# Science fiction and emotional intelligence



## matt-browne-sfw (Jan 20, 2008)

There's a lot of discussion about the so-called EQ (in addition to the well-known IQ). In your opinion which science fiction *character* (either from a book or a film) has an exceedingly high EQ, i.e. possesses great emotional intelligence? Any thoughts?

Perhaps the Wikipedia definition will help:

Emotional Intelligence (EI), often measured as an Emotional Intelligence Quotient (EQ), describes an ability, capacity, or skill to perceive, assess, and manage the emotions of one's self, of others, and of groups. It is a relatively new area of psychological research. As a result of the growing acknowledgement of professionals for the importance and relevance of emotions to work outcomes, the research on the topic continued to gain momentum, but it wasn’t until the publication of Daniel Goleman's best seller Emotional Intelligence: Why It Can Matter More Than IQ that the term became widely popularized.


----------



## Dave (Jan 21, 2008)

Never heard of EI or EQ, but it sounds like you are describing *Leadership* qualities. Would I be correct in thinking that you want characters who inspire others; who can motivate others by using a variety of leadership styles; who are natural leaders, teachers and statesmen? I'm sure that science fiction has a whole host of those.


----------



## Thadlerian (Jan 21, 2008)

Leto and Paul Atreides from Dune come to mind.


----------



## Steve Jordan (Jan 21, 2008)

The _Foundation_ series' Hari Seldon.  Even though he was dead, his future proclamations based on his own Psychohistory research eased his people's minds and helped guide them in the right direction to progress.

_Star Trek_'s James T. Kirk, Kathryn Janeway, Jean-Luc Picard, and Benjamin Cisco.  Truly inspiring and confidence-building leaders, able to get the best out of their command at any moment.

Dr. Indiana Jones.  His confidence and leadership in a tight situation always brought the best out of his companions.

_Jurassic Park_'s Dr. Alan Grant.  Same notation.


----------



## ironvelvet (Jan 22, 2008)

Sorry but I think the respondents so far have completely missed the point of EI. 

It has nothing to do with leadership. Naturally many leaders would possess the ability to read and understand and empathize with their subordinates emotions but equally a leader could be rubbish at this but brilliant at oratory, dynamic in battle, richer than anyone else, more ruthless etc. and so be brilliant at leading. 

I think a great EI character would be Nanny Ogg in Terry Pratchetts' Discworld books. Even though Granny Weatherwax is the powerful one, with enormous cunning as well; it is Nanny Ogg who realises when Esme needs to blow off steam by biting off someones head and offers herself, who willingly uses her supposed weakness to manipulate Grannys' pride. She is fully cogniscent of her own power and sees all the characters around her as clearly and ruthlessly as her colleague. While Granny Weatherwax sees most strongly what she wants and goes for it, Nanny Ogg sees most clearly what other people want and uses that to get what she wants.


----------



## Thadlerian (Jan 22, 2008)

Yeah, now I see what you mean. I'll have to think over it a bit.


----------



## white_wanderer (Jan 24, 2008)

so it's not the ability, but how the ability is used - self sacrifice and that sort of thing.  A backroom boy or unsung hero character.

Sounds like the day job.


----------



## flygin (Jan 25, 2008)

Daniel Jackson - Stargate


----------



## j d worthington (Jan 25, 2008)

Here's the American Heritage Medical Dictionary definition of the term:



> Intelligence regarding the emotions, especially in the ability to monitor one's own or others' emotions


 
So what we're describing is a combination of empathy and understanding (which, of course, can lead to being able to meet or direct one's own emotions or those of others, yes; but it sounds like this is a secondary characteristic). In which case I'd definitely consider Joe Carter (of *They'd Rather Be Right*/*The Forever Machine*) as in that category... but then, one might expect that of a telepath....

I'd also suggest Mary Noyes (of *The Demolished Man*), who is more truly empathic than the other telepaths, understanding other's emotions deeply without using her tp abilities. Or Jem, from the (original) _Star Trek_ episode, "The Empath"....


----------



## Karn Maeshalanadae (Jan 25, 2008)

I'm not entirely sure I'd classify the series as sci fi, but I'd say Dean Koontz's character Odd Thomas would have a high "EQ" level.....but with the ability to see spirits-and dark, shadowy, semi-dog-shaped characters he calls bodachs-who wouldn't be?


----------



## Quokka (Jan 25, 2008)

I think a high EQ would often be with those people who get described as 'balanced' or unflappable (not that people get describbed as unflappable now days but you get what I mean ). I suppose that the more competent you are at knowing your own emotions/ mind the less likely you are to be shaken by outside events.

So I wonder could the adventure's of characters like Thomas Convent or some of Michael Moorecock's charcters be seen as a journey to improve their EQ or at least that their adventures resulted in improved EQs?

Ender's probably an obvious choice depending on whether you place his self-doubt during _Ender's Game_ (which he acts in spite of) in the intellectual or emotional side. By the _Speaker for the Dead_ you'd have to say he had developed a fairly advanced EQ, (haven't read _Xenocide_).

