MSCEIT test review

MHS has evidently complained to my hosting service because I put a copy of some of the questions from the test on my site, so my hosting service service temporarily suspended my site. I am going to have to change my criticism page so I can't be accused of copyright violations. In the mean time I have taken out the copies of the questions and will only leave my criticisms for now.

Steve
March 15, 2006

Below are some questions from the MSCEIT test, with my comments, criticisms, and maybe a few suggestions. I recently saw the whole test for the first time. You can read about my initial journal writing about it if you want to. Here I will be a bit more focused on the problems I see with the test. But here is a little more history and explanation for this review and critique.

When I first started talking to Jack Mayer and Peter Salovey I had pretty positive feelings. When I first met David Caruso I had pretty good feelings. But over time I have felt disillusioned with their work - in particular with the work of David because we are the most alike in some ways but have the most different beliefs about certain things. He also has tried the hardest to control or at least influence what I do and what I put on my site and I feel a little resentful about that. There is no doubt that these personal feelings surely influence my "professional" comments. Yet, I suppose I am also guilty of trying to control or influence him.

Anyhow, I feel a little bad for posting so much of the test (see also the note about copyrights) and I feel a little bad about criticizing it so much. I know that David and the others have worked hard on the test and they feel proud of it. But I really don't like a lot of things about the test. Even before taking a close look at it I had my doubts about it. But after seeing it all first hand recently I feel obligated to state my thoughts and feelings.

Before I saw this test I didn't feel comfortable calling it a test of emotional intelligence. Now I feel more sure that it is not fair to call this test a test of emotional intelligence, not at least as I define it as a set of innate abilities. On page two I talk a little what else we might call it, but as far as I am concerned this is not a test of a person's innate level of EI.

Still, I suppose in some ways it is a step in the right direction towards what might be a future test of a person's innate EI. I am sure I will write more about all of this later, but for now I want to post this before I get distracted with something else.

1. this question was about what mood might be helpful in creating decorations for a birthday party.

First, would someone really say to themselves "I want to create new and exciting decorations for a birthday party. Now let's see... what mood would be helpful..." ?

Second, do we really want people to think like this? Do we want them to manipulate their feelings this way? And if someone didn't feel excited and loving as they thought about preparing a birthday party, then would it really matter if they talked themselves into a "helpful" mood so they could create "new and exciting decorations"?

And are "new and exciting decorations" really important? Are they more important than the real feelings the rest of the year? And are they even worth talking about in regular conversation when people are killing each other all around the world and teens are committing suicide because the society they live in is too emotionally painful and unsupportive for them to suffer anymore?

I believe "new and exciting decorations" are one of the least important things we could possibly be thinking about and I feel almost incredulous that the test authors would think something like this was worth putting on a test which supposedly is a test of emotional intelligence. But it gets worse, as we see in the next question.

But first I will add that this question makes me think of David's work in marketing. And it reminds me of the workshop I went to that he and his friend put on a few years ago. Basically David was talking about how knowledge of emotions could be used to sell more products. He showed us two cans of juice or something and asked us something like which one made us feel more like drinking it. So with this question I can vision David in some corporate marketing office telling the marketing manager that certain moods are helpful when creating new and exciting advertising campaigns or designs. If this is true, the goal, of course, is to make money from the research in emotions and emotional intelligence, and this offends me.

I have also copied this to its (this was on the warmarch page)... where I can draw attention to it easier and start some discussion about it.

The question has been removed but it was about what mood might be helpful when writing an "inspiring" war march.

I would like to say that I am making this up. I would like to say this was not really a question on the MSCEIT test. But the sad truth is that it is a question. I am not really sure what to say about this. I have a lot of thoughts and feelings. I feel disgusted, sickened. If I were asked to take this test and I came to this question I would probably refuse to answer it and refuse to answer any more questions on the test. And I would get up and walk out. And I would probably find out who wrote this test and try to let people know how I felt.

