Review of the MSCEIT test - page 2
page 1
Anger, Love, Empathy, Understanding, etc.
Emotional honesty, what to call this test and other issues
Here is a question from Section H of the test
This was about someone named John who developed a "close friend" who then took another job without telling John.
My original comments...
First, there is no way that John would not feel at least a little hurt if this person was supposedly a "close friend." But none of the responses include "hurt" as a feeling word. And none of the responses even mention the word "surprised", even though the situation description tells us that the friend had "completely surprised him".
And once again I ask, who is deciding what the goal is here? Well obviously the test authors are asking us to consider a goal of maintaining a good relationship. But why is that a goal? Why isn't it a goal for John to take care of his own emotional health and his own feelings? To me, expressing your true feelings healthy with feeling words, but it doesn't look like the test authors have even thought of this as a possible response. But then we are faced with the question, is there a difference between what is emotionally healthy and what is emotionally intelligent? Mayer and his colleagues don't really address this much in their writing. And their test seems to confuse two concepts. And others, like Reuven Bar-On mix terms even more. I would guess, though, that what is emotionally healthy is also emotionally intelligent. If it isn't then how smart can it be in any sense? On the other hand, I believe a person from an abusive home environment can be both emotionally intelligent and self-destructive. So I've confused myself! But hopefully you have something to think about at the very least! Actually, I think what I mean is that if a person has not been abused and has lived in an emotionally healthy and supportive environment, then in that case what is emotionally healthy will also be emotionally intelligent.
But back to the question...
Something else bothers me here. Having lived in the USA I know how much emphasis is put on having "contacts" and doing something which is called "networking". This means making contacts and pseudo-friendships with other people who you think can help you in some way. These are not usually true friends. They are business contacts and everyone who is a business contact is basically using the other person for their own good in most cases, at least if they are not true friends. So I am wondering here if the test authors, David in particular since he is the most tied to the business world, were thinking of maintaining business contacts more than maintaining a friendship. I feel a little cynical and think that a lot of people will use emotional "management" tricks to keep up their basically fake friendships so they can profit from the contacts in the future. And I feel offended that doing something like this would be called a sign of emotional intelligence. I would much prefer to call it emotional manipulation.
So this leads me to asking just what is meant by a "good" relationship? To me a good relationship is one where I can be emotionally honest and where the other person respects my feelings and is sensitive to them. But in these responses we don't see many signs of emotional honesty nor an expectation of respect or sensitivity. If something like this happened to me, and I really wanted to have a good relationship - notice I did not say "maintain" because to me this example shows that it has not really ever been a "good" relationship - then I would express my true feelings by saying I felt hurt, surprised, left out, and uninformed. If the "friend" got defensive or invalidated me then I would know that was pretty much the end of our so called friendship and I would accept that, while still feeling sad and disillusioned about it. To me this would be an emotionally healthy response on my part because I don't get much satisfaction from fake relationships or from those where the other person doesn't respect my feelings.
Also - We are asked "How effective would John be in maintaining a good relationship, if he chose to respond in each of the following ways?" Then we are told "John felt good..John felt sad... and John felt very angry" in responses 1 through 3 respectively. But what do the authors want us to think is happening? Is John "choosing" to feel good, sad or very angry" like he chooses what shirt wear? Or is John just feeling his natural feelings? And do the test authors want us to think that choosing your feelings like you choose your clothes is emotionally intelligent? I will tell you how I feel when I think about this and I am not choosing to feel this way. I just feel this way. I feel sad and I feel offended. I believe the authors do want us to believe it is emotionally intelligent to rationally choose our feelings rather than to just feel them and learn from them and use them. I feel offended because to me this kind of thinking, if I am interpreting things correctly, is an insult to nature and to the original concept of EI as defined in the 1990 paper by Salovey and Mayer and then as refined in the 1997 article by Mayer and Salovey. I suspect that these kinds of questions are the result of the influence by David Caruso, who takes a very "rational" and :"business-like" approach to feelings too often for my liking. I feel sad at the thought of Jack Mayer going along with this kind of thing. From my understanding of him and his beliefs about EI, our feelings are something to be listened to, not something to be "chosen" we pick out the "right" clothes for the "right" occasion. Or feeling cynical I could say the "appropriate" clothes for the "appropriate" occasion, since so many people who right about EI talk about "appropriate" feelings. But who decides which feelings are "appropriate"? Personally, I don't trust anyone else to tell me when my feelings are "appropriate" or inappropriate and I feel offended when someone implies or insists that they know what is the "appropriate" way for me to feel.
Another question from Section H - Roy's Teacher
This was a question about a boy named Roy, his parents and teacher. His teacher called the parents to say that Roy wasn't doing well in school. The question asks how helpful is each possible response by the parents.
