| Pages in topic: < [1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8] > | Off topic: 圣诞随想 (Pondering on the Christmas Day) Thread poster: chance (X)
|
|---|
Yi-Hua Shih 
Taiwan
Local time: 17:32
English to Chinese
+ ...
wenjer 都已經說過不知幾遍了，只要中國開好條件，讓他所代表的台灣人滿意，就可以嫁過門。你們難道不能就讓他繼續懷抱那不管是商人或工人的心意以終老，試試能不能好好把他們娶過門不就得了？諸位好不好就別再隨之起舞談這些政治話題了？管理者越是不願嚴格把守政治話題的關，就越有取巧份子逮著機會就一定要吹他的號，多方試探底限，造成越來越多以政治語言回�... See more wenjer 都已經說過不知幾遍了，只要中國開好條件，讓他所代表的台灣人滿意，就可以嫁過門。你們難道不能就讓他繼續懷抱那不管是商人或工人的心意以終老，試試能不能好好把他們娶過門不就得了？諸位好不好就別再隨之起舞談這些政治話題了？管理者越是不願嚴格把守政治話題的關，就越有取巧份子逮著機會就一定要吹他的號，多方試探底限，造成越來越多以政治語言回擊政治心理的衝突與不快（例如 chance 譏諷 wenjer 、引出這次紛爭的那句話）。就我看來，這都是太顧全表面和諧、規矩執行得太過寬鬆所引出的後果。越是想以和為貴，就越易引起鑽巧門的慾望，對於人性此種常態，盼望你能再思。
我這個台灣人對於一會兒覺得被日本統治也很好、一會兒被中國追求上手高高興興嫁進門去也很好、又要三番五次用模糊的語言強調台獨的這種搖擺態度，實在無法理解，當然也難有認同感。看到今天 wenjer 不停提到雙重標準這四個字，也就了然於心，一笑就好。既然又能說他願意做政治殉葬品，又自豪於眼尖能躲，那麼何必一再讓他在此展現其高超躲功，搞出論壇上一堆瘴氣？我過去曾在此抗議過 wenjer 以其個人意見扭曲台灣社會現況的發言，彼時亦向你建議過宜更嚴格約束同仁們在此談觸敏感話題，不知你可還記得？！
另致文哲兄：台灣內部問題多矣，雖然事實上是幾十年來與中國互為獨立發展的地區，未來如何當然誰也不可能百分之百說了就做準；我個人是認為能先面對、承認、並努力解決自家問題才是重點，說難聽點，台灣這樣子恐怕也該自己覺得沒臉嫁人吧。台灣人沒幾個願意上這兒聊天交朋友，就華人多樣性而言，這裏可說是沒有台灣這一塊存在。拜託你還是盡你所能尊重及遵守論壇規矩，也尊重尊重我這類少之又少、還會在這個論壇盤桓的台灣人，不要再以你個人奇怪的邏輯，把台灣畫成一付怪模怪樣大花臉了！ ▲ Collapse
| | | | Wenjer Leuschel (X)
Taiwan
Local time: 17:32
English to Chinese
+ ...
Xiaoping Fu wrote: Wenjer Leuschel wrote:
傅先生誠懇的道歉，在下敬受。
Wenjer
你接受了我的道歉，却不接受我的忠告，还是在那里继续大发议论。真是诚恳！
謝謝忠告，不必再談這題目，就此打住。
| | | | wherestip
United States
Local time: 04:32
Chinese to English
+ ...
Aren't you guys afraid of scaring away all the new comers?
祝大家新年好, 和气生财
| | | | Angeline PhD
China
Local time: 17:32
English to Chinese
+ ...
始终觉得还是个人能力有限，颇为遗憾。
Jianjun，我也参加了T4K：）
Angeline
Jianjun Zhang wrote: Hong Han wrote:
前些年我们资助的两个小孩子已经中学毕业，因为当时我还是学生，先生也参加工作不久，根本没能力资助他上大学，这件事一直是我们的遗憾。如果有能力资助他们上大学，就可以改变他们的人生。
这件善事已经很了不起，不但你个人骄傲，听到的人也同样会为之骄傲。看来我们这里有爱心的人很多，都在通过自己的方式为弱势群体做出贡献。像周丹的 T4K 工作也是在默默地为全球儿童奉献力量。 [Edited at 2006-12-26 06:45]
| | |
|
|
|
Angeline PhD
China
Local time: 17:32
English to Chinese
+ ...
