrational.
Of course no one is dismissing emotions. No one is dismissing the large mass of those who embrace religious faith. Indeed, I am of the opinion that something approaching the upper 90% of the world are all decent, friendly, nice, helpful people. I really believe this. When we remove the religion and the politics, people at base are helpful. This is proven to me time and time again: Yes, they might have some quack theories and beliefs, but more importantly they are normal human beings just trying to do the best they can, with the time allotted to them.
To say that I, for example as you have criticised me constantly in the past, am nasty, mean or dismissive of all these people’s feelings is to render what I do obsolete. It is for the reasons of emotions that I fight for reason. It is to bring about as much happiness to this world that I think religious faith must go. This can be done by criticising those areas where religious faith has no domain: in science, in the classroom, etc. etc. Essentially, I do not believe and I see no good reasons for believing. People can then go ahead and believe anything they want, that consols them, makes them feel good and so on. (We are constantly told about all the statistics relating healthier, longer and happier lives for believers).
But, I am interested in truth. I am interested in living in the real world.
Perhaps we should voice our views of acknowledging our fellow brothers and sisters in the world – ie other human beings – when we criticise beliefs, but I think then you miss the point. Where belief arises to contort, retard or poison, emotion will be left on the sidelines for those ready to do away with its horrid influence. When faith is kept in the private zone, where the majority of the world probably keep it, it is usually fine (though I DO have a problem with moderates, particularly Muslim) – and those are not usually the problem. We all acknowledge that. So I am a bit unsure of your view of this. Then again, I apologise in advance if I have distorted is misunderstood your view. I am just attempting to clarify what you are saying.
Secondly, I am also interested in this from a psychological level. There are many reason we could give that constitue the way a person sees the world, by being introverted and less able to handle himself emotionally. But thats different to caring about emotions and I think here you are very wrong: Just because someone does not know how to handle or deal with others emotions, does not mean they don’t care about them. I think we are, at base, all caring. Perhaps they struggle to express it, perhaps they struggle to interpret it, but that does NOT mean they do not care about it. I think perhaps you would agree?
Recognizing that one’s culture has an impact on one’s biases is, or should be, a no brainer, for anyone who understands why ‘double blind’ studies are important. Instead though, some get all irrational about the ‘evils of relativism’ and invariably shift the discussion to the ‘definition of relativism’, and then demand that your theory of truth is the only valid one, and the only one that anyone can speak of rationally about.
Again cultural relativism and moral relativism are not the same thing.
Rationalism is the idea that truth can be arrived at by thinking logically about it. Part of the rationalist way of thinking involves the idea of self-evident truths, what mathematics would call axioms and what amounts to ‘reasonable assumptions’ in more normal parlance. Descartes used logical reasoning not only to develop his theory of knowledge but also to prove the existence of god. One can of course question his proofs, but saying they weren’t developed rationally is simply false.
Modern science is a fusion of rationalism and empiricism. Equating morality with personal taste is called ‘Emotivism’ and was the position held by Hume, one of the greatest empirical philosophers. Central to Empiricism is idea that truth can be arrived at through observation, in contrast to rationalism. You are oversimplifying and conflating quite a few independent ideas. One can disagree with philosophers and still recognize they weren’t dishonest idiots.
As to where morality comes from, one can see a very simple progression that involves all three kinds of truth. Morality starts as a matter of taste influenced by instinct and idiosyncracy (Emotivism). Then it is either accepted via consensus, nor not, within a community of consensus (Objective). Then in order to enforce this moral position, the community attributes it to a moral authority(Absolutism).
Most people aren’t scientists in every field of study, so for many, even scientific truths can fall into an absolutist framework. The trick with absolutist type thinking is how you pick your authority and the danger is that you will get trapped in dogma, as with your irrational hatred of the word relativism.
And no, ‘truth’ to me, doesn’t mean ‘absolute’ truth. I simply recognize that different definitions exist and all of them can inform us about how human beings construct their personal views of the world.
My theory of truth distinguishes between ontological truth and epistemological truth and its not something I made up, I’m not anywhere near that smart or rational. I just like to read.
Oh and I didn’t say scientists had no need for social support mechanisms. I said introverts have LESS of a need, and that has an impact on how they deal with people.
I never implied that it was the atheists’ fault that we are in this situation to begin with and you do have a point about it not being the fault of gays and blacks that they are underrepresented. I’m also willing to concede that you may be right on a philosophical level but not a PRACTICAL level. It seems I cannot get a straight answer off people like yourself on how aggressively challenging peoples’ religion is productive in the least, especially if that means resorting to some of the same tactics employed by right-wing evangelicals to ’scare’ you to their side with visions of hell and eternal damnation.
Also consider this – how far do you think Barack Obama would have gone if he had emphasized police brutality and slave reparations in his campaign? Such issues that – while important and in a just society should be discussed more in detail – would also fall completely flat with most of the electorate. As for Sarah Palin, way to play the fear card. I’m fully aware of the consequences should she be elected. Which she won’t.
Unfortunately too many of my fellow atheists are completely unadept at politics – which is all about consensus-building to move in a generally positive direction, NOT identify what may be right and refuse to compromise for anything less. This is why the Republican Party is failing right now; because it has abandoned the middle and played to the far-right “base”. Let’s not make the same mistake that they did.
Wow. This guy makes no sense.
And obviously didn’t read the other comments.
Well, a stranger’s online recommendation is good enough for me! Book is on the way to my house now, thanks.
Heh, never heard of a library?
What don’t you understand? Apologies if I’m confused, but It would help if you clarified what I’m missing. I’m obviously not understanding anything being said here.
Too many people…
Search: how to win friends
at:
www. mininova.org
“I would argue that mocking and insulting peoples’ religion as a means of trying to get them to convert is fruitless at best, and drives people away and makes you look like an intolerant douchenozzle at worst. Discussing matters of faith with those with faith should be lumped into two categories – (1) convincing moderates that you have a legitimate difference in opinion on faith, but hold many of the same base moral values regardless and (2) sounding moderate and reasonable when talking with fundamentalists to make THEM look bad.”
I agree. Also, try to be nice at all times and at least try to think of things from the other person’s perspective!
This contradicts a recent blogosphere trend in that the original post is much smarter than the comments. Great presentation and distillation of EQ ideas. I’m skeptical about your normative conclusion, but I think you presented some useful information in a helpful way.