Australia’s Largest Christian News Site

Are “emotional intelligence” and “IQ” as solid as they sound? A biblical critique argues both concepts rest on shaky, often God-excluding foundations — and points instead toward growing up into Christ.

The Main Point

This term is used with too much uncritical adoption. The concept of “emotion” is confused, at best, and for Christians, heretical at worst. “Intelligence” is almost as confused as “emotions” – and certainly is not a good partner for matters of the soul.

What is Emotion?

The term “emotion” is a bit like the word “love”. It can mean many different things to different people. For some people, ‘emotion’ can mean anything that they feel physically. For others, it is focussed on what is happening physically and in their soul. As Thomas Dixon has noted, one of the problems in our current use of the term is that we try to include too many meanings under this one concept. In his words:

So, the over-inclusivity of ‘emotion’ has made it impossible for there to be any consensus about what an emotion is. … [and] has also made the concept less helpful than it might be in explanatory contexts. ^[i]

But what Dixon has explained is historically how we came to use this term, and why. Basically, before the turn of the century, from the 1800s to the 1900s, we moved from the Biblical language of desires, passions and affections of the soul to the concept of emotions. Why?

The reason is an age-old one – people wanted to deal with a part of humanity without reference to the Creator God. That is, prior to the current idea of ‘emotions’, people spoke of distress of the soul, the struggle with their desires, and the commitment of affections either towards the Creator’s good order, or not. It was a matter of the heart, mind and will, within God’s grace, or against it.

So why did people say the new term was better? They reduced the understanding of who we are as people to our physical selves. Thus, what we might say with reference to something we experience through our five senses – “my knee hurts = I feel pain” became expanded to include all aspects of our thinking. But this meant that if our emotions are the same as our physical responses to physical messages through our five senses, then it is happening to us. This means we cannot be responsible for our emotions, because they are simply responses to what is being done physiologically to us.

Before this way of thinking became popular, we were held responsible for what we did with our desire and passions, because they reflected, as Jesus taught, the overflow of who we are before God – or, in His description, our words and actions represent the overflow of the heart. Expressions of the state of the soul are expressions of who we are, not what is simply happening to us.

So What?

But here is the point – such an understanding of who we are as embodied souls insists that we acknowledge that we are spiritual as well as physical, in a wondrous way, we cannot pull apart with our limited reasoning. If we reject that there are spiritual aspects of our reality and hold that there are only physical aspects of our reality, then the state of our spiritual life becomes reduced to feelings – physical responses to physical stimuli.

Then we wonder why we increasingly see young people (and adults) who will not take responsibility for their actions. Under the physicalist way of thinking about emotions, why should they? They can claim that they were not in control – they were, instead, simply following their feelings, which were aroused by other people and circumstances.

For example, too many young teachers are told that they cannot give disciplinary consequences to young children, because they are just responding to the circumstances around them. Instead, these young teachers (and I have met these young graduates from leading Sydney universities) are told, “Distract them and use better language.” The young students then learn that they do not have to grow in self-control, or patience, or in thinking about others’ needs as well as their own.

We can only seek such virtue if we have the capacity to self-reflect, seek help, let go of the basic desires and passions that are self-serving, and in grace, put on a ‘different self’ as the apostle Paul wrote. ^[ii] Such life journeys are only possible if we admit that we are embodied souls. Those who reject such an understanding of who we are, reduce us to animals, to be released to simply follow our instincts. And we know that leads to the law of the jungle.

And What About Intelligence?

There is a similar confusion in understanding with the concept of “intelligence”. General intelligence, or g, can be likened (a bit simplistically) to the brain’s processing speed. Or more technically, when Warne quotes Goffredson,

Intelligence is a very general mental capability that, among other things, involves the ability to reason, plan, solve problems, think abstractly, comprehend complex ideas, learn quickly and learn from experience … it reflects a broader and deeper capability for comprehending our surroundings – “catching on”, “making sense” of things, or “figuring out” what to do. ^[iii]

It is why similar but different IQ tests can give about the same results – because it is not the knowledge per se that is being measured, but the ‘processing speed’. I am waiting for someone to rename intelligence as “Human AI capacity”.

