Does anyone feel like they have higher emotional intelligence

File: CROC CHOW.jpg (16KB, 468x439px) Image search: [Google]

16KB, 468x439px

I believe that's a thing called "Psycopathy" or "Sociopathy." Or, at least a sign of it. Who the fuck am I to judge, right?

>>35350780
Sociopathy is essentially an inability to empathize. This is not what is being discussed. In fact, this might be the complete opposite of sociopathy.

File: He raped that pizza.gif (46KB, 300x242px) Image search: [Google]

46KB, 300x242px

>>35350832
A hallmark of sociopathy is being able to identify other people's feelings, and change your current persona based on that. Also, being able to have tons of superficial charm, and changing personas based on who is around.

>>35350880

The difference is that sociopaths can spot patterns of emotions and mimic socially acceptable behavior but not understand why such behavior is acceptable.

With what is being proposed in OP, we are assuming that people "like us" have a higher attentiveness to other people's emotions. The difference between "us" and sociopaths (assuming none of us actually are sociopaths) is that we have the ability to engineer our personalities to gain trust and do things of our own conscious will, whereas sociopaths have a disorder that disallows them from understanding emotions, and hence a lack of empathy

>>35351031
>The difference is that sociopaths can spot patterns of emotions and mimic socially acceptable behavior but not understand why such behavior is acceptable.
the sociopath IS capable of understanding what goes on in the minds of others and why they feel the way they do but does not care about those feelings other than using them to evaluate what they can gain from the situation. that being said, what was said in the OP does not really sound like a sociopath. i think most people can do this to some extent but others are much better at it. and some choose not to do it at all.

>>35350684
I feel like I understand what you're describing, and I don't know if I'd say that normal people don't have it as much as I'd say they aren't as willing to exercise it?

In my current relationship this has been a point of contention: to my mind, everybody's behavior is based off of positive negative reinforcement. That just seems fucking obvious. If you see someone likes something, or cares about a specific something, anybody wanting to do something nice for that person will think of doing that thing for them. If you see that someone doesn't respond as well to something, you avoid doing that thing around or to them if you want to make them feel positive. That shit changes from person to person but there tends to be a lot of overlap.

So what I don't understand is how taking that extremely simple principle and applying it actively to all interaction is sociopathic. It's already natural human behaviour. You just pay attention to the feedback you're getting from a person and adapt in real time.

It's easy to understand what motivates a person, so who wouldn't you adapt to be able to relate to that person and make things go favourably.

It's clear there are plenty of people who don't do this but I think that's just a sign of stunted social development more than anything else. I think this behaviour is meant to be the norm, and that it can be learned.

>>35350880
>>35351031
>mimic socially acceptable behavior but not understand why such behavior is acceptable
the thing is that "socially acceptable" is such a poorly defined boundary. Taking an extremely reductive example: cursing in public. for the most part, it's generally frowned upon. Clearly, though, there are circumstances where this behaviour isn't a big deal at all, so we get exceptions based on context. Even more exceptions arise based on the tone in which it's spoken. On top of that, even more exceptions seem to arise based off of who is doing the swearing, at whom or what, and why /cont

>>35351147
>I don't know if I'd say that normal people don't have it as much as I'd say they aren't as willing to exercise it?
they do exercise it, as you said.
> I think this behaviour is meant to be the norm

the issue is that it's a very unsatisfying strategy if you want to genuinely connect to a person so it's best not to take it to extremes and completely change who you are. people tend to adapt their behavior when they are around strangers and new friends but ideally, you should be able to pull off the mask as you get to know each other. if you find that you can't do that, then chances are that you're just not very compatible with the other person. if you go too extreme with your personality adjustments, then you will find that the other person never liked you at all, just the person you presented yourself to be.

>>35350684
I have a problem where I'm very easily affected by people's feelings, but I don't always know why they have them or what to do about them.

I have some visceral empathy down but it's useless cause I'm an idiot. It just makes me avoid people lol.

>>35351147
>>35351231

Aside from the sociopathy thing, let's talk about what seems to be new arguments here.

>most people have this ability but are unwilling to exercise it
>it's just normal mutual psychological adaptation. The fact that you think you have it better is some kind of bias and you think you're a special snowflake.

