As a practical example of emotional intelligence, and to see how even one baby’s innate level of emotional intelligence can be different than another’s, let’s look at a baby’s feelings of fear.

Fear, of course, is a natural feeling. Its purpose, as designed by nature, is to help the baby survive. A baby has a natural fear of abandonment because the baby knows its life depends on others. When it is left alone, it feels afraid. A baby is also afraid of being separated from its parents, so if a stranger tries to take the baby away from them, it is natural for the baby to feel afraid. But not all babies respond to fear in exactly the same way. Let’s consider a baby’s fear as we look at each of the components of emotional intelligence. First, here is a reminder of my definition of EI.

One of the problems with defining emotional intelligence is the problem with the terms used in creating the definition. For example, the leading researchers, Mayer and Salovey, talk about the “ability model” of EI. (See EI definitions) They also say their test, the MSCEIT, is an “ability” test of emotional intelligence. Yet what do they mean by “ability”? If we use Microsoft Word to check some synonyms for abilit, here is what we find:

- One of the synonyms for ability is "capability". Another is "skill".

- One of the synonyms for capability is "potential".

- Synonyms for skill include proficiency and expertise.

 

So it goes like this

Obviously, there is a big difference between potential and proficiency or expertise. As a good example of this difference, let us consider a newborn baby. We know that when a baby is born it is full of undeveloped potential. But it does not yet have either skills, expertise or proficiency. So we must ask ourselves, what did Mayer and Salovey mean when they first started talking about ability? Did they mean potential? Or did they mean skill, proficiency and expertise?

If they mean it is a skill, or a "set of skills" as they first hypothesized in 1990, then there is a basic inconsistency in their thinking. Jack Mayer said you can't teach intelligence and he gave the example that we don't talk about teaching math "intelligence". (Source) This is true... you don't teach intelligence, you develop it. Yet skills can be taught, and proficiency and expertise can be gained with training, education and experience.

So where does this leave the Mayer Salovey definition of EI? It seems to leave it on unstable,foundation.

What we need then, is a better definition of emotional intelligence. One alternative is the Innate Potential Model of EI, which you can read about on this page. But the goal in writing this article is not to promote that definition. It is to stimulate your thinking about the problems with the Mayer Salovey definition, and the related MSCEIT test, which Mayer and Salovey call a test of emotional intelligence. If their definition of EI is flawed, then how can we accept their test as being a true test of emotional intelligence?

Let us encourage those in the academic community to offer us a new definition of EI which does not have these kinds of problems.

Jack Mayer and Peter Salovey have been the leading researchers in emotional intelligence since 1990. In that year they suggested that emotional intelligence is a true form of intelligence which had not been scientifically measured until they began their research work.

Here is how they defined emotional intelligence in 1990

We define emotional intelligence as the subset of social intelligence that involves the ability to monitor one's own and others' feelings and emotions, to discriminate among them and to use this information to guide one's thinking and actions.

 

In the abstract of the 1990 article they also wrote:

This article presents a framework for emotional intelligence, a set of skills hypothsized to contribute to the accurate appraisal and expression of emotion in oneself and in others, the effective regulation of emotion in self and others, and the use of feelings to motivate, plan and achieve in one's life.

 

They and their colleagues have used various definitions of EI in their academic journal articles since 1990, but their 1997 defintion is they one they use the most now. First, here are a few other definitions they have used, then a full presentation fo the 1997 defintion is shown. Pease be sure to also read this article about the words ability, skill and potential. The article discusses a fundamental problem with this 1997 definition, ie the problem with their imprecise use of the word "ability".