First, thanks to NCrissieB for inviting me to host Morning Feature today. Appreciation to elropsych for valuable input in the field of Emotional Intelligence. And kudos to FarWestGirl for winning the "name that diary" contest. Donald Duck eggs, fresh OJ, and tea (not in the bags) for FWG.
We, the public, want our political people to be smart, and not just "book-smart." In this diary, I posit that there are three equally important dimensions of intelligence that we can assess and score in order to monitor, promote, or dismiss politicians and others in the political world. If we can learn to identify factors of Mental Intelligence (MI), Emotional Intelligence (EI), and Social Intelligence (SI), we will begin to speak in a congruent language to affect our own and others' opinions and votes.
I have been contemplating this idea of a Multi-Dimensional Ingelligence Quotient (MDIQ) for a long time. I would like to develop the idea into (possibly) a book or an online instrument somewhat similar in style (but very different in content) to Political Compass. I'm not looking to get rich from this, and would love to hear your contributions toward my efforts. You would be duly credited for your work.
Intelligence is an umbrella term used to describe a property of the mind that encompasses many related abilities, such as the capacities to reason, to plan, to solve problems, to think abstractly, to comprehend ideas, to use language, and to learn.
Note the phrase, "a property of the mind". I suggest here that there are two other primary "properties of the mind", in addition to the one widely-studied property: Mental Intelligence (MI). The two other most important dimensions of the mind are Emotional Intelligence (EI) and Social Intelligence (SI).
We might think (or say) of a local candidate, a school board member, a news pundit: She seems smart, he seems uncomfortable, she's angry, he's rolling his eyes, etc. What if we could assess political figures by using specifically named factors of the three intelligences to speak in a common language? Would Americans vote differently if they were familiar with these factors, this assessment, and the validated scores?
As Crissie and others commented last week, we simply must do a better (more thorough and accurate) job of evaluating people in politics at the ground level. We can use, in conjunction with our own observations and research, this Multi-Dimensional IQ assessment (MDIQ) to evaluate everyone from the local sheriff (ours in OC was just sentenced to 66 months in prison), to the president of the homeowners' association, to the mayor, and beyond. The big vision is that by using this type of assessment we will never again end up with a Rod Blagojevich, a Sarah Palin, a Dick Cheney, or a Joe Scarborough. And we will end up with quality, well-rounded politicians.
(To be clear, the MDIQ assessment is completed by users about the political person we are assessing. It is not a paper and pencil test we would ask candidates and other political people to complete on their own, about themselves.)
Several authors in the educational field have studied and quantified emotional intelligence and social intelligence. If you're interested see the works of Howard Gardner, Thomas Armstrong, John Mayer and Peter Salovey. EI and SI has had lukewarm acceptance within the field of education, because the field has favored highly-standardized instruments like traditional IQ tests. Strict standardization is difficult in the more subjective arenas of EI and SI. EI assessments have become popular in the business field. Salovey, for example, sells a corporate test for EI, but does not link the two other factors. Several business writers have picked up on the idea, and market single-scale EI assessments to businesses. To my knowledge, nobody has attempted to present a linked adult scale for all three types of intelligence, and I'm sure this hasn't been done in the political arena.
Mental Intelligence
Mental Intelligence (MI) is what has been systematically referred to as "IQ", as if IQ were one-dimensional. MI has been the only widely studied and standardized form of intelligence. The first IQ test developed was the Stanford-Binet Intelligence Scales. Later, tests such as the Wechsler Intelligence Scales took precedence. IQ tests correlate closely with other standardized tests such as the ACT. SAT, GRE, GMAT, and LSAT.
