Who high /EQ/ here. I only have a slight above average intelligence (~120 IQ), but I have a high emotional awareness, meaning that I can easily connect with others, influence others, and generally have good relationships.
I've taken a couple EQ tests before and always got great scores
I'm a diagnosed schizoid
I think this 'EQ' concept might not be meaningful psychology
I agree in many respects, modern DSM based psychology is heavily flawed
which mental illness is valid to you?
I've probably been pinned with it by a shrink before.
>which mental illness is valid to you?
Until people come up with exams for proving whether or not you have something, everything might as well be a social construct
I think the classic mental disorders will probably all survive advancements in medicine (depression, bipolar, schizophrenia, OCD), while probably all personality disorders won't
Forgot to add: the concept of personality disorders can still be useful, if you fit a given one you can find people out there with the same problems by simply searching the designated name, and that give you some insight into your personal problems
of course it's a social construct, that doesn't mean it's invalid
We create these categories (including what you referred to as 'classic mental disorders') in order to generalize undesirable traits into treatable little categories, such that we can more evenly align individuals with the ethics of our society. These traits are very real, and have direct chemical and physiological patholgies, that doesn't mean that they're necessarily maladaptive, just incompatible with our system of ethics. as such, as long as there is a fundamental collective nature to our ethics (good luck getting rid of that), there will be such a thing as a 'personality disorder', even if it goes by another name
My girlfriend unintentionally wants to destroy her life and herself.
>puts dishes away in different places every time
>puts stuff in fridge different every time
>only clean when absolutely necessary
>'cleaning' is putting everything in a cabinet
>everything, like dishes with food on them, milk containers, clothes, papers, mctrash, batteries, pens, cat food, jewelry
she has been putting the toilet paper on backwards. It's like she wants me to leave
>muh socially constructed world is forcin snowflakes to behave like ethical sheeple
If somebody can breathe oxygen just fine, then there's no disorder. But if they have mutated freak gills and can only breathe underwater, then their gills would be considered a disorder by virtue of both the circumstance/function and the society in which they live.
I think your criticism of mental health as being "socially constructed" is a little disingenuous. EVERYTHING is socially constructed (in the sense that we have collaborated socially to create a greater sense of meaning from sharing our collective experiences). For something to not be socially-constructed would mean that someone would have to behold their world in complete isolation from others.
But I don't think that mental health diagnoses are designed to push people into aligning with the ethical standard of our communities. I think the relationship of mental health and ethics is very complicated. There are plenty of unethical people who are not mentally disordered, there are plenty of mentally disordered people who are unethical. And there are mentally disordered people who do unethical things but aren't held ethically accountable for their behavior because of their mental disorders.
take eq test for psychology class
score lowest in class
score in bottom 1 percentile
everyone thinks im an autist now
> EVERYTHING is socially constructed (in the sense that we have collaborated socially to create a greater sense of meaning from sharing our collective experiences).
I completely agree with that, that's part of what I was arguing
>But I don't think that mental health diagnoses are designed to push people into aligning with the ethical standard of our communities
I don't agree with this
if we have come to the conclusion that all traits are defined in terms of the overarching social structure, than there is some underlying ethics to personality traits.
All individuals will go against their ethical system in some way or another in their lifetime, this could be interpreted as a mental illness if we were so inclined, however, it would be fairly pointless. So instead of looking at isolated discrepancies in behavior among otherwise ethical individuals we look for general and consistent sets of traits within individuals that are counter to the ethical system and we define those traits as disorders. The problem with this is, where does one draw the line on consistent vs inconsistent patterns of behavior, it's a fundamentally tedious task to do so and leads to overmedicalization.
take the case of 'avoidant personality disorder'
in brief, it's associated with over sensitivity and social withdrawal
over sensitivity and social withdrawal can both be seen as unethical traits, as they are counter to the ideal citizen who is able to take criticism and does not shy away from social situations, as these are generally useful traits in a society.
'avoidant' traits are directly linked to a certain gene polymorphism, which leads to a consistent expression of these traits
So an innate tendency of an individual is at odds with the ideal of a society, meaning he is in some way dysfunctional.
This construction is in no way a 'bad', 'unnatural' or even new phenomena, it's an effective way to keep order in a society.
>thinks it's only "slightly" above average
You really underestimate how stupid people are.
idk what my iq is exactly but i know its above 130 because that was the requirement to get into "gifted" in school
i feel like i would do well on an eq test because i think i can empathize with others emotions very well i just dont give a shit about them