In addressing the common myths about g in his book, Warne clarifies the nature of this human capacity. That is, in discussing the relationship between the general intelligence measure – g – with other cognitive abilities, he settles on two frameworks and prefers one – the Cattel-Horn-Carroll model (CHC). In this model, Stratum I consists of very narrow, specific abilities (e.g. vocabulary knowledge, memory for digit span…). Stratum II consists of broad abilities that are applicable in many situations (e.g. verbal ability, spatial reasoning, processing speed). At the top of the hierarchy is Stratum III, which consists only of general intelligence. (g – p. 10) In this model, the general capacity ‘g’ feeds down to the other two strata.

For your interest, this is how Warne uses such a framework to explain something like male and female similarities and differences in g:

… in broad non-g abilities – like spatial ability, verbal reasoning, and mathematical reasoning – mean differences do exist. Females tend to score higher (on average) on verbal abilities, while males have higher average performance on spatial ability and mathematical reasoning. Across these abilities, though, the differences average out to produce equal means on overall IQ. … That [the overlap among both groups] is why it is so important to judge people as individuals according to their individual accomplishments – and not on the basis of their sex. (p. 246)

What does Warne make of emotional intelligence? Firstly, his comments about ‘learning styles’ are relevant, because such thinking was the precursor to emotional intelligence constructs. Warne is very critical of the initial theories suggested by Gardner:

Despite the popularity of Gardner’s theory, it is not a viable theory of human cognitive abilities because of two major types of problems. (p. 52 – empirical and theoretical problems) … it is incoherent, untestable, and unable to generate predictions. Moreover, empirical evidence is overwhelming that different cognitive abilities are not independent of one another and that a general mental ability – g – exists. (p.60) … Therefore, in situations where it could impact other people’s lives – like in education and in scientific research – it should be completely abandoned. (p. 61)

Does this kind of critique, therefore, apply to emotional intelligence? I have already suggested that the first part of the concept is confused. Warne adopts a physicalist basis for his understanding of ‘emotions’ (the newer reductionist understanding), and within this meaning, he properly notes that they are automatic. They do not rely on g, because emotions in this understanding are an instinctual response based on our senses, which involve g per se. Warne then adds this:

… the research does not yet support the strong assertions that emotional intelligence is a real psychological trait or that it has major real-world implications. … If emotional intelligence is not real or important for life outcomes, then these interventions are at best ineffective distractions. (p. 233)

What are Alternatives?

What then are we to do? To Warne’s credit, he does describe that g is not everything, even though it is a general ability. Focus, commitment, virtue, and determination are powerful attributes that contribute to the shape and pattern of our lives.

Biblically, I suggest the focus is clearer and more real. We are called to “grow up into Christ”. ^[iv] The apostle Paul describes this in a number of ways, but the core question that he poses is, “Are we becoming more mature, or not?” I have regularly heard people say, “Oh, he needs more emotional intelligence”, as if it is a lack of capacity.

No, what we are observing at such times is a state of the heart – a state that is hardened towards others, or immature in how to live in faith, expressing itself in love.^[v] We cannot be wise outside of God, and that includes growing in the relational patterns that the Bible calls ‘fruit of the Spirit’. ^[vi]

Reality, as revealed to us in Scripture, is that, despite our miserableness, we are not to look for self-salvation through the ‘cunning and deceitfulness’ of yet another self-help program like improving emotional intelligence, which is both an exhausting and impossible task.

But instead, we can accept the pathway offered to us through Jesus the Christ. In Him we can be saved by grace through faith to do good while trusting in the Lord. ^[vii] Only then, as the Bible warns us continually, can we discern what is wise, and what is “superstition”, as Augustine expressed it. ^[viii]

Or, as JI Packer noted^[ix], almost paraphrasing the end of 1 John^[x], let’s seek the Lord and do our homework.

___

PS: I read this excellent explanation of the natural wonder of family today, and commend it to you: Money and Motherhood – by Them Before Us and Josh Wood.

^[i] From Passion to Emotions, Cambridge University Press, 2006, p. 246

^[ii] Ephesians 4:2-24

^[iii] Warne, R.T. In the Know: Debunking 35 Myths about Human Intelligence. Cambridge University Press, 2020, p. 2

^[iv] Ephesians 4:1-16

^[v] Galatians 5:6

^[vi] Galatians 5:22-26

^[vii] Ephesians 2:8-10; Psalm 37:3

^[viii] Augustine, On Christian Teaching, Oxford Uni Press, 2008, p. 47

^[ix] Packer, Knowing Man, Cornerstone Books, 1979, p. 99

^[x] 1 John 5:21

___

Republished with thanks to Stephen Fyson. Image courtesy of Adobe.