posted 08-25-2000 11:26               

In my perception it is the other way around: Thoughts are second degree feelings.
In my definition, feelings/emotions have two faces; they are both: 'not yet cristalized thoughts and not yet realized intentions'. In other words: clear thinking is an attempt to objectivy feelings into cristal clear conclusions and focussed actions.

On the other hand: The necessity of a book like Coleman's is obvious. Coleman understands that feelings and emotions have to be re-integrated in organizational live. It is a brave attempt to find a language of how human beings function. The endless row of books on these matters shows that this language hasn't been found yet. Without the paradigmshift this language will never be found. As long as there is no paradigm shift which put thinking on the second row and human feelings again at the center and thus as a startingpoint for communication, learning, decisionmaking etc., all outcome of research in these fields will be a repetition of what we already knew.

Another objection I have towards the concept of Emotional Intelligence as described in Coleman's book and related articles is its emphasis on behaviour. Emphasis on behavior as the basic notion caused us to loose sight of the inner nature of human beings - so that is where we are now, that is another price we have paid.
I claim that we will never gain valid insight into human beings by solely observing their behavior. To truly assess human qualities we need to relate our observations to an adequate set of notions as a frame of reference. Only through the use of an (acknowledged) frame of reference insight can be born out of (self)observation.

In recent studies on competence and -alas- also in Coleman's book, the issue of reference is lacking. Without reference the debate on human qualities will be caught in the realm of intellectualism, under the reign of utility, validity, rationality, contingency - where I proclaim coherence, inner relevancy, meaningfulness, and values of perspective. The ways of assessment as recommended and sometimes practiced in organizations are dangerously close to an arbitrary moralist game of projection, interpretation and reasoning. By their total lack of understanding for the impact of processes of thought and inner motives, asymmetric relations, contradictory instructions, generalized conclusions, as well as their overemphasis on moral aspects as flexibility, assertiveness and innovative orientation, they create resistance in those concerned and reduce assessment in organizations to an empty ritual.

The use of a frame is necessary. It will give the freedom to really understand - paradox though it may seem.
The development of a frame of reference should fit the following conditions:
1. The frame should give insight into the determining factors of human behavior. Environmental influences will cause people to change but the nature of that change depends on their individual characteristics: people will experience the same event in different ways, reacting with different behavior and with conclusions of their own.
2. The frame should be easy to transmit its use not being restricted to experts but generalized in the interest of a growing self-knowledge in organizations.
3. The frame should provide a clear distinction between lasting, stable factors in personality as opposed to more dynamic ones that are subject to change. If the question of training arises - that is if we are sure that working conditions are based on equality and justice and yet disfunctioning occurs- we should be able to determine whether such training will be appropriate or not.

If you would like a paper describing the outlines of such a frame of reference please drop me an email.

Winfried Deijmann
"An educated mind is useless without a focussed will and dangerous without a loving heart".

posted 08-26-2000 12:08               

quote:

---

Originally posted by Winfried:
To them emotions were anoying aspects of the human soul that disturbed the path to so called objective science. And what has it brought us? As a result of their efforts we can fly to the moon but we have difficulties to cross the street and meet our neighbours.

Thanks for saying this. I just reread some of Denham Grey's material last night on decision making and how that of necessity must include both the technical processes and the social processes in order to be successful. I think this is an important step forward.

Not having read the EQ book, I'm a bit at a loss to comment on it. I do worry that it may allow people to think about emotions on an intellectual level and not move to the deeper level that Winfried mentions. OTOH, if it gets people moving in a useful direction, they may continue.

I claim that we will never gain valid insight into human beings by solely observing their behavior. To truly assess human qualities we need to relate our observations to an adequate set of notions as a frame of reference. Only through the use of an (acknowledged) frame of reference insight can be born out of (self)observation.

This sounds like it could have components of perceptual control theory. That is, we hold internally an ideal towards which we strive, we sense the world in a particular (not necessarily objective or accurate) way, and we undertake actions to bring our perceptions in line with our goal.
That goal is the reference Winfried mentions.

I suspect Winfried means more than that, and I don't want to automate emotions.

---

------------------

Bill Harris                    3217 102nd Place SE
Facilitated Systems            Everett, WA 98208 USA http://facilitatedsystems.com/  phone: +1 425 337-5541

[This message has been edited by billharris (edited 08-26-2000).]

posted 09-26-2000 10:11               

‘Emotional Intelligence’ is a term coined by Peter Salovey (1) and made popular by Daniel Goleman’s book (2) wherein he condenses the essentials of several hundred people’s research on emotions and intelligence between 1975 and 1994. The following comments are largely based on an excellent review of Goleman’s book by Patrick Merlevede (3).

Goleman’s ‘Emotional Intelligence’ implies “what makes people successful” for which we need to be aware of our own emotions in order to manage them and to motivate ourselves. We also need to be aware of and take into account other people’s emotions in order to interact with them.

So the buzzword ‘Emotional Intelligence’ is probably a fad. But people in business who have to deal with others: colleagues, subordinates, customers or even suppliers can always practise emotional awareness, emotional management, self-motivation, recognition of others’ emotions and the art of human relations. Here are some tools for common situations :

 To deal with one’s own negative emotions: Capturing the essence of a state of well-being and using it to overwhelm and or at least modify a less-than-positive state. E.g. To transform a feeling of anger, hurt and loss of self-esteem when a boy/girl-friend ditches you, use the experience of being at a circus watching clowns, lions etc with the loudest circus music and place the villain in that scene and see how ridiculous they look while you are deeply immersed in the circus event. You will find that the original anger, hurt etc will be impossible to bring back!
 To motivate oneself depends on each individual. But the following three things will work for most people. 1. Decide on a list of your two or three most important criteria for doing the task. (e.g. Fun, Public recognition, Keeping out of gaol, Intellectual satisfaction, Sense of overcoming odds, Power, Working with People, Money, ….) 2. Choose to think either about the reward[eg. Fun] or about dire consequences [eg.Gaol]; 3. Decide ahead of time to act either randomly as fancy takes you or to use a methodical sequenced approach. Provided you have chosen criteria relating to the context of the task and appropriate, for you, then these things will work..

Leslie Cameron-Bandler and Michael Lebeau wrote a complete book called The Emotional Hostage (4) in which, among many other things, they describe how to work with the eight basic components of an emotional state: Time Frame, Tempo, Modality, Involvement, Comparison, Chunk Size, Intensity, Criteria. For example, ‘regret’ only works with a Past Time Frame whereas ‘joy’ is utterly in the Present and ‘excitement’ is orientated towards the Future. So by shifting focus towards/away from Future/Past/Present, the emotion will change. We can also shift the state’s Modality with profound effects: try, in your own mind by repeating each statement mentally two or three times, “I have to do this report” as opposed to “I can do this report.” And what about when you’re giving orders to other people ?