谢谢Chance大姐的消息:)
我倒是学多了专业知识，不喜欢把时间都用在和人磨牙上，希望真正做点事情才做翻译的。
chance wrote: 确实直接资助孩子上学也是一个很好的办法。以前Stone118也在论坛提到过她们的助学组织。 “授人以鱼，不如授人以渔。”这个说法比我的译法地道多了，谢谢！ 我前段时间收到多次其它网站邮件，可惜都删除了。内容是上海一间译社替一间德国公司找德英语口笔译。根据我10年前在一家类似法国公司工作的经验看，这种大项目在上马阶段，需要很多口笔译人员，我们当时有一百多翻译，还常常不够用。难于一下子找到这么多的德语翻译，所以也会大量使用英语翻译，而且英语水平也不会要求都是尖子。如果勤快好学，不但口笔译水平提高快，很快还可以学到一定的专业技术知识，最好不要到行政管理部门，而要到工艺部门，跑车间，往往直接学到技术，而且搞技术的人一般都比搞管理的人sympa  以后如果再返回作自由译者，仍可以此专长保持稳定客源。我记得当时厂里还号召党员业余多翻译资料......现在是不可能想象的了;) 你们在当地，也许早已知道这样的消息，如果感兴趣，也可以直接联系德国在上海的公司。 Hong Han wrote:
如果人人不闻不问，那我们干脆搬家到月球上去好了。
和建军的基金会算我一份吧:P。前些年我们资助的两个小孩子已经中学毕业，因为当时我还是学生，先生也参加工作不久，根本没能力资助他上大学，这件事一直是我们的遗憾。如果有能力资助他们上大学，就可以改变他们的人生。
看了对尤努斯的访谈节目，想想当时应该资助他们去学一门技术也好。就象chance大姐在前面说的，授人以鱼，不如授人以渔。
[Edited at 2006-12-26 16:09]
| | | | Angeline PhD
China
Local time: 17:32
English to Chinese
+ ...
| 今天上proz速度快很多了 | Jan 1, 2007 |
[Edited at 2007-01-01 14:48]
| | | | wherestip
United States
Local time: 04:32
Chinese to English
+ ...
Let's try to make Chance break her new year's resolution
| | | | Wenjer Leuschel (X)
Taiwan
Local time: 17:32
English to Chinese
+ ...
wherestip wrote: Aren't you guys afraid of scaring away all the new comers? 祝大家新年好, 和气生财
Hi Steven,
Don't worry. The new comers are well equipped, I am pretty sure.
You see, I like to watch documentary films of zoology and social development since I was in junior high school. Human beings are not very different from other animals. Knowing about animal behaviors, you know something about human beings. If one can get along with animals, why not with oneself and other ones?
Once I scared a new comer and regret. I am looking for him to make good with him and offer him certain cooperation. But it isn't so easy. Once the heart got hurt, it isn't easy to mend. However, if one notices that all that another wants is to hurt, he won't get hurt at all.
Just look at a tribe of wolves. The puppies learn how to hunt by pouncing on each other. The elders just let them do it without intervention. By this way, they become hunters. Translators are just like that. They pounce on each other and someday they become real translators by elimination their own errors and avoiding sniper shots.
和氣生財！You are one of my greatest clients and believers. Thank you and I wish you get chubby in the Pig Year of 2007!*
Wenjer
* The expression "getting chubby" is copyrighted to Kevin Yang. I got the expression from his postcard. This note is to avoid infringement.