It also raises an interesting point in regards to _Flowers for Algernon _SPOILER
did Charlie's EQ raise in partnership with his IQ or was it left behind somewhat? was that part of the problem and in the end was he left with a higher EQ than IQ? 


Silverberg's _Dying Inside_ would be another interesting one to think of in terms of EQ but I've mumbbled along alot already . Definitely agree with Paul Atriedes, Sol Weintraub (_Hyperion Cantos_) or maybe Feist's Arutha from fantasy?


----------



## Steve Jordan (Jan 25, 2008)

Assuming I'm understanding this a bit better now, how about Guinan from _Star Trek: The Next Generation_?


----------



## matt-browne-sfw (Jan 26, 2008)

Steve Jordan said:


> Assuming I'm understanding this a bit better now, how about Guinan from _Star Trek: The Next Generation_?




I agree and would even go a step further: TNG is about EQ, while TOS is about IQ. What do you think?


----------



## Steve Jordan (Jan 26, 2008)

matt-browne-sfw said:


> I agree and would even go a step further: TNG is about EQ, while TOS is about IQ. What do you think?



Hmm... I'm not sure about that... 

TOS presented many intelligent scenarios, but much of the conflict was dealt with on an emotional level... in other words, logic and humanity would be debated, but then Captain Kirk would make a decision based on the heart.  He destroyed societies and violated the Prime Directive because he "felt" the rules were essentially wrong.

In TNG, the same dynamics seemed to result in decisions based on rationality not emotion.  Picard would make rational decisions more often than emotional ones, and stick up for the rules more than break them over a "feeling" that it was essentially wrong.  Guinan did represent the EQ of TNG, but only to the extent of making sure her crewmembers were not overwhelmed by their emotions, and could see issues clearly without emotional "baggage."  In fact, most emotional issues on TNG seemed to be represented as things to be focused past, in order to make the most rational decision possible.

Mind you, I did notice that the people of TNG were a lot more intolerant than those of TOS in many areas.  TOS were more likely to accept things like robots, clones, exotic aliens, and unusual societies, whereas TNG showed clear disdain for cloning, unusual societies, strange technology, competing aliens (Klingon, Ferengi, Romulans were clearly looked down upon by TNG humans), and... say, where did all the androids go?  Eaten by the Borg, I guess.

In fact, the two series were defined by an "enemy" that mirrored themselves in many ways: TOS had Klingons, actually brutal but essentially identical versions of humans (as depicted in TOS); and TNG had the Borg, technological versions of ourselves.  The Borg were ruled by logic, the result of taking a logical idea (tech is good for us) and going overboard with it.  But at its root, the Borg wanted the same thing that TNG humans wanted: To get everyone else to see our way and live like us, for a more harmonious galaxy.  TNG was therefore in conflict with its own technology and values.  And when daling with the Borg, emotion rarely entered the fight... it was all about out-thinking the other. 

Based on all that, I'd have to say that I see your premise the opposite way: TOS was about EQ, and TNG was about IQ.


----------



## Dave (Jan 26, 2008)

Steve Jordan said:


> In fact, the two series were defined by an "enemy" that mirrored themselves in many ways: TOS had Klingons, actually brutal but essentially identical versions of humans (as depicted in TOS); and TNG had the Borg, technological versions of ourselves.  The Borg were ruled by logic, the result of taking a logical idea (tech is good for us) and going overboard with it.  But at its root, the Borg wanted the same thing that TNG humans wanted: To get everyone else to see our way and live like us, for a more harmonious galaxy.  TNG was therefore in conflict with its own technology and values.  And when daling with the Borg, emotion rarely entered the fight... it was all about out-thinking the other.
> 
> Based on all that, I'd have to say that I see your premise the opposite way: TOS was about EQ, and TNG was about IQ.


I can't fault that and agree totally, but it is strange given the times when the two series were made. TOS was made late sixties - technological revolution, man on the moon etc. TNG was a product of the eighties, the had a Counsellor in a senior crew position, and a Captain who was very much less hands-on and much more considered. You would expect it to be the opposite way around, but it isn't.


----------



## Essie (Jan 26, 2008)

flygin said:


> Daniel Jackson - Stargate


 
I'm not sure that I've completely got this but I think that Daniel Jackson is rather lead by his emotions. He gets himself into things because he becomes emotionally involved or he is concerned that people aren't being treated justly. Look at the way he risked everyone for his Unas friend for example. He certainly causes problems because he is SO lead by his convictions. He is definitely a thinker but that's more to do with IQ than what I've read about this. I'm not sure that he then fits this. What do you reckon?


----------



## Steve Jordan (Jan 26, 2008)

Dave said:


> I can't fault that and agree totally, but it is strange given the times when the two series were made. TOS was made late sixties - technological revolution, man on the moon etc. TNG was a product of the eighties, the had a Counsellor in a senior crew position, and a Captain who was very much less hands-on and much more considered. You would expect it to be the opposite way around, but it isn't.




