EQ Plays a Role in Personal Success
It turns out that a scientist can see the future by watching four-year-olds interact with a piece of candy. The researcher invites the children, one by one, into a plain room and begins the gentle torture. You can have this piece of candy right now, he says. But if you wait while I leave the room for a while, you can have two pieces of candy when I get back. And then he leaves.
Some children grab for the treat the minute he's out the door. Some last a few minutes before they give in. But others are determined to wait. They cover their eyes; they put their heads down; they sing to themselves; they try to play games or even fall asleep. When the researcher returns, he gives these children their hard-earned pieces of candy. And then, science waits for them to grow up.
By the time the children reach high school, something remarkable has happened. A survey of the children's parents and teachers found that those who as four-year-olds had enough self-control to hold out for the second piece of candy generally grew up to be better adjusted, more popular, adventurous, confident and dependable teenagers. The children who gave in to temptation early on were more likely to be lonely, easily frustrated and inflexible. They could not endure stress and shied away from challenges.
When we think of brilliance we see Einstein, a thinking machine with skin and mismatched socks. High achievers, we imagine, were wired for greatness from birth. But then you have to wonder why, over time, natural talent seems to waken in some people and dim in others. This is where the candy comes in. It seems that the ability to delay reward is a master skill, a triumph of the logical brain over the irresponsible one. It is a sign, in short, of emotional intelligence. And it doesn't show up on an IQ test.
For most of this century, scientists have worshipped the hardware of the brain and the software of the mind; the messy powers of the heart were left to the poets. But brain theory could simply not explain the questions we wonder about most: why some people just seem to have a gift for living well; why the smartest kid in the class will probably not end up the richest; why we like some people virtually on sight and distrust others; why some people remain upbeat in the face of troubles that would sink a less resistant soul. What qualities of the mind or spirit, in short, determine who succeeds?
The phrase "emotional intelligence" was coined by researchers five years ago to describe qualities like understanding one's own feelings, sympathy for the feelings of others and "the regulation of emotion in a way that enhances living". This notion is about to bound into the national conversation, conveniently shortened to EQ, thanks to a new book, Emotional Intelligence by Daniel Goleman. Goleman has brought together a decade's worth of research into how the mind processes feelings. His goal, he announces on the cover, is to redefine what it means to be smart. His theory: when it comes to predicting people's success, brain capacity as measured by IQ may actually matter less than the qualities of mind once thought of as "character".
At first glance, there would seem to be little that's new here. There may be no less original idea than the notion that our hearts have authority over our heads. "I was so angry," we say, "I couldn't think straight." Neither is it surprising that "people skills" are useful, which amounts to saying it's good to be nice. But if it were that simple, the book would not be quite so interesting or its implications so controversial.
This is no abstract investigation. Goleman is looking for methods to restore "politeness to our streets and caring in our community life". He sees practical applications everywhere for how companies should decide whom to hire, how couples can increase the odds that their marriages will last, how parents should raise their children and how schools should teach them. When street gangs substitute for families and schoolyard insults end in knife attacks, when more than half of marriages end in divorce, when the majority of the children murdered in this country are killed by their parents, many of whom say they were trying to discipline the child for behavior like blocking the TV or crying too much, it suggests a demand for basic emotional education.
And it is here the arguments will break out. While many researchers in this relatively new field are glad to see emotional issues finally taken seriously, they fear that a notion as handy as EQ invites misuse. "People have a variety of emotion," argues Harvard psychology professor Jerome Kagan. "Some people handle anger well but can't handle fear. Some people can't take joy. So each emotion has to be viewed differently." EQ is not the opposite of IQ. Some people are blessed with a lot of both, but some with little of either. What researchers have been trying to understand is how they work together; how one's ability to handle stress, for instance, affects the ability to concentrate and put intelligence to use. Among the ingredients for success, researchers now generally agree that IQ counts for about 20%; the rest depends on everything from social class to luck.