[Edited at 2007-01-02 09:02]
| | |
|
|
|
Kevin Yang
Local time: 02:32
Member (2003)
English to Chinese
+ ...
stone118 wrote:
wenjer 都已經說過不知幾遍了，只要中國開好條件，讓他所代表的台灣人滿意，就可以嫁過門。你們難道不能就讓他繼續懷抱那不管是商人或工人的心意以終老，試試能不能好好把他們娶過門不就得了？諸位好不好就別再隨之起舞談這些政治話題了？管理者越是不願嚴格把守政治話題的關，就越有取巧份子逮著機會就一定要吹他的號，多方試探底限，造成越來越多以政治語言回擊政治心理的衝突與不快（例如 chance 譏諷 wenjer 、引出這次紛爭的那句話）。就我看來，這都是太顧全表面和諧、規矩執行得太過寬鬆所引出的後果。越是想以和為貴，就越易引起鑽巧門的慾望，對於人性此種常態，盼望你能再思。
我這個台灣人對於一會兒覺得被日本統治也很好、一會兒被中國追求上手高高興興嫁進門去也很好、又要三番五次用模糊的語言強調台獨的這種搖擺態度，實在無法理解，當然也難有認同感。看到今天 wenjer 不停提到雙重標準這四個字，也就了然於心，一笑就好。既然又能說他願意做政治殉葬品，又自豪於眼尖能躲，那麼何必一再讓他在此展現其高超躲功，搞出論壇上一堆瘴氣？我過去曾在此抗議過 wenjer 以其個人意見扭曲台灣社會現況的發言，彼時亦向你建議過宜更嚴格約束同仁們在此談觸敏感話題，不知你可還記得？！
另致文哲兄：台灣內部問題多矣，雖然事實上是幾十年來與中國互為獨立發展的地區，未來如何當然誰也不可能百分之百說了就做準；我個人是認為能先面對、承認、並努力解決自家問題才是重點，說難聽點，台灣這樣子恐怕也該自己覺得沒臉嫁人吧。台灣人沒幾個願意上這兒聊天交朋友，就華人多樣性而言，這裏可說是沒有台灣這一塊存在。拜託你還是盡你所能尊重及遵守論壇規矩，也尊重尊重我這類少之又少、還會在這個論壇盤桓的台灣人，不要再以你個人奇怪的邏輯，把台灣畫成一付怪模怪樣大花臉了！
老石，
新年快乐！
谢谢提醒和指教。我会考虑你的建议。这里人人都是自由思考的，欢迎让大家表达，但是我们每个发言人说话，举例时，要先想一想自己的会给听话的人带来什么感受。学术探讨是好事，但不要伤听众的感情。我们都是顽固不化的年纪了，不可能再去改变别人的思考轨迹，说话也只能作参考而已。
大家把话都说开了。就把此话告一段落吧。祝你和你的“狗友”在新的一年天天都有好心情！
Kevin
| | | | wherestip
United States
Local time: 04:32
Chinese to English
+ ...
Wenjer,
You and Xiaoping both being extremely knowledgable in the fields of philosophy, psychology, historic events, social issues and human interests in general, I would hate to offer any opinion of my own when it comes to such a debate on issues that involves these subjects.
I do believe that there is no absolute right or wrong on a lot of things in this world though. It's probably what makes me agnostic when it comes to religion and independent when it comes to pol... See more Wenjer,
You and Xiaoping both being extremely knowledgable in the fields of philosophy, psychology, historic events, social issues and human interests in general, I would hate to offer any opinion of my own when it comes to such a debate on issues that involves these subjects.
I do believe that there is no absolute right or wrong on a lot of things in this world though. It's probably what makes me agnostic when it comes to religion and independent when it comes to politics. Even then, it hasn't stopped me from making an occasional comment or two on some things I have an opinion on, sometimes purely for fun while other times not Having said that, I do agree that some things are better left unsaid because the topics are just too heavy and complicated for this forum. I'll definitely be more careful myself in avoiding sensitive topics in the future.
Thank you for your well wishes. At the same time, I wish you, Xiaoping, and everyone else here a happy and prosperous new year.
[Edited at 2007-01-01 17:39] ▲ Collapse
| | | | Kevin Yang
Local time: 02:32
Member (2003)
English to Chinese
+ ...
| You are very knowledgeable, too. | Jan 1, 2007 |
Hey, Steve
You are very knowledgeable, too, and always so calm, as if a saint of calmness. Not “young and restless” anymore? Actually, we had many rounds like that in the past, and I was always part of it. Shame on me! When it is over, it seems everyone would learn where the boundary is and still can be friend with each other, at least I think so. Talking about friends, I look at everyone here as a friend of mine. I know the most people are OK with that. I will need to learn fro... See more Hey, Steve
You are very knowledgeable, too, and always so calm, as if a saint of calmness. Not “young and restless” anymore? Actually, we had many rounds like that in the past, and I was always part of it. Shame on me! When it is over, it seems everyone would learn where the boundary is and still can be friend with each other, at least I think so. Talking about friends, I look at everyone here as a friend of mine. I know the most people are OK with that. I will need to learn from you to manage my emotions well, perhaps start to do meditations, and cut down my coffee consumption.
