e discovering that it is defining success too narrowly to just look at a child’s IQ rather than looking at a child as a human being. Some psychologists believe there is danger in this whole new philosophy of education. They oppose training conformity to social expectations and are worried that children will be taught that there is a “right” emotional response for any given situation—laugh at parades, cry at funerals, sit still in church. A professor at Harvard Medical School says, “You can teach that it’s better to talk out your anger and not use violence. But is it good emotional intelligence not to challenge authority?” Perhaps, however, the problem is only that there is an ingredient missing. Goleman is focusing more on neutral emotional skills than on the values that should govern their use. Emotional skills, like intellectual ones, are morally neutral. Just as a genius could use his intellect either to cure cancer or develop a deadly virus, someone with great empathy skills could use his insight to inspire colleagues or take advantage of them. The psychologist who invented the marshmallow test remarks that the knack for delaying gratification that makes a child one marshmallow richer can help him become a better citizen or—just as easily-an even more brilliant criminal. Goleman is not advocating how to use EQ. He is only suggesting that there is more of value in a human being than his IQ, that there are more determining factors to a person’s success than his IQ, that perhaps we need to develop EQ skills just as we develop academic skills. More than likely, most people could think of someone who is highly gifted intellectually yet seems to have a tough time with the daily routines of life and with relationships. Or, perhaps a person comes to mind that never seemed to be bright academically yet is highly successful by the world’s standards. The Oval Office gives ...
