I was reading an article the other day about IQ, an interview between Mark Dery and Steven Pinker (http://tinyurl.com/nxjjmx), and while I was incredibly interested in the topic, I couldn’t help feeling that the whole article was excessively wordy. With a background as a biologist, I am capable of wading through wordy articles and sometimes maybe it’s even necessary. Of course, the world of IQ discussion has a long and lengthy background mired in psychology and many other fields that bring the baggage of language into the discussion and in this particular case, given the topic, I think the use of detailed language may be appropriate.
Working to deconstruct language and make ideas accessible to all is sometimes an art form. All that aside, I also believe that there is a certain amount of prestige or credibility that often goes along with using big words and sounding important and it’s important to balance the two ideas.
In terms of EQ, selling the concept to people unfamiliar with it sometimes requires evidence, data and ‘proof.’ I hope we all continue to keep the field of EQ open and accessible to everyone by remaining careful with our choice of language. I would love to hear the thoughts of others on this!
Alex Russell
Interesting how we take something “felt” and turn it into something intellectual? I suspect it gives (some of) us a sense of control if we can be highly analytical… and applying complex, technical language might be a way of having “mastery” of something that’s confusing.
Talking to my kids about EQ one time, got into discussion that there is a difference between being smart ABOUT feelings and smart WITH feelings — suspect that “real” EQ takes both.
I’d also add: I don’t think “data and ‘proof’” is what actually convinces people. When I didn’t have a ton of data, I worked hard to build a case and convince people with it… now that I have a really solid case, I just say: There is compelling evidence… and refer them to the Case for EQ — I think most people just want to know there IS data…