I ask myself... well, first I say to myself, "This was probably David Caruso's question. He seems to be the one who likes the idea of killing people." Now that sounds harsh, but I feel harsh and I don't want to try some trick to manage or change my feelings. Maybe that idea has some merit in certain cases, but right now I would rather just keep writing. This is a first draft, by the way.

So anyhow, what can I say about this question? How can I convey how strongly I feel? I don't have the feeling words right now, so I will just share some more of my thoughts.

I ask myself: "How could anyone even think of a question like this? What kind of person would think of something like this? What kind of person would think:

Well, I think you get the general idea of how I feel. But I will add that, to me, on this one question alone the entire MSCEIT test should be thrown out by anyone who comes in contact with it. I urge people to boycott this test. To refuse to take it, to refuse to use it. To refuse to spend any money on it and further fill the pockets of Steven Stein, the president of MHS who has been lying to people for years about the Bar-On EQi test, which I will be saying a lot more about in the near future. And I also urge people to refuse to call the MSCEIT test a test of emotional intelligence until they have come up with a better version of it, one which doesn't include something as sickening as this.

3. This questions is similar to the others in asking what mood would be helpful in following a cooking recipe.

Cooking recipe? Is this another example of what the test authors think is important enough in life to put on a test of emotional intelligence?

4. This was a similar question about trying to understand why three children are fighting.

While the question is better, the responses are not. I really don't know how the authors came up with these three possible responses - happiness, surprise, and sadness - well, I take that back. I can see how sadness would help a little and I can see how happiness would help a little, and I can see how surprise would help a little.

Let me explain, though I have no idea if the test authors and the "experts" who selected the "best" answers would agree with my logic. First sadness, I think it would help a little to feel sad. I would probably feel a little sad if I knew that three children had been fighting. I would feel sad because I don't like violence and because I would want them to be friends. I would also feel a little afraid that they could have really hurt each other physically. And I would feel afraid they wouldn't be able to work out their conflicts in the future if they have already started fighting. But notice that fear is not one of the options. I, though, would definitely tell the children of my fears. I would also tell them that I care about them, and notice that caring is not mentioned as a possible response. I would also feel curious as to just what did actually happen and I would feel interested in finding out. But notice that curiosity and interest are not possible answers. I would also want to feel helpful, in other words, I would like to help the children learn to resolve their conflicts in non-violent ways. But notice that helpful is also missing from the responses.

As far as surprise, I can see how this would help a little. Surprise probably makes us a bit more interested in something and it calls our attention and heightens our senses so we take in more information, as I learned from my good friend Dan Goleman in his 1995 book. (Note that feeling sarcastic puts me in a good mood and I am sure this is somehow emotionally intelligent, even if the test authors and everyone else who writes about EI would disagree with me!) Now let me add that even though I just said surprise would probably be helpful, I want to clarify this. If you really do feel surprised then that's fine, but if you have to fake a feeling of surprise and say to the children, "Children, I am very surprised that you are fighting... " when you are not really surprised, then to me this is not emotional intelligence but emotional fakeness, emotional manipulation and emotional dishonesty.

This reminds me of one of the available responses in another section of the test, the question about the parents being surprised that the teacher said their son was a problem at school.

I had a copy of the picture on this site. It was a picture of some water and rocks. Nothing more.

My first thought when seeing this picture and reading the question was "It's just a picture!" Then I thought, "What if this picture reminded you of a place where someone you loved drowned?" Or what if it reminded you of a place where you had a lot of fun jumping off the rocks and swimming during one of your best trips overseas?" Wouldn't your answers be quite different?

But mostly I am thinking "IT IS JUST A PICTURE!! - Pictures don't express feelings. People express feelings!" And maybe animals. But pictures are taken with cameras and cameras don't express feelings or even know anything about feelings. Feelings and emotional intelligence are about PEOPLE! Or I would hope so anyhow. But psychologists seem to want to make everything abstract and difficult and complicated and mysterious. But I want to say again:

Maybe people associate feelings with pictures, but PICTURES DON"T EXPRESS FEELINGS!!!!!!! Ok maybe people's faces in pictures express the feelings of the people in the pictures, like with the pictures in my so-called emotional intelligence test, but I still say that the pictures themselves don't express feelings, or at least not the pictures in this part of the MSCEIT test.

