Self Defense/Are emotionally distant and logical people superior at "emotional intelligence" than emotional people (specifically those dominated by the monkey brain and frequent monkey dances)? Or is it more pop media BS that has influence the general public?
xpanding upon my two previous threads about social skills.
In particular on the latter question.
You mention that contrary to how mass media portrays people with superb social skills as being popular, extroverted, talkative, and often attending parties and social gatherings in addition to making the first move on a partner (to reference my first question where I mentioned I was punched), social skills is not about those things.
Despite the fact many IRL social outcasts and awkward people try to imitate the "swaggering arrogant jock" often portrayed on TV and films who makes moves on the hot girls and are popular, you mentioned specifically that such an archetype is not a sociable person at all and actually embodies poor social skills.
Instead you mention that its emotional intelligence- the ability to read the emotions of others and react properly in turn- is what REAL SOCIAL SKILLS are.
So I have a question. This is heavily related to violence-in particular two concepts you frequently mention in your writings, the monkey brain and monkey dance- and more importantly emotional intelligence.
Popular media portrays people who are masters of emotional intelligence-by this I am using the bare bones definition of being able to identify and analyze what a person's thinking via his bodily movements and subtle emotional expressions (ie your breath is harder and at a faster rate than usual which signals you're stressed)- as often being logical people who are so emotionally distant.
As in they are portrayed as being so cold psychologically that their EMOTIONS do not influence them at all. As though someone had done a lobotomy and removed their limbic system. And in addition to lacking emotions (or not being influenced in their decision making), mass media portrays someone who has mastered emotional intelligence as lacking empathy and being able to manipulate and abuse others because their lack of classic monkey brain functions and expressions allows them to predict how others will react because they are being influenced by emotions on top of performing every action with complete rationality, having a 100% logic-based mentality, and not letting their emotional needs get in the way of their plans (E.G. villain decides to delay his scheme because he fell in love with a girl or villain loses his temper and shoots someone in public and attracts the attention of police).
In other words Hollywood, TV, and Marvel portrays the person with a high E.Q. as being the classic sociopath. Hell I will point out to one of your favorite movie references, Archibad Cunningham, as the classic villain who embodies emotional intelligence according to mass media.
Basically someone who is a master of emotional control and analysis will do the things Archie did throughout the film. In particular a classic "masters of emotions" villain would have raped Rob's wife just like Archie did because they understand that Rob will be so pissed he will definitely come forward.
Now I was actually thinking of quoting some real life stuff I seen contradicting this Hollywood portrayal but I don't want to annoy you with a long winded rant. So I'll just leave with the details above.
How accurate is this Hollywood portrayal of someone with high emotional intelligence? Would someone with say Lex Luther's emotionally cold and rational personality be effective in not only manipulating real life people to do his violence but also de-escalating a situation with extremely aggressive violent criminals?
Because I note popular media is trying to show both heroes and villains as lacking emotions and being stoic and its because of this lack of emotions that such badass heroes and villains could win their encounters and eventually rule the system, if not the world.
STUPID question but I ask because I read tidbits of one of the books you referenced in my earlier questions (haven't read the full thing) and it states that being a person whose incredibly emotional (or at least at one point was a volcano just waiting to erupt his emotions) is necessary in order to deal with aggressive people and it did state trying to act rational and logical (especially in a formulaic manner) is one of the reasons normal people get into big trouble with violent people.
I tried to do further research but the Emotional Intelligence stuff is quite limited online and I am broke right now so I can't buy the books you quoted. In fact research on the internet shows me that there is Emotional Quotient isn't even fully accepted in Academia and the norm is for experts on criminology to try to rely on rationality when dealing with thugs.
From your experience whose side is correct? How far does the Hollywood portrayal of Emotional Intelligence EG someone with a cold mind who bases every action on rational thought get with dealing with emotional people (especially criminals)?
>From your experience whose side is correct?
Neither. Any extreme is bad.
A couple of preliminary things to understand what I'm talking about
Interesting thing I noticed about extremes. They are based on known and accepted things. But those things are inflated by the extremist and other factors (often mitigating and balancing factors)are brushed away. Basically instead of a plate of many things, you have a plate full of only one thing. Keep that idea of a plate with only one thing on it in mind. That's not a good thing.
Something else, there are a lot of people who don't actually understand what logic and rhetoric are (including it's strengths and limits). Yet -- at the same time -- they think these are the cat's ass. (It's called 'scientism' when they do the same thing with science.) Despite NOT being taught how to utilize logic as a tool they are absolutely convinced they are using it to find the TRUTH! When in fact, they're using select data and cherry picked facts to support their beliefs. I point out this to give you another factor, they are using their 'feelings' as proofs. This must be true because it feels right.
These same people often can only see the external manifestations with other people and don't understand what's going on underneath. (Like you did pointing out how the entertainment industry portrays logical people.) But if you ask them, they are convinced they do. They are ABSOLUTELY convinced they understand everything 'important' about the subject -- despite never hearing about it 30 seconds before.
Still another. Humans are -- at our lowest level -- social primates. We operate in groups and that requires empathy, commitment and emotional economy/obligation. In ye olde days, break that and you were dead. Back then you needed the resources of the group. In fact, you still do, but it's no longer as obvious. The 'group' has become society rather than tribe, village, clan, or family.
Oddly enough, when survival of the group was at stake, the tolerance for bullshit was lacking. Historically, in small groups a sociopath who couldn't function inside the group was killed (or met an unfortunately accident.) Pretty simple, adapt or die. You needed the group more than it needed you.
Now enter civilization, the benefits of a much, much larger 'group,' and infrastructure. The Ancient Roman citizen born into Rome benefited from the aquaducts and sewers (the invention and labor of others). All that person had to do is go to the local fountain to get water. This distances the person from seeing the cause/effect/his need of others. Add to that there are lots and lots of OTHER groups around and a stable system. Here you can begin to have a selfish prick.
But even there, there are limits. Where Hollywood gets shit wrong about their monstrous 'evil overlords' (although that's the popular narrative) is that even in the WORST dictatorship the dictator benefits a group. Granted a smaller, select group, but the reason the dictator is in power is the people who put/keep him there are getting fat and rich off his regime. Who cares about the rest of society, as long as this group is getting theirs? (Don't look at Hitler, look at cui bono of who was behind/followed him.)
Oh yeah, and news flash. Once the dictator stops serving/benefiting those people, he's gone.
Changing tracks, although some claim to worship logic and functioning without emotion, a rather interesting neurological fact shows up with certain brain injuries (or surgeries). That is when the brain is damaged so the connections between the logical and emotional parts are severed. Instead of getting a Vulcan of pure logic (Star Trek reference). You get a complete basket case of a person who is incapable of functioning in the everyday world. The person literally cannot make decisions, cannot tell what is an appropriate response and his/her life completely falls apart.
They literally become as bad as someone who cannot control their emotions in the sense of, while an emotional person will be so blinded by emotions that they run out in front of a bus, a person without emotions will step out in front of a bus. Not out of committing suicide, but that the time it takes to logically assess the danger is too long.
Like I said, any extreme is bad.
See the pattern is always there. What happens is that it changes and mutates given the circumstances. Where individuals