A few quick comments
- Note that the parents feel "very angry." The test authors don't say the parents feel threatened and insulted or offended, which I would guess would be the primary feelings. (See more discussion of "anger" and primary vs. secondary feelings in this test)
- None of the responses suggest that the parents give an emotionally honest response by saying "we feel threatened." (See more discussion of emotional honesty and this test)
- These are very typical American responses. I would guess that hanging up on the teacher would not even be thought of in Thailand, for example. And it is typically American to threaten someone back when you feel threatened, as well as to take things to the next higher level of authority. It is also typically American as well as probably, to give a mini-lecture by saying "Your job is to teach, not to blame the student."
- Again none of the answers include what I believe would be either the most emotionally intelligent or the most emotionally healthy for all concerned. Later I might give you my ideas on what I think a better response would be, but in the mean time, write me if you have your own ideas.
- Response 2 is so obviously not helpful to their son that it is a bit insulting to my intelligence to even see it listed here. Again this reminds me that the test is sometimes not much more than a test to see if someone is really emotionally stupid. It is obvious that the teacher would retaliate against the son if the parents did something like suggested in response 2.
- The authors probably want us to say that response one is the most emotionally intelligent answer. But the teacher might feel defensive if they say they are going to ask that the principal attend the meeting. This is an implicit threat if not explicit. And also it doesn't sound like the parents are really shocked at all to hear this since they already have doubts about the teacher. To go into the meeting pretending to feel shocked when they actually were "very angry" according to the description is first of all probably not emotionally healthy for them (since faking your feelings rarely is) and second, chances are that their acting job won't work and the teacher will pick up on their "anger" and feel defensive in response.
Response three might backfire because the principal might not move their son. And hanging up on the teacher is sure to generate resentment which the teacher would likely find an outlet for one way or another against their son. So it seems pretty obvious that we are not supposed to say that this would be "very effective". Yet getting their son out of the class would help more than just attacking and threatening the teacher as suggested in response two, so it seems obvious to me that the authors want us to say that this response would be either neutral or somewhat effective, we don't know really because we don't know if the principal will move their son. We are only told that they asked that there son be moved. Also, who knows how the other teacher and the other students will take it if their son gets moved. We are simply not given enough information to really make a good guess. But one thing I would guess is that an emotionally intelligent person would think through all of this a bit more than the test authors seem to have done.
Anger, Love, Empathy, Understanding, etc.
Some facts, observations and commentary...
The words "anger" and "angry" are used many times in the test. And the two words "very angry" are also used quite a few times. This implies to me the test authors either
a) haven't read my section on anger where I talk about it being a secondary feeling,
b) don't think much of the idea or
c) don't think the public is smart enough to make the distinction between primary and secondary feelings.
I believe it is a very useful distinction, though, and I hope that in future tests which are supposed to measure emotional intelligence the questions and responses make more use of primary feelings and less use of "anger." And I also hope that more people in the world realize the distinction and get something useful from it. But I don't believe that knowing the distinction making use of it makes a person more "emotionally intelligent." I only believe it makes them more emotionally skilled/knowledgeable. Still, if people are going to design tests like the MSCEIT test, then I urge them to at least try to measure a person's ability to identify, express and manage primary feelings. Although, again, I don't believe emotional management has much to do with emotional intelligence. I believe it has more to do with how a person has been raised, where they have lived etc. And this is equally true a person's ability to identify and express feelings. At least it is true for an adolescent or adult. I am still waiting to see a test of emotional intelligence for children who have not yet been corrupted by adult influences. And I am still waiting for the "experts" to talk about the difference between innate emotional intelligence and a person's emotional management skills later in life. This test is way too much a test of the latter.
Anyhow, in sections D through H for example the word anger is found 10 times in questions and responses.
Examples:
... when Andrew's boss announces that the annual merit award is being given to this colleague, Andrew is very angry. (Section D, question 2)
... Response 3: John was very angry that his friend hadn't said anything. (Section H, question 2)
... The parents feel very angry. How helpful to their son is each of these reactions? (Section H, question 2)
We also have "furious"
... He was furious. How effective would each of the following actions be in dealing with his anger? (Section D, question 5)
--
An analysis of feeling words found In sections D through H
Words not found: hurt, resentment, rejection, rejected, abandoned, offended, insulted,
I mention these words because these are very common feelings. Yet most people don't realize that they feel hurt, rejected, abandoned, offended etc. Instead they say they feel "angry."
Other words not found: understanding, understood
This is noteworthy because understanding and feeling understood are so important in real life. Yet they are not address, at least in this section, of the
The word anger is found 10 times. The term "very angry" is found 3 times. The word furious is found once.
The word love is found 4 times.
In section C the words anger/angry are found 10 times. The words love/loved are found 7 times.
Other words not found in sections D-H or C: empathy, compassion.
This little analysis reminds me of the bible. Once I did a count on one of the online bible sites and found that the word anger is used something like 400 times in the bible and the world love is used something like 100 times. Also, the word compassion was found even less, something like 4 times. And I think I was searching the whole bible, including the so called new and old testaments. But I imagine if I did only the old testament I would find even a higher ratio of anger to love. And I am tempted to make a comment about the connection between the old testament, the Jewish religion and the religious affiliation of the test authors.