MI also correlates tightly with parental MI, and there has been a long-term debate whether MI is a product of genetics or environment. MIQ (Mental Intelligence Quotient, also known as "IQ") tests measure abstract reasoning, comprehension, mental processing, math, and other mental factors. In real life, we can assess a person's MIQ by determining the following factors:
Factors of MI
high/low scores on standardized IQ tests; high/low scores on other standardized tests i.e. SAT, ACT, GRE, GMAT, LSAT; high/low achiever; high/low level of education; reasoning ability/lack of; good/poor decision making; enjoys/dislikes reading; professional or technical career/menial labor or low-skill job; high/low written skills; leadership/lack of leadership; likes/dislikes games ie. Scrabble, crossword puzzles, Sudoku puzzles, chess; high/low computer and/or technical skills; high/low speaking vocabulary; high/low mathematical skills;
intellectually curious/lack of curiosity; believes facts/believes fantasies; visionary/lack of vision; good/poor memory; general knowledge/lack of; decisive/indecisive; uses/does not use humor; possesses/lacks wisdom; strategic/lack of strategy; makes/does not make scientific observations; uses/does not use spelling, grammar and punctuation correctly; good/poor writing skills; cleverness/dullness.
Emotional Intelligence
Emotional Intelligence (EI) is a term that describes the ability, capacity, skill, or self-perceived ability, to identify, assess, and manage the emotions of one's self, of others, and of groups.
EI is the most difficult of the three dimensions to measure, as it involves what and how a person thinks/feels inwardly about himself/herself. EI can often be hidden under the more visible dimension of SI (Social Intelligence.) EI is also the most consistently low score of the three IQ's. The reason is that people with emotional problems often don't seek help, yet unveil their "secret selves" by their actions and words.
Factors of EI
depression/levity; feels shame/pride; emotional fragility/strength; confusion/clarity; integrity(consistency)/hypocrisy; sadness/joy; suspicious/trusting; honesty/tells lies; fanaticism/reality; feels/does not feel empathy for others; motivated/unmotivated; anxiety/calmness; righteous indignation/healthy anger; speaks of self in first person/speaks of self in 2nd or 3rd person; functional/dysfunctional childhood; identifies/ignores own emotional problems; feels/does not feel self-pity; tolerance/intolerance; positivity/negativity; sarcastic/lack of sarcasm; racism and/or prejudice/fair-mindedness; high/low self respect; high/low sympathy; high/low compassion; kindness/mean-spirited; balanced/unbalanced; resolved/unresolved emotional issues; level/moody; high/low acceptance of others; sense of reality/fantasy; good/poor listener; curious/lacks curiosity; remorse/revenge; fearful/brave; makes/does not make eye contact; inward/outward body language; sexual appropriateness/inappropriateness; narcissistic/other-directed; hypochondria/healthy; deluded/sane; realistic/unrealistic body image; temperamental/level; rageful/healthy anger; abuses/heals others; open/closed-minded; honorable/mistrusted; trusting/mistrusting; thinks/does not think in nuances; comfort/discomfort with one's self; learns/does not learn from mistakes; needs/does not need to "win"; black and white/gray thinking; previous trouble/lack of trouble with "the law"; ethical/unethical; needs/does not need instant gratification.
Social Intelligence
There are several definitions of Social Intelligence (SI). Here is one definition I linked because of length. SI is strongly correlated with EI, and several factors overlap. In short, SI is the intelligence used when interacting with others, while EQ is the intelligence used in interacting with one's self.
Factors of SI
extroversion/introversion; speaks clearly/mumbles; has/does not have strong friendships; tells/does not tell lies; alertness/dullness; enthusiastic/unenthusiastic; charismatic/repels others; kindness/mean-spirited; motivated/unmotivated; outgoing/shy; over/under-achiever; makes good/poor eye-contact; open/closed body language; speaks fanatically/realistically; consistent/inconsistent in words; admits/doesn't admit mistakes; consistent/inappropriate facial expressions; loud/appropriate voice level; gracious/lack of graciousness; praises/insults; gregarious/inhibited; high/low rapport; sense of humor/doesn't "get it"; whining/confident tone of voice; vindictive/fair; high/low sarcasm; coerces/persuades others; narcissistic/other-directed; expresses rage/healthy anger; cool-headed/panics in crisis; respectful/condescending; power-hungry/inclusive; builds/destroys consensus; nuanced/black and white language; generous/stingy; speaks globally/selfishly; high/low discernment; expresses reality/fantasy; courageous/fearful; good/poor listener; appropriate/inappropriate sexual expression; does/does not cooperate; interrupts/patient in listening; relationship-oriented/ loner; moralistic/moral openness.