Kevin ▲ Collapse
| | | | |
|
|
|
Kevin Yang
Local time: 02:32
Member (2003)
English to Chinese
+ ...
| 網站的許多規則不一定嚴密，通過大家的討論可以幫助改進。 | Jan 1, 2007 |
老石,
讀了你的回貼，看得出來，可以把你按"哥兒們"處了。人人都有性情，挺有特色的，使我們的聚會更豐富多彩了。你注意到了嗎？在這群來自天涯海角的人群中，各有特色，每個人都是一件獨一無二的藝術品，在論壇的互動中達到相對的平衡和發展。只要大家思想有進步，也算沒有枉費網站的一片好意。網站的許多規則不一定嚴密，通過大家的討論可以幫助改進。
希望常來聊聊。
Kevin
| | | | wherestip
United States
Local time: 04:32
Chinese to English
+ ...
| Emotional Intelligence | Jan 1, 2007 |
TongliUSA wrote:
Hey, Steve
You are very knowledgeable, too, and always so calm, as if a saint of calmness. Not “young and restless” anymore? Actually, we had many rounds like that in the past, and I was always part of it. Shame on me! When it is over, it seems everyone would learn where the boundary is and still can be friend with each other, at least I think so. Talking about friends, I look at everyone here as a friend of mine. I know the most people are OK with that. I will need to learn from you to manage my emotions well, perhaps start to do meditations, and cut down my coffee consumption.
Kevin
Thanks a lot for your compliments, Kevin.
Some twenty odd years working in Corporate America could definitely calm a person down quite a bit.
I say that half jokingly, because although I was always pretty calm and quiet, I also always wore my heart on my sleeves. The fact is, even in a very business-like environment, there are always different issues and situations one has to learn to deal with professionally, some of which could be emotionally-charged and frustrating. I think that's why the use of the term "emotional IQ" became quite common in the U. S. in the last decade or so.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emotional_intelligence
Emotional intelligence
Emotional Intelligence, also called EI and often measured as an Emotional Intelligence Quotient or EQ, describes an ability, capacity, or skill to perceive, assess, and manage the emotions of one's self, of others, and of groups. However, being a relatively new area, the definition of emotional intelligence is still in a state of flux. Some, such as John D. Mayer (2005a) prefer to distinguish emotional knowledge from emotional intelligence, as discussed below.
Origins of the Term
In 1920, E. L. Thorndike, at Columbia University, (Thorndike 1920), used the term "social intelligence" to describe the skill of getting along with other people. In 1975, Howard Gardner's The Shattered Mind, (Gardner 1975) began the formulation of the idea for "Multiple Intelligences" (he identifies eight intelligences, later two more are added), including both interpersonal intelligence and intrapersonal intelligence. Many psychologists, such as Gardner, believe that traditional measures of intelligence, such as the IQ test, fail to fully explain cognitive ability. (Smith 2002)
The term "emotional intelligence" appears to have originated with Wayne Payne (1985), but was popularized by Daniel Goleman (1995), who has published several books and articles about emotional intelligence and its application to business. Research on the concept originated with Peter Salovey and John "Jack" Mayer starting in the late 1980s. In 1990, their seminal paper (1990) defined the concept as an intelligence. Mayer and Salovey continue to research the concept. The term "emotional quotient" seems to have originated in an article by Keith Beasley (1987). There are numerous other assessments of emotional intelligence each advocating different models and measures.