The pictures don't say "I feel hurt. I feel sad." They are just pictures. Maybe people try to express their own feelings through pictures, but pictures don't express feelings! I feel a little offended that anyone would try to measure my emotional intelligence by asking me to tell them what feelings are expressed by this picture. Then I looked more closely at this....

First of all, how stupid do they think we are? Is it really necessary to say "(Please select a response for each item.)"? And why do they put it in parenthesis? Are they implying something like "If you are too dumb to know what we want you to do, here is another hint"?

And do they really even need to say "INSTRUCTIONS: "? Isn't it pretty obvious by the question "How much is each feeling below expressed by this picture" what they want us to do?

And then, do they really need the little drawings? Why can't they just use the same scale they used in other parts of the test -- No Happiness to Extreme Happiness-- ? I feel a little offended by the drawings, too. As if they are trying to lighten up the whole thing so you won't take it so seriously or so you will be in a better mood as you take the test. I really don't know what their purpose was in putting in the drawings, but I personally don't like them. Maybe I also feel offended because it reminds me of a test for a five year old or something, of someone who can't express feelings with words and needs to see cute little drawings to help them recognize or express feelings.

But it gets even worse. Later I may put on the pictures but there is one of a dead looking tree in a barren looking area. I am sure they want us to say that the picture expresses sadness but I have no idea what else they want us to say. I was thinking I might feel excited if I had been walking for hours in the hot sun and then saw the little tree. Even though it is dead looking it still is giving some shade! Anyhow, I won't copy all the little faces but I will tell you what the options are. They are sadness, anger, surprise, disgust and excitement. How they came up with this I really have no idea! I suppose it is the product of a lot of fancy psychology research. But before moving on I want to show you this drawing of the most "excited" face.

(I have taken the face down too, just in case the people at MHS would feel threatened by showing that, too.)

This face reminds me of a someone I knew who was very insecure and would laugh and try really hard to smile when she felt nervous. I also thought it looked a bit like someone who was stoned! (I mention that specifically for Sarah, lol.)

Here is a copy of my first thoughts and feelings when I saw this, taken from my journal...

To continue, the problem here, as with so many of the test questions is that the person's response depends more on his life experiences than on his emotional intelligence. A person who lived in Australia would probably not feel "furious" in the first place if a truck cut him off, since it happens so rarely there. David doesn't know this because he hasn't lived or driven in Australia as I have. But I have lived and driven in the USA and I can relate to the situation because of my experiences there. Also, the way a person responded to being "furious" would depend on much more than his innate level of emotional intelligence. In my case for example, I have changed my driving habits and responses substantially and it isn't because my innate level of EI has changed. It is because I have learned some things over the years.

Also, I am pretty sure that the test authors and "experts" want us to say that swearing and shouting would not be very effective, but I definitely feel better when I swear and shout. Just last night I was shouting and swearing in fact because I wanted some cookies to go with me milk at around three in the morning and when I realized I didn't have any cookies I started swearing and shouting. Then I started thinking of this question and thought, "But swearing and shouting does help me!" and then I started laughing. I have been feeling a lot of stress lately for reasons I will explain one day soon I hope, if it is safe to do so. It has to do with a female here in Peru, just to give you a hint! (see note)

Anyhow, one of my points about this test is that we can't know what the most effective response is because we don't know the person. Each person is different. What works for one person would not be natural to another person. Also, another point is that a person's anger management skill is not a very good indication of their innate emotional intelligence. I am not sure there would even be any positive correlation at all in fact unless we controlled for other variables. For example, an emotionally intelligent person who has learned self-destructive or violent ways of "coping" or managing anger, because that is what he has seen around him and that is what worked for him as a child and teen, and who lives in a stressful and invalidating environment, will respond differently than will someone of equal innate emotional intelligence who grew up differently and lives in a different place. This seems obvious to me, but in their public writing Mayer, Salovey and Caruso don't make this clear. I hope that they realize it, but I am not really sure that they do.

