Aug 31, 2016

I received this question about our Emotional Intelligence (EI) Course from one of our Learning Solutions Advisors recently. I thought it was so good, I wrote a juicy answer and would like to share it with you because you may be considering the same issues.

(*B.S. = Based in Science)

"Hi Tim,

Could you please help with a question a customer has about the EI course. It’s for a Dedicated event for [name of organisation withheld].

“The guy [that’s me talking on a video about the course on our website] talks about right/left brains. This is exactly the kind of pop-psychology that is not backed up by science and that was questioned in the course a few years ago. The good course we did stuck to evidence backed up by proper studies and neuroscience. Maybe you can ask them how this pop-psychology snuck into their video.

“The page does have a more detailed description of the course, which looks ok. If they are able to do a scientifically backed course.”

Sure Dave.

Firstly, when I have given reference to the left brain in the video, it is a verbatim quote from an HR director.

Secondly, left and right brain functioning is not complete “pop psychology” it is based on work from the 1950s of Dr Roger Sperry, for which he won a Nobel Prize for 1981. However, I do agree, that like all works that seem to make their way into training, it has been bastardised. Its virtue is that it is a simple way to illustrate that people have preferences in thinking.

What the questioner is referring to is subsequent MRI evidence that shows that thinking preference is not neatly ascribed to a side of the brain, in fact it is different for everyone; no two brains will fire the same way. What we can see is that in all brains there are neural pathways that fire on a regular basis and become a pattern in people’s brains and those patterns often happen in clusters, that is, that people that are good at a particular attribute, let’s say maths, have a high likelihood of having other similar characteristics that go along with that, like analytical thinking. What it does not mean is that they cannot develop other non-aligned capabilities.

Further research into brain plasticity from stroke recovery is showing that the hard-wiring is possible to be re-wired. However, if you are a stroke victim with a lot to live for and many great relationships you will have a strong inclination to go through the changes necessary to make this happen. If you are a stroke victim who is lonely and not really enjoying life, you may not have the drive to re-wire.

So this leads us to my third point, which is that Emotional Intelligence is “Pop-psychology”. It is just a concept. It has been arrived at from many different pathways and there are three main versions of it. There is argument as to whether it is an intelligence at all or simply a set of skills. Testing can be skewed heavily by cultural influences and this is a reason why we do not test because its validity is in question. It can also be counter-productive because a person who scores poorly may say, "I’m no good at that so I will stick to what I am good at", rather than being spurred on to make changes.

So why do we teach it?

What is known is that people who are technically adept in whatever they are schooled in, need different skills to get on with others in the world, especially if they are to lead or influence others. These skills may not fit well with their existing skill set or current brain wiring and may feel uncomfortable for them to change. In the end it comes back to their belief in themselves to change and the motivation to do so.

So, to come back to the questioner’s issue, what is the science that is used to back this up?

The answer to this is, not a lot. The evolution of the body of work that is Emotional Intelligence is discussed, we talk about left and right brain in reference to the Hermann Brain Dominance Instrument, which we use to show that people have ‘clusters’ in thinking preferences. The science stuff on re-wiring is briefly covered as a way of demonstrating that it is possible to change. What is most important in the course is skill development to change current behaviour. So the course needs to be: relevant to the participant (for them to be motivated to learn), stimulating (for them to stay the journey), accessible and immediately attainable (for them to believe it’s possible) and applicable (for them to continue to use the tools and make behavioural change).

I am unsure of the user group so I cannot tell if it ticks these boxes or not but it is designed to be so for those who need to build better people skills and manage their own emotional reactions. I will say of the last point in the previous paragraph, if whatever is being learned in a classroom is not in line with the person’s strong suits (for example, their technical skill), the new skill sets need to be nurtured on the other side of the training via good management of and development goals for the participant.

Hope this helps.

For more information, take a look at New Horizons' Emotional Intelligence course.

Cheers Tim