Well, now that I have opened my mouth I might as well remind you, if you didn't know already, that I know for a fact that David and Jack call themselves Jewish and attend Jewish religious ceremonies and I am pretty sure send their kids to Jewish religious functions and I am about 99% sure that Peter is also Jewish, though I don't know if he is a "practicing Jew". Now again I am afraid people will think I am racist, but I really don't feel racist or discriminating or particularly judgmental. But I do want to point out to everyone that there is a connection between the teachings and beliefs of a religion and the actions of the people who follow that religion. It affects the way they think, feel and react. And I believe it even affects the way they write tests. Maybe I am wrong, but I still want people to give this some thought. Of course the entire American culture has a big problem with anger and resentment. I've written about this elsewhere on my site. So we have people writing this test who are products of both the American culture and the Jewish religion. I don't think there is any way they can avoid being influenced by this. And I do believe we need a lot more input from people in other cultures in designing a truly good/objective test of emotional intelligence.
Emotional honesty, what to call this test and other issues
Emotional honesty does not seem to be very important when it comes to measuring emotional intelligence. I can't remember even one time when the test answers suggested a response which I would call emotionally honest in the sections where you are supposed to choose the most "effective" response. Maybe I have missed one but even if I did there are a lot more examples of emotional dishonesty.
To be fair, I am not sure if emotional honesty actually is a part of what could fairly be called emotional intelligence. I will admit that it is surely sometimes wiser to lie at least to some degree about your feelings. Yet this test seems more of a test of emotional health, as defined by the test authors and the "experts", than of emotional intelligence. But even saying that it doesn't seem quite right. I don't really even want to call it a test of emotional health. In many cases it is more a test of anger management, given all the questions about anger. But anger management and emotional intelligence are not the same thing. A person can be born with high emotional intelligence, yet later be very "unskilled" at anger management simply because of his life experiences and lack of helpful education and training. And what works for one person when they are angry is not always what works for another.
We might also call this test a test of emotional manipulation, putting it critically, or emotional "management" putting it somewhat more nicely. For example, in the question about the guy whose friend suddenly told him he was taking a job in another city. One of the answers is to act like nothing is wrong and make plans to keep in touch with the guy, but as I said in that section of my review, it seems impossible that the first guy does not feel at least a little hurt by what his so-called close friend did, yet we don't see an emotionally honest response of saying "I feel hurt by your not telling me you were thinking of taking a new job" as one of the responses. This leads me to another general criticism of this kind of test - a criticism which Rich Roberts first brought to my attention. This criticism is the fact that a test like this will miss an "emotional genius." So many of the answers are so bad and so simplistic that I really can't believe this test will identify even a highly emotionally intelligent person, let alone an emotional genius. To me a truly emotionally intelligent person would think a bit more deeply than to just ask how John could maintain a "good" relationship with his "friend". A truly emotionally intelligent person might also think about what would be best for his own health, for the health of his "friend" and for the world in general. A truly emotionally intelligent person might want to know why the "friend" had done something like that and he might really want to understand, not just ask "Why didn't you tell me?" in an attacking way. But if I am to be emotionally honest I will say I feel resentful right now and am tempted to be sarcastic and say "but what do I know? I don't have a Ph.D in psychology". And I will also add that I don't know what a truly emotionally intelligent person would do. And beyond that I am not sure that two emotionally intelligent people would do the same thing. This is another problem with the test and the concept of emotional intelligence.
It doesn't seem Mayer et al have really thought much about the possibility that there could be two equally emotionally intelligent people who would respond in very different ways, depending on not only their life experiences, but also on what I would call their personality. I am afraid to use that word because Jack Mayer is something of an expert at least academically on "personality" and I am not sure just what he calls personality and what he doesn't. I read a paper of his once on a personality framework and honestly I didn't make much sense out of it! But to me a person's personality is something like his or her innate tendency to be aggressive or passive or to be serious or to like to make jokes and make people laugh. So let's go back to John and the "friend." If one emotionally intelligent, yet somewhat aggressive person were to respond to the friend honestly he might confront him and say "Hey, what's the idea of you not telling me you were thinking of taking another job. I really feel hurt about that." But a less aggressive person might choose to write a letter later simply saying he felt hurt, sad and confused.
Another person might make a joke of it and say with a smile and a few pats on the back. "Thanks for telling me you are taking another job instead of suddenly just not coming into work and having me think you ran off with that cute redhead you met on your last business trip. I appreciate that. I'd really feel hurt if someone else told me a week or so later that you took another job. These kinds of things mean a lot to me in a friendship. I like how you keep me so informed of what you are thinking of doing, and I also like how you ask my opinion about things before you make big decisions. These are just a few of the many reasons I consider you such a good friend." By his tone of voice he could let the person know that he doesn't hate him but that he does want the other person to feel at least a little guilty. All three responses are quite different, but which is more "emotionally intelligent" and who is to say? I am not at all convinced that the authors of the MSCEIT test or the "experts" who selected the "best", i.e. supposedly most emotionally intelligent responses, are the ones to look to for guidance on this.
July 2005 by S. Hein