Scoring the Factors
The traditional IQ test, such as the Wechsler, is scored on a bell curve, where the "average" IQ is 100. For purposes of MDIQ scoring, I have used a 10 point scale for each of the intelligences (MI, EI, And SI.) Thus, an "average" MI score would be 5.0, and the same for EI and SI. So, after assessing the factors, your scores for a particular political figure might be, e.g. MI 6.3, EI 3.2, SI 7.4. There is no averaging of the three scores, as they are (importantly) unique. (I would like to put the scores on a graph or other visual linear, for clarity. Ideas?)
Examples of MDIQ Assessment
Most known political figures have scores above 5 in all three areas. With notable exceptions, low MDIQ political people have been weeded out (perhaps unconsciously by using some of these factors) by the time they would get "known." I may do a diary in the future with lots of examples of assessing the MDIQ's of political figures. For now, I will do an assessment of Sarah Palin, and (briefly) three others.
Sarah Palin
MI factors: Oh dear. Have y'all seen the graphic depicting Sarah Palin's Wechsler IQ score of 83? This image has been debunked as "good pixeldom". (If it's not real, somebody GOOD did that graph, as it is identical to some WAIS score sheets I have on hand.) However, I've administered hundreds of WISC's and WAIS's and I used to "guesstimate" the scores before I received them. I was almost always within a few points. I would estimate her real IQ score to be below average, about 94, which translates to a 4.7 for our purposes. In addition, her spotty school record, her "word salad" language skills, her militant lack of intellectual curiosity, her very low general knowledge, and her belief in fantasy v. reality further lower her MIQ. I assess Palin's MIQ at 3.3.
EI factors: As I said, EI is hardest to assess. We can't know the level of dysfunction in her family of origin, but we do know her current family is pretty wacko. She also thinks in black and white, displays prejudice, has low integrity, very low honesty level, is narcissistic and deluded, needs to "win", is unethical, and does not learn from her mistakes. When talking about herself, she speaks in the second and third person, which is a serious problem of emotional dysfunction. Her apparent self-confidence, appropriate body language, and good eye contact raise her EIQ somewhat. Overall, I assess Palin's EIQ at 2.0
SI factors: On the downside, Palin is mean-spirited, speaks fanatically, insults others, doesn't "get" humor, is vindictive, uses sarcasm (can we ever forget the "community organizer" sneering,) and destroys rather than builds consensus. On the plus side, she is charismatic to her "base." She has good body language and eye contact. She persuades, and is alert (except for the turkey incident.) She is extroverted, motivated, and enthusiastic. Therefore, I assess Palin's SIQ at 4.2.
Palin's MDIQ, by my assessment, is: MIQ 3.3, EIQ 2.0, SIQ 4.2
John McCain
McCain's MIQ is documented at 133. That alone puts him at a 9.2 on our MIQ scale. But, other factors lower his MI, such as poor decision making, lack of technical skills (even though I guess he now Twitters), lack of future vision, and somewhat poor memory. On the plus, he displays humor and has leadership skills. I assess McCain's MI at 8.4.
McCain's EIQ is quite low. His poor temperament, the suffering (torture) in his life, his marital problems, poor body language, unrestrained anger, ignorance of his own emotional problems, and needing to "win" are problems for him. Conversely, his (somewhat) fair-mindedness and strong friendships (at least with Joe and Lindsay) raise him a bit. I assess McCain's EI at 3.1.
McCain's SIQ is above average. He obviously had to build consensus, be persuasive, and show graciousness (as he did when conceding) in order to rise to the level of presidential candidate. He expresses a sense of humor and a sense of reality (at least until the campaign.) But, his mumbling, lack of alertness, inappropriate anger, inconsistent facial expressions, and insulting remarks bring him down. I assess McCain's SIQ at 6.6. John McCain's MDIQ: MIQ 8.4, EIQ 3.1, SIQ 6.6.