Nancy Gibbs on emotional intelligence
In October of 1995, Nancy Gibbs (1995) wrote an article on emotional intelligence that appeared in Time Magazine, wherein she mentioned Goleman's book, adding to the book's popularity, but misrepresented Mayer and Salovey's view. In the misquotation, "Their [Mayer and Salovey's] notion is about to bound into the national conversation, handily shortened to EQ, thanks to a new book, Emotional Intelligence (Bantam) by Daniel Goleman...", Nancy Gibbs made it look like Goleman's book accurately reflected Mayer and Salovey's concept of emotional intelligence without even mentioning the main differences.
John D. Mayer criticized Gibb's article on his Web site (Mayer 2005c) at the University of New Hampshire. Among other things, he criticized the subtitle on the issue's cover ("It's not your IQ. Its not even a number. But emotional intelligence may be the best predictor of success in life, redefining what it means to be smart."), because the subtitle makes the reader think that emotional intelligence is not measurable and that emotional intelligence correlates with "success in life." Mayer and Salovey's view, to the contrary, states that EI is measurable, even with a psychometric test such as the MSCEIT, and makes no claim about EI's predictability for success in life.
Defining emotional intelligence
The distinction between intelligence and knowledge in the area of cognition (i.e. IQ) is very clear, where generally, psychological research demonstrates that IQ is a reliable measure of cognitive capacity, and is stable over time. In the area of emotion (i.e. EQ) that distinction between intelligence and knowledge is murky. Current definitions of EQ are inconsistent about what it measures: some (such as Bradberry and Greaves 2005) say that EQ is dynamic, it can be learned or increased; whereas others (such as Mayer) say that EQ is stable, and cannot be increased.
Measures of Emotional Intelligence
Some researchers believe EI is a cognitive ability just as is IQ (eg, Mayer & Salovey, 2000), while others believe it is a combination of perceived abilities and traits (e.g., Schutte et al. 1998). These opposing views have inspired two separate domains of inventories – ability-based measures, which focus on maximal performance, and mixed-model measures, which focus on typical performance (Mayer, Salovey, & Caruso, 2000; Petrides & Furnham, 2000).
Self-report measures of EI
Self-report measures of EI include the Emotional Intelligence Appraisal by Bradberry and Greaves, which can be taken via a passcode included in their book (2005c). The Emotional Intelligence Appraisal is an assessment of the four skills from Daniel Goleman's model. The Emotional Intelligence Appraisal is administered as a self or 360-degree assessment.
The Emotional Intelligence Appraisal measures:
Personal competence, including:
Self-Awareness: Recognizing and understanding your emotions in the moment, as well as your tendencies across time and situation.
Self-Management: Using awareness of emotions to manage response to different situations and people.
Social competence, including:
Social Awareness: Understanding the perspectives of other people including their motivations, their emotions, and the meaning of what they do and say.
Relationship Management: Using awareness of one's own emotions and the emotions of others to manage relationships to a successful outcome.
Other assessments include Reven BarOn's EQi, the EQ Map, the Six seconds Emotional Intelligence Assessment (SEI), the Emotional Competence Inventory, the Ei360, and a test by Tett, Fox, and Wang (2005).
Ability-based measures of EI
The MSCEIT measure is a measure of EI involving a series of emotion-based problem solving items with relatively low face-validity, of which the answers have been deemed correct by consensus (MacCann, Roberts, Matthews, & Zeidner, 2004; Roberts, Zeidner, & Matthews, 2001). The MSCEIT (Mayer - Salovey - Caruso Emotional Intelligence Test) purports to measure emotional intelligence across the following domains:
Experiential Area
Perceiving Emotions Branch
Facilitating Thinking Branch
Strategic Area
Understanding Emotional Meaning Branch
Managing Emotions Branch
For more on this topic see psychological testing and evaluation. A discussion on the strengths of ability-based measures versus self-report measures was written by (Ciarroch and Mayer 2005).
Emotional intelligence to resolve conflicts
An important subfield of EI explores how emotional intelligence can be applied to benefit people dealing with a conflict or negotiation. Researchers conducting work on emotional intelligence and conflict include Roger Fisher and Daniel Shapiro of Harvard's Negotiation Project, Foo, Elfenbein, Tan, and Aik (2004), who examine the effects of emotional intelligence on creating and claiming value in a negotiation; Allred, who examines the role of compassion and anger in negotiation; and Fulmer and Barry (2004), who study ways that intelligence -- both cognitive and emotional -- affect the negotiation process.