Very true... I think it had a lot to do with the realities of television, i.e.,  sixties adventure TV was all about hotshots, pretty girls and melodrama, so TOS was more like a space-based western.  Eighties SF was striving for more scientific accuracy, was more politically correct (and therefore polarized), and trying to live down the "cowboy diplomacy" legacy, so TNG became very straight-laced.


----------



## Steve Jordan (Jan 26, 2008)

Essie said:


> I'm not sure that I've completely got this but I think that Daniel Jackson is rather lead by his emotions. He gets himself into things because he becomes emotionally involved or he is concerned that people aren't being treated justly. Look at the way he risked everyone for his Unas friend for example. He certainly causes problems because he is SO lead by his convictions. He is definitely a thinker but that's more to do with IQ than what I've read about this. I'm not sure that he then fits this. What do you reckon?



I'd agree: Daniel was highly intelligent, but he usually made emotional decisions rather than rational ones.  His very involvement in the series came about because he ignored rational thought that denied the existence of extra-terrestrials.  He left Earth to marry, then begged to become part of the Stargate program when his wife was taken.  He became a god, and gave it up to return to his friends.  He was always the conscience of the team.


----------



## Parson (Jan 27, 2008)

What about Honor Harrington for EQ? The way she is able to deal with her crew and diplomacy in general has a lot more to do with EQ than IQ. Her guiding light is always to act with honor, and to respect those who do as well. 

However, if you act in a dishonorable way she will kick your tail. One memorable line has her saying to her First officer that if he doesn't shape up she will kick his tale so hard he will make it to the moon on pure momentum. (paraphrased)


----------



## Montero (Feb 1, 2008)

For EQ I think Cordelia in Lois McMaster Bujold's Vorkosigan series - doesn't manage it 100% of the time - but was raised on Beta colony where there are lots of councillors, then is trained to "ride herd on a bunch of prima-donna specialists" as captain of a survey ship (approximate quote).

In the series she's well known for delving into the other characters' emotional basements and generally straightening them out.  I think one of my favourites from those are a scene in A Civil Campaign, where she sets up some lovely tricks on one character's parents (trying to write this without a spoiler) to get said parents to face how unreasonable they are being about their reaction to who their daughter fancies.  
I also like the reverse scene, I can't quite remember which title it is, but a later one where Miles is missing, and one of the other characters has been wondering who analyses the analyst (Cordelia) and gets to find out.  Cordelia at this point being rather overwrought by her son being missing.  (Later end of the series, but earlier than A Civil Campaign - I think it is the one before Memory.)


----------



## Montero (Feb 22, 2008)

matt-browne-sfw said:


> the publication of Daniel Goleman's best seller Emotional Intelligence: Why It Can Matter More Than IQ that the term became widely popularized.



Just wanted to say "thank you" for mentioning this book.  I'm part way into reading it and am finding it deeply fascinating.  Lots of new things, plus confirmation of things I'd long suspected.  (so nice to be right ).  The way it is written is very clear and approachable and the scientific logic well handled.
I particularly liked a description of an experiment to measure the importance of controlling ones desires in respect to success in life.
The experimenters tested a group of four year olds as follows.  The child sat at a table in a room, then the experimenter put down a marshmallow and said they had to run an errand for 20 minutes.  If the marshmallow was still there when they returned, then the child could have a second marshmallow as well to eat.  Some of the children ate it the moment the experimenter was out of the door, others spent the time distracting themselves - singing or whatever - until the experimenter came back.  Revisiting the group of children years later, they found the ones who were succeeding at school was a direct correlation with those who had the most self control.  The children who couldn't resist tended to be disruptive and not always concentrating.
Beautiful little experiment.


----------



## matt-browne-sfw (Feb 28, 2008)

Montero said:


> Just wanted to say "thank you" for mentioning this book.  I'm part way into reading it and am finding it deeply fascinating.  Lots of new things, plus confirmation of things I'd long suspected.  (so nice to be right ).  The way it is written is very clear and approachable and the scientific logic well handled.
> I particularly liked a description of an experiment to measure the importance of controlling ones desires in respect to success in life.
> The experimenters tested a group of four year olds as follows.  The child sat at a table in a room, then the experimenter put down a marshmallow and said they had to run an errand for 20 minutes.  If the marshmallow was still there when they returned, then the child could have a second marshmallow as well to eat.  Some of the children ate it the moment the experimenter was out of the door, others spent the time distracting themselves - singing or whatever - until the experimenter came back.  Revisiting the group of children years later, they found the ones who were succeeding at school was a direct correlation with those who had the most self control.  The children who couldn't resist tended to be disruptive and not always concentrating.
> Beautiful little experiment.



You're welcome. Amazing experiment. Yes there's a clear correlation between EQ and future careers. I like this formula:

Success = EQ + IQ + education + good self-management methods and strategies + discipline + tenacity


----------