Update - obviously MHS felt too offended, threatened, worried about losing money, who knows. So they complained to my hosting service. And probably threatened them with a law suit. But anyhow here is what I originally wrote.

I have no doubt that it is a violation of some copyright to post these questions, pictures etc. I thought about it a long time before deciding to do it. I know that David Caruso, Jack and Peter will be unhappy with me. Maybe they will even be very angry. But if they are very angry maybe they can send me a picture expressing their feelings. Sorry, I can't help being a smart ass sometimes. I am really so sick of all this stuff which is going on under the name of emotional intelligence and emotional intelligence tests that I really don't care that much if they are angry with me. And what is the purpose of copyrights anyhow? Is it to give a person credit for the work they do or to help them make money from it? Well, first of all, I am giving credit to David, Jack and Peter, so I don't see a problem there. Second, none of them are making a living from the sales of the MSCEIT test. None of them will die if no one ever takes another MSCEIT test. The people who would probably be hurt a little financially are the people at MHS, who sell the test. Generally speaking, I would say that whoever is upset with me for posting parts of the test is going to be upset mostly for emotional reasons, not financial.

At any rate, if I show that the test is not worth much as a test of emotional intelligence, and if I help people figure out what the "right" answers probably are, then there is a chance that MHS will sell less tests. To this I say, "good", because I believe it is not a good test of emotional intelligence. If they want me to support their work then they just have to come up with a better test. They might try to threaten me with a lawsuit or even try to sue me for copyright violations but I would respond more cooperatively if they did something to earn my respect instead of trying to scare me or force me to take down what I have posted. One thing they could do to earn my respect is to place a higher value on my ideas, my writing, my criticisms, my feelings etc. I feel a bit respected by Mayer, Salovey and Caruso, but I've never had any communication with or from Stein or the people at MHS about all of this. I find it hard to believe no one at MHS has read my site, but it's possible I guess. Later I will probably write to Stein personally with some of my complaints, then I will be sure he has seen my site.

But anyhow, as I've said before, I feel left out, discriminated against, undervalued, judged etc. And I feel offended by some of what they are doing under the title of emotional intelligence. So they can threaten me, be angry with me, sue me etc. but I've made my decision to post this and its not too likely I will take it down unless they get a court order and my website hosting company tells me I have to take it down or they will stop hosting my site. Or I might look for another hosting company, depending on how I feel.

One last thing, I suggest they spend their time working on creating a better test instead of trying to prevent me from criticizing them. But then, that's not the American way. Or should I say the Canadian?..since Steven Stein evidently has his MHS business in Toronto.

Well, we will see what they all do. They could be thankful I don't put the whole test on my site, but I doubt that is how they will feel. I wonder though what feelings they all would say would be "effective" in "maintaining a good relationship with me". Or would that be the goal?

What would be their goal? Besides making money and protecting their bank accounts, I mean.

Now to be fair, I feel pretty sure that Jack Mayer doesn't care too much about the money being made from the MSCEIT test. But I also feel pretty sure that Steven Stein could care less about the integrity of the term emotional intelligence as long as he is making money from it. Yet I also know that Jack, David and Peter have a contract with Stein. So it will be interesting to see how they react. I respect Jack's work and I actually want to help him keep it pure from the influence of people like Stein, Bar-On and Goleman. Jack probably won't approve of what I am doing, just like he probably doesn't approve of a lot of other stuff I do, and I respect his feelings, but that doesn't mean I will let him tell me what to do on my site. And also, Jack has never really tried to tell me what to do on my site. David, on the other hand, has and that is one reason why I feel more resentment towards David at times. But the bottom line is I want to work with them, if they will work with me after all of my rebellious and defiant behavior. lol. But if they don't I will just keep going my own way and keep doing what my heart and feelings tell me to do.