Criticisms
A significant criticism is that emotional intelligence has no "benchmark" to set itself against. While IQ tests are designed to correlate as closely as possible with school grades, emotional intelligence seems to have no similar objective quantity it can be based on.
The criticism of the works of Mayer and Salovey include a study by Roberts et.al. (2001). That research warns that EQ may actually be measuring conformity. However, Mayer et.al. (2001), provide further theoretical basis for their theories. Nevertheless, many psychological researchers do not accept emotional intelligence to be a part of "standard" intelligence (like IQ).
Goleman's work is also criticized in the psychological community. Eysenck (2000), for example comments that Goleman "exemplifies more clearly than most the fundamental absurdity of the tendency to class almost any type of behaviour as an 'intelligence'. . . .If these five 'abilities' define 'emotional intelligence', we would expect some evidence that they are highly correlated; Goleman admits that they might be quite uncorrelated, and in any case if we cannot measure them, how do we know they are related? So the whole theory is built on quicksand; there is no sound scientific basis."
Evidence is Lacking for the Extreme Claims for the Predictive Power of Emotional Intelligence
It has been argued that Goleman has made unproven claims for the power of emotional intelligence to predict life and work skill:
“Pool reported that Goleman told members of the Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development that “a person’s IQ predicts only a small part of career performance—ranging from 4 to 20 percent. But recent studies have shown that emotional intelligence predicts about 80 percent of a person’s success in life” (1997, p. 12). Similarly, in 1998 Goleman claimed that “IQ alone at best leaves 75 percent of job success unexplained, and at worst 96 percent” (1998, p. 19), and he claimed that “more than 80 percent of general competencies that set apart superior from average performers depend on emotional intelligence” (1998, p. 320).
Goleman derived his first claim, that IQ explains less than 75% of job success, from a 1995 review article by Sternberg, Wagner, Williams and Horvath, in which the authors concluded that “between 75% and 96% of the variance in real-world criteria such as job performance cannot be accounted for by individual differences in intelligence test scores” (p. 923). Goleman changed the phrasing of the authors’ conclusion slightly, turning their phrase “real-world criteria such as job performance” into the phrases “career performance” (Pool, 1997, p. 12), and “job success” (1998, p. 320). This is a small change but it alters the meaning significantly, making job/career success the sole outcome not predicted by IQ, thus significantly narrowing Sternberg et al.’s (1995) claim. Equally problematic, the original 75%-96% success prediction percentages were not correlations obtained from a specific empirical study: the 75%-96% range was a review judgment of the 1995 authors.
Goleman derived his second claim, that emotional intelligence explains more than 80% of success in life (Pool, 1997, p. 12) or, alternatively, more than 80% of job competencies that distinguish superior employees (1998, p. 320), from an unpublished privately commissioned study (Goleman, 1998, p. 31). This study determined that twenty-one key job competencies existed, and Goleman decided that only three (analytical thinking, conceptual thinking, and technical expertise) were not emotional intelligence competencies. Goleman concluded that because he judged 18 of 21 job competencies to be EI competencies, and, because 18 equals 85.7% of 21, thus emotional intelligence explained 85.7%, or more than 80% of life success (Pool, 1997, p. 12) or more than 80% of job skill competencies of superior workers (Goleman, 1998, p. 320). These conclusions were mistaken.
First, in order to claim that more than 80% of life success depends on emotional intelligence, the 80% figure must from derive from a significant and very high positive correlation (r = or > .90) between data from reliable, valid measures of life success, and data from reliable measures of emotional intelligence in the same population. Goleman’s 80% figure is not derived from such a correlation. It is simply a restatement in percentage form of his judgment that 18 of 21 job competencies are EI competencies. Second, in order to make the claim that more than 80% of superior job skill competencies are emotional intelligence competencies, there must be evidence that each identified competency is a true job competency, and evidence that the total range of possible job competencies is included in the twenty-one competencies. Moreover, there must be a reliable, replicable, non-subjective method for then determining which job competencies are emotional intelligence competencies. However, Goleman reported no empirical evidence from the privately commissioned study for the validity of the twenty-one job competencies, or evidence that twenty-one job competencies determine all of job success. His selection of EI job competencies from among the twenty-one overall job competencies cannot be replicated.” (Waterhouse, 2006a, pp. 217-218.)
