balance

[Jacob Morres]

https://hbr.org/2017/01/the-downsides-of-being-very-emotionally-intelligent

The downsides of high emotional intelligence 

Though definitions vary, EQ always comprises intrapersonal and interpersonal skills – in particular, high adjustment, sociability, sensitivity, and prudence. However, there are downsides to any human trait. The drawbacks of higher EQ include lower levels of creativity and innovation potential. People with high EQ tend to be great at building relations and working with others but may lack the necessary levels of nonconformity and unconventionality to challenge the status quo. Because of their high interpersonal sensitivity, people with high EQ struggle to give negative feedback, and their cool-headedness and positivity means they also have difficulty receiving it. They can be reluctant to ruffle people’s feathers, which puts them at a disadvantage when they need to make unpopular choices or bring about change. High EQ individuals can also have a well-developed ability to manipulate others. They risk overusing their social skills by focusing heavily on the emotional aspects of communication while neglecting logical arguments. Lastly, these employees can have higher levels of conscientiousness and are therefore averse to risk. Although EQ is unquestionably a desirable and highly adaptive trait, obsessing over it can create an overly diplomatic workforce that fails to drive change and innovation.

 

" People with high EQ tend to be great at building relations and working with others but may lack the necessary levels of nonconformity and unconventionality to challenge the status quo."

Could see that. While being emotionally conscious of others, it may be difficult to hurt others when wanting to making conscious choices. But I think -> this is not inherent as I think a true leader makes decisions that are right, not just socially acceptable. But as someone who has run into this trap at times,  I can totally understand how it can be difficult to break this conformist attitude at times. 

"They risk overusing their social skills by focusing heavily on the emotional aspects of communication while neglecting logical arguments."

Seems as though this is the limit of EQ not the limit of development. I guess with all things, arises with traps

 

I can see there are many traps with too high IQ. Sometimes people are too logical , they forget the emotional, communicational and spiritual aspects. 

Edited October 24, 2021 by Jacob Morres

[Jacob Morres]

My therapist has this very unique ability of truly comprehending what I'm saying. She's so adept at it that it's much above my level of awareness. She can read people . she might be a top 1% therapist

Socially and emotionally, the wisest ive come across . but she's not perfect

Edited November 10, 2021 by Jacob Morres

[Jacob Morres]

Skills I deeply desire:

Socially: 

Great advice giver

Empathetic

Great role model 

High social intelligence and adeptness 

 

Meta: 

The ability to get what I want and need (LoA, Success Principles, Meta Learning(?)) 

Phenomenal decision maker 

High self esteem (self confidence in terms of competency and worth)

Strong consciousness ability 

Ability to calm down my emotions well 

Use mindfulness strategically and well 

 

Career: 

Career skills that I find deeply fulfilling and make me a lot of money 

 

Task: define each of these things and what their specficity 

Edited November 11, 2021 by Jacob Morres

[Jacob Morres]

Philosophies that I highly resonate with right now: 

1. Everyone deserves love. I think we are all somehow broken and healing and when you deeply understand someone you can sometimes their humanity and the evil that you once perceived washes away. Evil is a lens that we use, and we can choose understanding and compassion instead 

2. Look at others not a reflection of you, but rather as an extension of themselves that is detached from you. Their perception of you is their own mental perception of you and as you observe them instead of taking their opinions of truth you will see that their perception is happening in their own minds, and not an objective truth of reality 

3. Indecision can fool you into thinking you're just deciding but you need to be careful that while you're in decision, there are natural consequences to it. Not confronting an issue deals with many consequences and they do not go away just because you are "deciding". One being lost time. Another being not taking responsibility for things 

Edited November 13, 2021 by Jacob Morres

[Jacob Morres]

Some of the lowest conscious people I initially deemed were the most developed after realizing it through my own development 

A therapist that I thought was stupid (while true in terms of the training I was looking for) was the most compassionate, emptionally intelligent and human centered person under later reflection

A therapist I thought was emotionally unavailable (while perhaps true) was also simtanouesly very comfortable in her own skin which I currently think is high self esteem 

Edited November 20, 2021 by Jacob Morres

[Jacob Morres]

My dating principles:

Girls will reflect your own internal feelings. If you believe yourself as unattractive, girls will feel that and feel that way about you. Feel like an attractive guy and girls will feel that off you 

Find girls with good energy. Flirting in either their own unique good nature. Girls who are cold, uninterested, rude are loved but not my type.

Edited November 30, 2021 by Jacob Morres

[Jacob Morres]

Aspects of great social skills: 

Awareness of the other person's actions and feelings (?)

Awareness of your own and other's manipulations (?)

Strong degree of presence

Calibration to the social dilemma

Empathy 

Self-confidence 

Good intentions 

 

You can't have great social skills while having anxiety bcuz you will be anxious rather than performing well/confidently. ANd good social skils requires confidence to some extent.  I think shadow work, trauma work, mindfulness, self-love is critical 

 

 

Edited December 13, 2021 by Jacob Morres

[Jacob Morres]

Mark of good philosopher/y 

- Able to non-biasedly talking about the traps and shortcomings of a philosophy. to me shows a comprehensive view of a topic rather than some topics that just shill the good parts of a philosophy. scott h young does this well 

- i enjoy when a book can have practical aspects as well as theoretical. when a book that is deeply biased towards theory, sometimes it's difficult to find the real life practical useful examples of how this idea manifests. the author of 80/20 does this really well. he takes the idea and deeply brings about the practical aspects of his theory. he also encourages the reader to develop on this idea as well and to find their own examples of how the idea manifests and even develop on his idea 

- a philosopher that doesn't think of their philosophy as the "one truth". to me this shows they aren't deeply attached/biased towards their perspective. Like they are aware that they are using a lens to look at the world rather "the only lens that exists" lol. mark manson is deeply guilty of this. he talks about his philosophy very black and white and with a lot of dogmatic black and white thinking. 

- a philosopher that is very holistic and non-dogmatic. 6 pillars i think is a great example of an author who spent many many years developing the truth of a book. he focuses on 

 

 

- isn't tied up into black and white ideas like. Only focus on the goal! Only focus on the process Etc. Can understand the nuances of both perspectives. 

- Has an affinity for the truth. His perspectives aren't dogmatic and partial to his own perspective and can integrate other people's perspectives

- Has a sense of integrity with his work. Has a affinity for good intentions, empathy, and for genuinely good and helpful work instead of work that perhaps 'makes money', 'trendy', 

- Can appreciate the theoretical and practical aspects of his work 

- Can include nuances for different types of people/personality types/situations . Gives his philosophy in a way that accounts for the differing situations of individuals 

- Shows some real life experience with his work. Shows his theory is grounded in real life 

- Can think deeply and isn't tied to just shallow perspectives. Has a sense of holism to his work. For example, how to win friends and influence people was not holisitic enough because it only included surface levels of conversation habits. While useful, did not include other parts of the topic like meaningful relationships, self-esteem, attachment theory, NVC  

 

Actually good philosophers: 

Scott h young - I like him because he is constantly evolving and deepening his ideas, has a ton of practice, and is very non ideological. His bias is something he is aware of and is developing on in his work. He's grounded in self-awareness, lack of ideology, and good service  

James Clear - Also is aware of complex nuance in his work. A very concise teacher because he is extremely hyper 80/20. really shows he practices his work as well. Understands complexity and gives good advice (though it can be random at times...) 

 

Actually weaker philosophers: 

Mark Manson was included way too many black and white ideas. He'd swing way too far into one direction and disregarded nuance in most cases 

Edited December 17, 2021 by Jacob Morres