個人要成功,“情商”起作用
人們發(fā)現(xiàn),通過觀察一個四歲孩子怎樣處理一塊糖,科學家可以預測其未來。 研究人員將孩子們一個一個地請進一間普普通通的房間,開始了小小的折磨。 他對孩子說,你們可以現(xiàn)在就吃這塊糖, 但是如果你們等一會兒,等我從外面回來,你們就可以吃兩塊糖。 說完他就走了。
一些孩子當研究人員一走就一把抓過糖來吃。 另一些孩子等候了幾分鐘,但還是忍不住吃了糖。 還有一些孩子下決心等下去。 他們或蒙上眼睛,或低頭不看,或自己唱歌,或玩游戲,甚至還睡著了。 研究人員回來之后,把這些孩子經過努力贏得的糖果給了他們。 然后等著他們長大,再來看看科學的結論。
到這些孩子上高中時,引人注目的事發(fā)生了。 對這些孩子的家長和教師所作的調查發(fā)現(xiàn),那些四歲就能克制自己,堅持等到第二塊糖的孩子,長大后通常有較強的適應力,更合群,富有進取心、自信心,也更可靠。 那些經不住誘惑的孩子更容易變得孤獨,容易受挫,缺乏靈活性。 他們受不了壓力,逃避挑戰(zhàn)。
我們說到出眾的才華,就會想到愛因斯坦,那個有生命的,穿著不配對襪子的思考機器。 在我們想像中,取得卓越成就的人一出生就注定會不平凡。 可是你也會問為什么隨著時間的推移,天才在一些人身上顯露出來,而在另一些人身上卻暗淡下去。 這就是糖塊實驗要說明的問題了。 看來似乎能耐心等待收益的能力是最重要的技巧。這里,邏輯性強的思考戰(zhàn)勝了不負責任的思考。 簡言之,這是情感智能的體現(xiàn),而這是在智力測試里表現(xiàn)不出來的。
在本世紀大部分時間,科學家們一直重視大腦這個具體之物和理智這個無形之物,而情感這一紛亂的力量卻留給了詩人去談論。 但大腦研究理論就是無法解釋我們最想弄清的問題: 為什么有些人似乎就是有過上好日子的才能; 為什么班里最聰明的孩子很可能最終并不是最富有的; 為什么我們對有些人幾乎一眼就喜歡上了,而對另一些人則信不過; 為什么有些人面對困難仍能保持樂觀,而另一些人則堅持不住,沉淪下去。 一句話,心智或精神的何種素質決定了人的成功?
"情感智能"一詞是研究人員五年前創(chuàng)造出來的,用以描繪人的一些素質,諸如對自身感覺的了解,對他人感覺的同情,以及"調節(jié)情感以更好地生活"的能力。 由于丹尼爾·戈爾曼的新書《情感智能》,這一概念很快會成為國內談論的話題,為方便起見簡稱為"情商"。 戈爾曼將他花了10年的工夫,研究頭腦怎樣處理感情的結果匯聚成書。 在書的封面上,他說他的目標就是要重新定義聰明到底是什么。 這是他的理論:要預測人的成功,智商所衡量的大腦能力實際上遠不如曾被看作"性格"的心智的素質重要。
乍一看來,此說并無新意。 它與感情掌管頭腦的說法一樣并無創(chuàng)見。 人們常說"我氣得無法思考"。 "與人交往的技巧"非常有用,此說也不令人吃驚,這就等于說與人為善是對的。 但如果事情就那么簡單,這本書就不會引起那么大的關注,它的含義也不會引起那么大的爭論了。
這決不是抽象的調查。 戈爾曼在尋找方法恢復"大街上的彬彬有禮,社區(qū)生活中的互相關心"。 他認為這處處都用得上,如公司該如何決定聘用什么人,夫婦該如何提高婚姻延續(xù)的可能性,父母該如何培養(yǎng)孩子,學校該如何教育孩子。 當街頭團伙取代了家庭環(huán)境,當校園辱罵導致了械斗, 當半數(shù)以上的婚姻以離婚收場, 當這個國家里死去的孩子大多死于父母之手,而這樣的父母大都說他們是想規(guī)范孩子的行為,要他們不要擋著電視,不要大哭不休,當發(fā)生了這些現(xiàn)象,這就意味著需要進行基本的情感教育。
正是在這個問題上人們產生了爭論。 盡管在這一較新的領域里很多研究人員對情感問題終于得到認真對待感到高興,但他們也擔心像情商這樣一個方便的概念會被誤用。 "人們的情感是多種多樣的," 哈佛大學心理學教授杰羅姆·凱根說, "有些人能很好地處理憤怒,但卻對付不了恐懼。 有些人無法承受歡樂。 因此每一種情感都應得到不同的看待。" 情商不是智商的對立。 一些人有幸兩者都很高,一些人則兩者都很低。 研究人員想要弄清的是兩者是如何共同起作用的;舉例說,一個人應付壓力的能力是如何影響他集中精力,運用智力的能力的。 在成功的諸要素中,研究人員現(xiàn)在普遍認為智商約起20%的作用,其余部分則取決于從社會地位到運氣等各種因素。