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.

    个人要成功，“情商”起作用

    人们发现，通过观察一个四岁孩子怎样处理一块糖，科学家可以预测其未来。 研究人员将孩子们一个一个地请进一间普普通通的房间，开始了小小的折磨。 他对孩子说，你们可以现在就吃这块糖， 但是如果你们等一会儿，等我从外面回来，你们就可以吃两块糖。 说完他就走了。
    一些孩子当研究人员一走就一把抓过糖来吃。 另一些孩子等候了几分钟，但还是忍不住吃了糖。 还有一些孩子下决心等下去。 他们或蒙上眼睛，或低头不看，或自己唱歌，或玩游戏，甚至还睡着了。 研究人员回来之后，把这些孩子经过努力赢得的糖果给了他们。 然后等着他们长大，再来看看科学的结论。
    到这些孩子上高中时，引人注目的事发生了。 对这些孩子的家长和教师所作的调查发现，那些四岁就能克制自己，坚持等到第二块糖的孩子，长大后通常有较强的适应力，更合群，富有进取心、自信心，也更可靠。 那些经不住诱惑的孩子更容易变得孤独，容易受挫，缺乏灵活性。 他们受不了压力，逃避挑战。
    我们说到出众的才华，就会想到爱因斯坦，那个有生命的，穿着不配对袜子的思考机器。 在我们想像中，取得卓越成就的人一出生就注定会不平凡。 可是你也会问为什么随着时间的推移，天才在一些人身上显露出来，而在另一些人身上却暗淡下去。 这就是糖块实验要说明的问题了。 看来似乎能耐心等待收益的能力是最重要的技巧。这里，逻辑性强的思考战胜了不负责任的思考。 简言之，这是情感智能的体现，而这是在智力测试里表现不出来的。
    在本世纪大部分时间，科学家们一直重视大脑这个具体之物和理智这个无形之物，而情感这一纷乱的力量却留给了诗人去谈论。 但大脑研究理论就是无法解释我们最想弄清的问题： 为什么有些人似乎就是有过上好日子的才能； 为什么班里最聪明的孩子很可能最终并不是最富有的； 为什么我们对有些人几乎一眼就喜欢上了，而对另一些人则信不过； 为什么有些人面对困难仍能保持乐观，而另一些人则坚持不住，沉沦下去。 一句话，心智或精神的何种素质决定了人的成功？
    "情感智能"一词是研究人员五年前创造出来的，用以描绘人的一些素质，诸如对自身感觉的了解，对他人感觉的同情，以及"调节情感以更好地生活"的能力。 由于丹尼尔·戈尔曼的新书《情感智能》，这一概念很快会成为国内谈论的话题，为方便起见简称为"情商"。 戈尔曼将他花了10年的工夫，研究头脑怎样处理感情的结果汇聚成书。 在书的封面上，他说他的目标就是要重新定义聪明到底是什么。 这是他的理论：要预测人的成功，智商所衡量的大脑能力实际上远不如曾被看作"性格"的心智的素质重要。
    乍一看来，此说并无新意。 它与感情掌管头脑的说法一样并无创见。 人们常说"我气得无法思考"。 "与人交往的技巧"非常有用，此说也不令人吃惊，这就等于说与人为善是对的。 但如果事情就那么简单，这本书就不会引起那么大的关注，它的含义也不会引起那么大的争论了。
    这决不是抽象的调查。 戈尔曼在寻找方法恢复"大街上的彬彬有礼，社区生活中的互相关心"。 他认为这处处都用得上，如公司该如何决定聘用什么人，夫妇该如何提高婚姻延续的可能性，父母该如何培养孩子，学校该如何教育孩子。 当街头团伙取代了家庭环境，当校园辱骂导致了械斗， 当半数以上的婚姻以离婚收场， 当这个国家里死去的孩子大多死于父母之手，而这样的父母大都说他们是想规范孩子的行为，要他们不要挡着电视，不要大哭不休，当发生了这些现象，这就意味着需要进行基本的情感教育。
    正是在这个问题上人们产生了争论。 尽管在这一较新的领域里很多研究人员对情感问题终于得到认真对待感到高兴，但他们也担心像情商这样一个方便的概念会被误用。 "人们的情感是多种多样的，" 哈佛大学心理学教授杰罗姆·凯根说， "有些人能很好地处理愤怒，但却对付不了恐惧。 有些人无法承受欢乐。 因此每一种情感都应得到不同的看待。" 情商不是智商的对立。 一些人有幸两者都很高，一些人则两者都很低。 研究人员想要弄清的是两者是如何共同起作用的；举例说，一个人应付压力的能力是如何影响他集中精力，运用智力的能力的。 在成功的诸要素中，研究人员现在普遍认为智商约起20%的作用，其余部分则取决于从社会地位到运气等各种因素。