I think that's the other counterpoint at least. I think I can try to tackle these 2 counterpoints at once. Look, I know a lot of discussions on this website go out of hand quickly so I'll try to sound as rational as I can. Let's take a look at Chads. I know EXTREMELY good looking people who can't socialize for shit, to the point where they'll remain turbovirgins forever. I'm not good looking by any means, but I can lead conversations because I can adjust to people's personalities. When it comes to people I just meet or close friends (assuming they're all pretty normie), I can mold myself into something different.

In most cases, I often feel like I am the one doing the morphing. Trust me, I've tried being myself in some cases. It's not pretty because "my real self" is the /r9k/-me. I guess this overlaps with the whole concept of being a normie.

So, my point is that even if it's stunted social development on their end that is the cause of me doing all the morphing, doesn't that essentially just mean that we have higher EQ than they do? If so, why not use it to our advantage. Pick up artists do it all the time. And although they are complete scumbag chads, look at an RSD video or two. The women they showcase are emotionally dumber. The men they lecture are emotionally dumber. There's actually a video on RSD's youtube channel where they try to "get inside" the minds of their students.

Maybe it's scripted bullshit, but you cannot say that you haven't been in NUMEROUS situations where you feel like you have the upper-hand in the social situation, and at any given time you could blow everyone's mind by transforming into someone else.

>>35351147
/cont
This goes for pretty much all behaviour and every social norm. Depending on how you do it, they can all be bent or ignored. Everybody is, for the most part, just "[mimicking] socially acceptable behaviour." Finding out how and when to break those norms is how you endear yourself to people: you can only really connect with someone once you exit social norms with them--and I want to stress that it can be completely platonic, but also applies romantically.

The point at which you're able to take a social interaction outside the boundaries of "social norms" with a person is the point at which they understand that you're engaging with them individually, and the point at which they feel a connection with you that goes above aquaintance/stranger.

When you're a kid, it's as simple as swearing and laughing about it together. With an adult, it could be talking about something that has embarrassed you in the past and getting them to reveal something similar, or what the fuck ever. It doesn't matter what it is really, just that it's not within the confines of socially normative behaviour. This extends to romantic relationships, too: kissing someone you don't really know is not normal behaviour (in anglo culture, I guess I should specify; having a family that is half french half arabic, kissing strangers is actually way more normal in that context).


>>35351231
I think there's a lot to what you're saying re: being able to connect genuinely to a person, but I also believe that this behaviour is an integral part of who you are, and that you will naturally find people with whom you can genuinely connect just as any other person would. It's just that you have the potential to make a lot more friendly acquaintances along the way

>>35350880
what if it isn't superficial though? If a person still has some sense of morals and ability to have empathy, however due to over sensitivity due to being isolated they're prone to over-thinking it?

>>35351358
>It's not pretty because "my real self" is the /r9k/-me
when it comes to "doing the morphing," or being the one who is taking on the most effort to adapt, that makes perfect sense to me: I believe that although this behavior is learned and applicable by more or less anyone, there's unquestionably a huge number of people who either don't engage in the mindfulness or self awareness necessary to apply it, or who understand it but are either too lazy or two stubborn to do so.

With regards to your "real self" however, I think that's a product of your own esteem. I don't think there's such a thing as a real self. There's who you are internally, which is a product of your own thought loops, and there's who you are externally, which is an approximation of who you are made by other people based on your actions and behaviour. For the most part, you're going to be trying to close the gap between the two, but regardless of how you change your outward appearance, the very fact that you're doing so is a product of your internal self and a part of who you are. You're always going to be taking on characteristics you personally find admirable or engaging. That's how the PUA's "fake it til you make it" mantra works.

For all intents and purposes, you ARE your actions. Once you've gotten over the mental hurdle that prevents you from behaving a certain way, you become that person. Functionally there is no difference.

If anything, /r9k/ would be full of people with low emotional intelligence. Shut-ins, NEETs, people who are afraid of talking to others and can't understand simple social situations.

>>35350684
Hubris is dangerous and blinds. Never think you're better than anyone else and you somehow have abilities you haven't earned. Just because you believe you're good at something doesn't mean you are.

I'm the opposite. Made a friend the other day and got literally banned from her house because her family hated me. I can't even get along with my own family. I'm always fighting with other men and getting ignored by girls. I have enough intellect to create a normie facade but it requires absolute concentration. Every time I act without thinking I get in trouble.

