...life can be translucent

Menu

Traits of emotionally intelligent people and the things they don't do

Tohpol

Supporter
Clarity Supporter
Joined
Jan 25, 2007
Messages
3,566
Reaction score
135
Quite a nice little post:

Brianna Wiest
Huffington Post


Emotional intelligence is probably the most powerful yet undervalued trait in our society.

We believe in rooting our everyday functions in logic and reason, yet we come to the same conclusions after long periods of contemplation as we do in the blink of an eye. Our leaders sorely overlook the human element of our socio-political issues and I need not cite the divorce rate for you to believe that we're not choosing the right partners (nor do we have the capacity to sustain intimate relationships for long periods of time).

It seems people believe the most intelligent thing to do is not have emotions at all. To be effective is to be a machine, a product of the age. A well-oiled, consumerist-serving, digitally attuned, highly unaware but overtly operational robot. And so we suffer.

Here are the habits of the people who have the capacity to be aware of what they feel. Who know how to express, process, dismantle and adjust their experience as they are their own loci of control. They are the true leaders, they are living the most whole and genuine lives, and it is from them we should be taking a cue. These are the things that emotionally intelligent people do not do.

1. They don't assume that the way they think and feel about a situation is the way it is in reality, nor how it will turn out in the end.

They recognize their emotions as responses, not accurate gauges, of what's going on. They accept that those responses may have to do with their own issues, rather than the objective situation at hand.

2. Their emotional base points are not external.


Their emotions aren't "somebody else's doing," and therefore "somebody else's problem to resolve." Understanding that they are the ultimate cause of what they experience keeps them out of falling into the trap of indignant passivity: Where one believes that as the universe has done wrong, the universe will ultimately have to correct it.

3. They don't assume to know what it is that will make them truly happy.


Being that our only frame of reference at any given time is what's happened in the past, we actually have no means to determine what would make us truly happy, as opposed to just feeling "saved" from whatever we disliked about our past experiences. In understanding this, they open themselves up to any experience that their life evolves toward, knowing there are equal parts good and bad in anything.

4. They don't think that being fearful is a sign they are on the wrong path.


The presence of indifference is a sign you're on the wrong path. Fear means you're trying to move toward something you love, but your old beliefs, or unhealed experiences, are getting in the way. (Or, rather, are being called up to be healed.)

5. They know that happiness is a choice, but they don't feel the need to make it all the time.


They are not stuck in the illusion that "happiness" is a sustained state of joy. They allow themselves time to process everything they are experiencing. They allow themselves to exist in their natural state. In that non-resistance, they find contentment.

6. They don't allow their thoughts to be chosen for them.


They recognize that through social conditioning and the eternal human monkey-mind, they can often be swayed by thoughts, beliefs and mindsets that were never theirs in the first place. To combat this, they take inventory of their beliefs, reflect on their origins, and decide whether or not that frame of reference truly serves them.

7. They recognize that infallible composure is not emotional intelligence.


They don't withhold their feelings, or try to temper them so much as to render them almost gone. They do, however, have the capacity to withhold their emotional response until they are in an environment wherein it would be appropriate to express how they are feeling. They don't suppress it, they manage it effectively.

8. They know that a feeling will not kill them.


They've developed enough stamina and awareness to know that all things, even the worst, are transitory.

9. They don't just become close friends with anyone.


They recognize true trust and intimacy as something you build, and something you want to be discerning with whom you share. But they're not guarded or closed as they are simply mindful and aware of who they allow into their lives and hearts. They are kind to all, but truly open to few.

10. They don't confuse a bad feeling for a bad life.


They are aware of, and avoid, extrapolation, which is essentially projecting the present moment into the foreseeable future -- believing that the moment at hand constitutes what your entire life amounted to, rather than just being another passing, transitory experience in the whole. Emotionally intelligent people allow themselves their "bad" days. They let themselves be fully human. It's in this non-resistance that they find the most peace of all.
 

Trojina

Supporter
Clarity Supporter
Joined
May 29, 2006
Messages
26,981
Reaction score
4,484
I thought this article was pretty appalling, at least the intro was. The idea that there are these traits we must 'take a cue from' to be like these people who are apparently 'true leaders' ...well I find it comical, infantilising even even. I don't think any adult needs to aspire to be like someone else.

Lets break it down.


We believe in rooting our everyday functions in logic and reason, yet we come to the same conclusions after long periods of contemplation as we do in the blink of an eye. Our leaders sorely overlook the human element of our socio-political issues and I need not cite the divorce rate for you to believe that we're not choosing the right partners (nor do we have the capacity to sustain intimate relationships for long periods of time).

Such a generalised statement based on so many simplistic conceptions. The idea we are not 'choosing the right partners' pre supposes there is just the one out there who is 'right'. The divorce rate has not a lot to do with lack of 'right' partners but has multiple causes. One of these being divorcing is now relatively easy and not a social stigma. Another reason being people change very much in different periods of their lives, so that moving on from one partner is not a problem it's part of each one's evolving. I read somewhere people are evolving so fast one life partner cannot provide all the learning they need in one life time so they need a number of partners. Also of course we are living longer. When the average lifespan was much shorter so were marriages but these days a person will go through huge changes between 20 and 70. Not surprising then that the one who shared life goals at 20 does not at 50 and so on.



It seems people believe the most intelligent thing to do is not have emotions at all. To be effective is to be a machine, a product of the age. A well-oiled, consumerist-serving, digitally attuned, highly unaware but overtly operational robot. And so we suffer.