Joe Biden
I'll shorten this, as the diary is getting loooooong. Biden' MIQ is about 8.8 because of his level of education from good schools, leadership, good written and speaking skills (despite a few gaffes here and there.) Standardized IQ is unknown. EIQ is healthy, but lowered by personal tragedy. EIQ 6.4. Very high SIQ because he builds consensus, is persuasive, has many friends, is very outgoing, and is confident and gracious. The King of SIQ (with just a teeny bit of lowering because of the gaffes) - 9.5 Joe Biden MDIQ: MIQ 8.8, EIQ 6.4, SIQ 9.5.
Barack Obama
Very high MIQ. High tier schools, published works, leadership, and visionary. Would be a perfect 10 if he didn't pronounce it MassaTUchetts. No known IQ score, but reportedly scored a 178 on his LSAT, which is extremely high. MIQ 9.8. High EIQ. Excellent temperament, knows himself well, has strong bonds to friends and family, good listener, good body language and eye contact. Some personal tragedies probably still unresolved. EIQ 8.0. Very high SIQ, but not as effervescent as Biden. Inclusive, nuanced, honest, confident, and fair with integrity, and a sense of humor. A teeny bit shy. SIQ 9.0.
Barack Obama MDIQ: MIQ 9.8, EIQ 8.0, SIQ 9.0. Now THAT'S a leader!
It's important to assess our own MDIQ before assessing others'.
The primary criticism of assessing emotional and social intelligence is that it is "judgmental." Well, it is. But we make judgments about people every day. We judge the neighbor, the guy that cut us off on the highway, the grocery store clerk, etc. We judge political figures constantly. This MDIQ assessment is just a way of clarifying our judgments into a sort of common language and rating system. We all see things from our own personal "lens" and we project that view onto others. By honestly assessing your own MDIQ, you will learn which factors are most important to you, and you will naturally project your most important factors onto the political figures. This will help with the internal validity (below.)
Standardization of the MDIQ Assessment
Another criticism of assessing emotional and social intelligence is that no research for any scales of assessment has been standardized. (Neither has the Political Compass.) Although not really needed for popular use, I would like to work to make this MDIQ assessment statistically valid and reliable. Validity can be proven when a substantial number (over 100) of assessors correlate factors within a range of +3/-3 (or so) points. Reliability takes longer, as we would need to see if the political people we assess (with validity) "reliably" act out the factors we predicted. Those who have already acted consistently with our factors, would yield instant reliability.
What Qualifies Me To Posit This Theory?
I've been involved in the field of testing/assessment my whole adult life. During my undergrad work at University of Iowa, I worked as a research assistant for ACT. I then worked in a large suburban school district for several years as a diagnostician, administering and interpreting IQ and other tests for individual students for determination of placement in special education. My thesis subject for my master's degree in psychology was on factoring age and experience into IQ testing. I also worked as a counselor at a community college, and in that role, tested the abilities and preferences of adult students returning to or entering the workplace. I developed a multi-dimensional self-assessment for career preference which is still widely used by many colleges and universities, and by large companies. I also worked for a large city government, writing and standardizing civil service tests. In addition, I administered and interpreted the MMPI (Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory) to airline pilots at a large airline company. In my fourteen years of practicing as an attorney, I've used my own assessments in client evaluation.
How To Move This MDIQ Assessment Forward?
Well, first of all, it needs a catchy name. Ideas? To put it into use, I envision a computerized instrument where a user would choose a name, from a list of political people. (Or, if the user's political person is not on the list, he/she could add a name to the list.) The user would then click on appropriate factors chosen from the three lists (MI, EI, and SI). This would yield the three scores: MIQ, EIQ, and SIQ to produce the MDIQ for the user's chosen political person. (Users could then repeat the process to assess another political figure.) Then, scores would be calculated and a "results grid" would be produced. Correlation of reliability and validity would accumulate as more assessments were done.
Thanks for reading, and I look forward to your input in the comments. (Feel free to try your hand at assessing a politician, if you like.)
Love,
kktlaw