Science fiction and emotional intelligence

[matt-browne-sfw]

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]

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]

Leto and Paul Atreides from Dune come to mind.

[Steve Jordan]

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]

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]

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

[white_wanderer]

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]

Daniel Jackson - Stargate

[j. d. worthington]

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"....

[Manarion]

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]

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]

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

[matt-browne-sfw]

Originally Posted by Steve Jordan

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]

Originally Posted by matt-browne-sfw

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]

Originally Posted by Steve Jordan

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.