Self-report EI merely another measure of Personality?
Some researchers have raised concerns with the extent to which self-report EI measures correlate with established personality dimensions such as those within the Big Five (Gignac, 2005; Malouff, Thorsteinsson, & Schutte, 2005). Generally, self-report EI measures and personality measures have been said to converge because they both purport to measure traits, and because they are both measured in the self-report form (Zeidner, Matthews, & Roberts, 2002). Specifically, there appear to be two dimensions of the Big Five that stand out as most related to self-report EI – neuroticism and extraversion. In particular, neuroticism has been said to relate to negative emotionality and anxiety (Costa & McCrae, 1992). Intuitively, individuals scoring high on neuroticism are likely to score low on self-report EI measures (Zeidner, Matthews, & Roberts, 2002). While many studies have looked at the relationship between neuroticism and self-report EI measures, few have examined that relationship with the TMMS (Trait Meta Mood Scale) and SEI (Schutte EI Scale) specifically (Gignac, Palmer, Manocha, & Stough, in press). A study by Davies, Stankov, and Roberts (1998) reported a strong negative correlation between total TMMS scores and neuroticism scores (r = -.40). Another study by Warrick and Nettlebeck (2004) reported a moderate negative correlation between neuroticism and the TMMS total score (-.27), although there was a notable limitation in their sample size (n = 84). As for the SEI, an initial study by Schutte et al. (1998) reported a moderate negative correlation between neuroticism and total SEI scores (r = -.28), although the sample size was also notably small (n = 23). In a larger study (n = 354) by Saklofske (2003), the SEI optimism subscale was reported to have a strong negative relationship with neuroticism (r = -.52). Collectively, there does appear to be evidence of an overlap between neuroticism and self-report EI measures such as the TMMS and SEI. However, it is unclear in the literature exactly what level of correlation between personality and self-report EI is so high as to suggest that it self-report EI is redundant.
The interpretations of moderate-to-high correlations between self-report EI and personality have been varied and inconsistent. Some researchers have asserted that correlations in the .40 range constitute outright construct redundancy (eg, Davies, Stankov & Roberts, 1998), while others have suggested that self-report EI is a personality trait in itself (eg, Petrides & Furnham, 2001). Gignac (2005) asserted that it would be difficult for any self-report individual difference measure to demonstrate exceptional incremental validity above and beyond the Big Five, and recommended that factor analytic methodology be used to test for construct redundancy (as opposed to zero-order correlations). Before conclusive and convincing arguments can be asserted as to whether self-report EI is redundant or related to personality, it would be useful to statistically extricate the effects of neuroticism from the relationship between the TMMS and SEI, and determine whether the EI subscales still form a general factor (EI g) after the extrication. While the overlap between EI and personality is a large concern, there are other factors that bring the psychometric properties of self-report EI inventories into question.
There is no evidence that Emotional Intelligence has a unique neural basis
Despite various claims to the contrary, there is no valid evidence for a specific brain basis for emotional intelligence:
“Behavioral studies have reported significant correlations between EI and IQ, and between EI and personality dimensions (Schulte et al., 2004: Van Rooy and Viswesvaran, 2004). Consequently, neural bases for general intelligence and neural bases for personality are likely to be associated with neural bases for emotional intelligence. However, at present there is no research that has identified the neural bases for emotional intelligence. Thus there is no knowledge of the independence or interaction of putative brain circuits for EI with structural and neurochemical brain circuits for general intelligence (Oberauer, Schulze, Wilhelm, & Suss, 2005) or with structural and neurochemical brain circuits for personality (Paris, 2005), or with structural and neurochemical brain circuits for emotions (Phelps, 2006).
Cognitive neuroscience research suggests that human emotions and social skills depend on a multitude of neural circuits serving many behaviors, including attachment, empathy, face and emotion recognition, emotional sensation, emotional expression, the mirror neuron system, language skills, personality components, working memory, long term memory, reasoning, decision making and others (Cacioppo & Berntson, 2004; Insel & Fernald, 2004; Paris, 2005; Phelps, 2006). These neural circuits interact and overlap, and many circuits (for working memory, long term memory, mirror neurons, decision making) contribute to general functional intelligence (Gallese, Keysers, & Rizzolatti, 2004; Kahneman, 2003; Oberauer et al., 2005; Phelps, 2006)..” (Waterhouse, 2006b, pp. 252-253).