>>35351558
>For all intents and purposes, you ARE your actions
yes, to the outside world, but as you said, there is an internal world that exists independently of your actions. if your actions are dictated mainly by external cues and you constantly resist your genuine impulses in order to adapt your personality and ostensible beliefs to the people around you, then the person you present to the world is not the real you. is there a "you" that wants to present itself to the world but can't, because of social expectations? if so, then you are not just your actions. there is a real self. it's just a matter of whether you have the courage to present that to the world or whether you're going to fall in line and conform to expectations because it makes it easier to get what you want.

>>35351720
I mean internally, too

that's what "fake it til you make it" means

let's say you believe yourself to be the kind of person who can't, I don't know, fuck in front of a crowd. Let's assume that was a trait you desired.

then you, for whatever reason, decide you want to appear to be that person who can easily fuck in front of a crowd.

so you give it a shot, blah blah blah, step one: in other people's mind you are a person who can fuck in front of a crowd.

you're still feeling awkward about it internally, but hey no big deal you can pull it off. Keep at it for a while and you learn about the intricacies of in-front-of-crowd-fucking and you can do it pretty damn well. Better than most, even.

But internally it's still not you. At that point, there's only one thing separating your internal self from your external self is your belief that that isn't an authentic part of who you are. That belief is literally the only impediment, and it's predicated entirely on a really weird perception of self. Once that is gone then what's the difference?

the example is completely ludicrous, but you see what I'm trying to say I hope

>>35350684
Some pople were born with this gift,
Fucked with me cause of that i get depressed
Inb4 you realize depression was from not drinking enough water

>>35351570
>>35351558

I just think the honesty you see on this board is one of a kind. You don't get it on Reddit or other forms of anonymous social media. This board specifically encourages people to be frank about their innermost thoughts. If you do otherwise, you're probably not a frequenter here. That's why I think self-awareness is why this phenomenon occurs. By participating, you are learning about the self-awareness of everyone else here. And you could say that you're only learning about 4chan degenerates but I really beg to differ. I think most people, deep down, are more similar than different. This board, although not entirely healthy, trains your self-awareness. I think lucid robots are inherently better at being able to perceive emotional dynamics at play than most people. Or maybe we're not better, but emotional dynamics is something that comes across our minds more frequently than others, I would assume. In that case, shouldn't we use that to our advantage?

>>35351590
See above. My claim is essentially that I wouldn't be as self-aware and empathetic if it wasn't for this website, or at least I think so.

>>35351843
Not sociopath cause i domt enjoy fucking with people but know i can if i try
Learned all of that shit from best friend who turned out to be a sociopath
>not sure if blessing or curse
>not friends anymore once i figured him out

File: Sleep Alone.png (40KB, 733x420px) Image search: [Google]

40KB, 733x420px

>>35351862
I consciously avoid any claim to uniqueness for two reasons
a) outside of the implied call to conservation, no good comes of it
b) spending a lot of time browsing all manner of obscure corners of the internet reveals that these types of conversations do happen elsewhere (even in certain subreddits). It seems to happen most often in smaller communities populated with people who have deep seated issues with self image or self worth who turn to the anonymity of an internet community to be able to vent about shit they don't have the courage to ask about or share in a public forum.

I think the biggest thing that 4chan and the internet have done for me is made me realise that there is no such thing as unique, and by extension I can no longer ever believe that I am alone in thinking or feeling something. It gave me the courage to have these kinds of conversations with real people, and those further supported that discovery. It's honestly really comforting.

File: 50ed10872ff061598ec3a81c153914e6.jpg (77KB, 564x729px) Image search: [Google]

77KB, 564x729px

>>35350684
OP this is one of my interests I like to research about. I can't really answer your questions but know some stuff you could look up:

- Sensory processing sensitivity
- Empathizing systemizing theory
- Imprinted brain: mentalistic cognition vs mechanistic cognition
- Social intelligence

I myself am diagnosed with schizophrenia and suspected to have bipolar disorder (instead). Some research hints to defects in these disorders when it comes to reading body language (eyes).

I personally always felt like I was good at reading people (theory of mind) but it is perfectly possible I have defects. High sensitivity could be something I have.

I would recommend to check out the imprinted brain theory blog as well as Barry Scott Kaufman's blogs at scientificamerican and psychology today (please ignore that psychology today is otherwise crap).

I personally think that stuff like emotional intelligence, social intelligence, mentalizing, empathizing, theory of the mind is highly connected and that we should seek to measure one thing instead. I am not sure where high sensitivity fits into all this.

I wonder where Machiavellian intelligence fits into as well.