Well what this writer does is simply make another robot, the robot of what an emotionally intelligent person looks like. Also what people 'believe the most intelligent thing to do is to have no emotions at all' ? I can't say I've ever met anyone who believes that.

Here are the habits of the people who have the capacity to be aware of what they feel. Who know how to express, process, dismantle and adjust their experience as they are their own loci of control. They are the true leaders, they are living the most whole and genuine lives, and it is from them we should be taking a cue. These are the things that emotionally intelligent people do not do.

Perhaps this was meant as a fairly lightweight flippant kind of piece. I'd hope so because this paragraph is both terribly naïve and patronising beyond belief. So there are these people who are the 'true leaders' eh ? ...and they know how to do it all right and so 'we' should try to copy these people because they are leading 'genuine lives' :confused: Er who judges what is a 'genuine life' ? I never met a single soul who wasn't leading a genuine life because what other life could they be living but their own. Frankly I find the above paragraph silly and child like. If it were written by a 15 year old it might be understandable but this is crude and unthought out. It is promotes an idea of segregation where there are emotionally intelligent people who are 'leaders' and the rest of the population who must gaze up at them hoping to be like them.

The check list with points 1-10 is simplistic again, but okay as far as it goes for a light piece of entertainment I suppose. If she did not use 'they' as if they were an elite group somewhere all of course having had pretty good parenting, it wouldn't be so bad but there is no 'they'. The people she speaks of do not exist, they are just a 'man of bronze' in her mind (4.3). To suggest everyone else 'take a cue' from 'them' is absurd. To say these 'true leaders' have lives that are more 'genuine' is also absurd. Who can rate a life on a scale of 1 >10 on how genuine it is ?

Someone who aims to rate emotional intelligence ironically lacks emotional intelligence IMO.
 

Tohpol

Supporter
Clarity Supporter
Joined
Jan 25, 2007
Messages
3,566
Reaction score
135
So, you didn't like the article then? :D
 

Trojina

Supporter
Clarity Supporter
Joined
May 29, 2006
Messages
26,981
Reaction score
4,484
I thought it was dreadful when you first posted it but didn't want to offend you but as time has passed I can see it really is a truly dreadful piece of writing.

Well I'm off to go and sit at the feet of a 'true leader' if I can find one whom I can 'take a cue from' about how to behave . May I sit at your harey lotus feet Topal :flirt:

The joke is Christ gave all these ideas in a far better format without the condescension but he's out of style right now leaving plenty of space for articles like this.

Seriously there is much to be said about emotional intelligence but not in the way of proposing there are these perfect people walking about whom we must emulate. The intro I think was an insult to the intelligence of any thinking person, well any thinking person who has studied Psychology anyway.


Heh well she said it with point 6


6. They don't allow their thoughts to be chosen for them.

They recognize that through social conditioning and the eternal human monkey-mind, they can often be swayed by thoughts, beliefs and mindsets that were never theirs in the first place. To combat this, they take inventory of their beliefs, reflect on their origins, and decide whether or not that frame of reference truly serves them.


Yup and one way of not allowing your thoughts to be chosen for you is not believing a badly written article in the Huffington Post suggesting there are 'true leaders (unnamed) whom we must 'take a cue from'.
 

Tohpol

Supporter
Clarity Supporter
Joined
Jan 25, 2007
Messages
3,566
Reaction score
135
I thought it was dreadful when you first posted it but didn't want to offend you but as time has passed I can see it really is a truly dreadful piece of writing.

That's sweet of you but I seldom get offended by opinions. I am not invested in the idea of everyone loving the articles I post I can assure you. My life is hopefully a bit more fulfilling than that ..:D

You may not like how she presents these ideas and I partially agree with many of your points though I don't really share your outrage and horror... I think the ten points are useful, which is after all the crux of the article, not the intro. She can't write an article and include all the nuances she would of wished, otherwise we'd have a book on our hands. As you say, Huffington Post is hardly the London Literary Review. It's a tabloid. So, yes, it wasn't meant to be anything more than "light entertainment,"so of course it's simplistic. That doesn't mean it doesn't have merit. Assuming of course you don't have it all figured out when comes to emotional responses? I certainly don't. Theory is one thing, practice is another.

I also don't get from it that there are "leaders" in the sense of superiority and elitism. That would indeed be silly. I like to assume that folks can see beyond the author's literary tool of "leaders" and take whatever useful nuggets there are in those ten points. But it obviously touched a particular nerve for you, which is fair enough. Each to his own.

Taking into account your gripes, there are nonetheless, people out there whom I know and in life in general who have more to offer than I do when it comes to experience and emotional intelligence. That's just life. It doesn't make those without such skills less than genuine lives, of course not, but it may indeed make them more chaotic. That's not saying that they are somehow better or exclusive. I don't think she was suggesting that there are "perfect people to emulate" at all, But there are traits or qualities which we can make our own because they seem to work. There are others out there who are more capable in some avenues of life - one of these may be emotional intelligence along with other qualities. How on earth are we expected to learn if we don't share and compare notes? I really don't see how she is frog-marching us into worshiping at the altar of the chosen ones, but there we are...

Well I'm off to go and sit at the feet of a 'true leader' if I can find one whom I can 'take a cue from' about how to behave . May I sit at your harey lotus feet Topal :flirt:

Only if you're up for a bit of toe-pulling.
 
Last edited:

Clarity,
Office 17622,
PO Box 6945,
London.
W1A 6US
United Kingdom

Phone/ Voicemail:
+44 (0)20 3287 3053 (UK)
+1 (561) 459-4758 (US).

Top