Self-report EI - Susceptibility to Faking Good
Self-report EI measures, much like personality measures, are comprised of highly face-valid items. This may make understanding what test items are ‘really asking’ routinely easy, and could expose the inventories to a phenomenon known as “faking good.” More formally termed socially desirable responding (SDR), “faking good” is defined as a response pattern where test-takers systematically represent themselves with an excessive positive bias (Paulhus, 2002). This bias has long been known to contaminate responses on personality inventories (Holtgraves, 2004; McFarland & Ryan, 2000; Peebles & Moore, 1998; Nichols & Greene, 1997; Zerbe & Paulhus, 1987), and act as a mediator of the relationships between self-report measures (Nichols & Greene, 1997; Ganster et al., 1983).
It has been suggested that responding in a desirable way is a response set, which is a situational and temporary response pattern (Pauls & Crost, 2004; Paulhus, 1991). This is contrasted with a response style, which is a more long-term trait-like quality. Considering the contexts certain self-report EI inventories are used in (eg, employment settings), the problems of response sets in high-stakes scenarios become clear (Paulhus & Reid, 2001). Highlighting the extent to which response biases are considered a confound to accurate personality measurement, some researchers even believe it is necessary to warn test-takers not to fake good before taking a personality test (e.g., McFarland, 2003). In summary, given the inherent similarities between personality testing and self-report EI testing (both are self-report, both measure traits, and both are said to converge moderately-to-highly), it may be reasonable to assert that socially desirable responding has the capacity to contaminate responses on self-report EI measures. Specifically, should self-report EI measures be largely contaminated by SDR, their construct validity may be compromised (Cronbach & Meehl, 1996). Some of the issues of self - report fakability can be overcome in the MSCEIT by using Consensus based assessment (CBA).
Corporate Uses and Misuses of EI Testing
In the mid-1990's and onward there have been rumors and other anecdotal reports regarding companies embracing the implications of emotional intelligence as a management tool.
At its best, exercises to improve EI among managers have been used in the hopes of improving the ability of managers to improve communications between each other and their subordinates (For example, the popular 360 Degree Evaluation, as used by Honeywell Aerospace).
At its worst, EI examinations can been utilized as a means of legal but unethical discrimination against both job applicants and current workers who happen to have either introverted personalities or exhibit moderately flat affect. As many people suffering from depression or abuse as children tend to fall into these categories, EI pre-employment or performance review screenings tend to serve as yet another obstacle against people who are only trying to use their intellect or skill to compensate for disabling conditions that are present through no fault of their own (See Bait and Switched by Barbara Ehrenreich).
[Edited at 2007-01-01 21:07]
| | | | Xiaoping Fu
Canada
Local time: 02:32
Chinese to English
+ ...
Steve，
谢谢你中肯的意见和良好祝愿。我也祝你和各位朋友在2007年万事如意！愿我们的中文论坛更活跃、更和谐。
Xiaoping
wherestip wrote: Thank you for your well wishes. At the same time, I wish you, Xiaoping, and everyone else here a happy and prosperous new year.
| | | | | Pages in topic: < [1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8] > | To report site rules violations or get help, contact a site moderator: You can also contact site staff by submitting a support request » 圣诞随想 (Pondering on the Christmas Day) | Wordfast Pro | Translation Memory Software for Any Platform
Exclusive discount for ProZ.com users!
Save over 13% when purchasing Wordfast Pro through ProZ.com. Wordfast is the world's #1 provider of platform-independent Translation Memory software. Consistently ranked the most user-friendly and highest value
Buy now! » |
| | Trados Studio 2022 Freelance | The leading translation software used by over 270,000 translators.
Designed with your feedback in mind, Trados Studio 2022 delivers an unrivalled, powerful desktop
and cloud solution, empowering you to work in the most efficient and cost-effective way.
More info » |
|
| | | | X Sign in to your ProZ.com account... | | | | | |
Login to reply/comment 
