The term “Emotional Intelligence” was invented by feminists in response to IQ data showing slightly higher average intelligence in men, with the motivation of arguing that women are better than men in “another thing”. However, there is no psychological test for the invented concept of “Emotional Intelligence”, and not a shred of evidence of its existence separately from IQ.
The fact of the matter is that high IQ, enables abstract thinking, which enables simulation of virtual viewpoints, which includes simulation of the viewpoint of another person who is not you, which enables understanding of another person. That is, the same cognitive faculties required for mathematics, are required for empathy: the faculties of abstraction. The high IQ of exceptional men and women is the same faculty that allows them to be better in mathematical thinking and in understanding others.
Since there are more men on the tips of the IQ distribution, there are more men than women with exceptional empathy capabilities, and men generally score higher than women in standardized empathy tests such as those used to screen candidates for medical schools (indeed, feminist shaming tactics in academia have caused investigators to measure empathy in adults with tests meant for measuring Theory of Mind in 3-years-old toddlers, tools incapable of capturing any aspect of adult-level empathy, and these tests were applied in numerous pseudo-studies to “conclude” the predetermined result feminists demanded – that women “have more empathy than men”; yet in tests for assessing future physicians and managerial personnel, that do capture this complexity, men perform better than women). The last few years have demonstrated again these facts, when tens of millions of women and girls showed little to no ability to understand how life looks like from another point of view – that of the male 50% of society who live surrounded daily by mass generalized hate towards them including institutionally and in the mainstream (and finding nowhere the normal legal and cultural response that society states relentlessly it is committed to employing against any group-hating, leading men and boys to the conclusion that they are not considered human, that a political movement has convinced society to institutionally dehumanize them).
So, to recap: There is no such thing as “emotional intelligence”. What this term allegedly represents is some hypothesized faculty parallel to IQ that would generate human empathy, however, human empathy is not a separate type of IQ but one of the consequences of ordinary IQ. The actual substance-matter feminists referred to by their neologism of “emotional intelligence”, is in fact exaggerated emotional reactions related to self (and not to the understanding of others). That is, they pointed to egocentrism and hysteria and tried to call it “another type of intelligence”, because they couldn’t face the results of IQ tests showing slightly lower results for women. Because of their supremacist agenda, feminists then tried to depict men as “lower on the invented new scale”, while treating a scale forged from hysteria-behaviors and egocentrism-patterns as “empathy and understanding the other”. Yet, as said, that capacity – empathy and understanding the other – is a mechanical neuro-cognitive consequence of regular IQ, and similarly to spatial perception (and for the same reason – abstraction), is higher in men, not lower.
Women are the ones who are, on average, somewhat less empathic, due to this faculty’s dependence on an underlying abstraction capacity, which is required for emulating an alternative, hypothetical point of view outside your own ego, drives, pleasures, needs, self-image, and personal point of view (this is also why women are and have always been a small minority amongst the best novelists and the best psychologists, despite feminism’s success in flooding those too fields with women by DEI and illegitimate and illegal discrimination against the more talented person for being male, until making both domains 80% or more female and denying humanity of much needed talent in these areas, both requiring the highest human understanding of the other).
Women’s association with empathy is a result of a confounding effect. Generally speaking, women receive a sense of self-worth from caring for others, which is an extension of their biological instinct to provide caring for babies (this is not “a stereotype” but a fundamental innate prerequisite of human existence), and do this regardless of whether they acquire the perspective of the other person or not. This has created the illusion that women are very empathic, while in fact, these behaviors are done out of egocentric drives of self-perception and self-worth. Which is fine, but not evidence of empathy (abstraction, viewing the world from an angle outside your own life). On the flip side, within the very small minority of individuals showing autistic patterns (found in 2-3% of the population in total), men are a large majority of 80% (that is, 80% of 2-3%; meaning around 1.5-2.5% of men, a very small proportion of all men), and such patterns are for unknown reasons also a little more prevalent among individuals with exceptional scientific or mathematical talents. Together these two trends in women and in men (a confounding effect in women; an association within a minuscule fraction of men, maybe 0.001%, between high IQ and low social skills), helped feminists create a misconception about sex and empathy, for the purpose of forging a completely new, false stereotype that has no trace in human history: “women are better and men are worse in empathy”, which feminists needed in order to invent some content for a confabulated faculty, “Emotional Intelligence”, fabricated because of self-esteem issues arising when seeing tiny differences in IQ averages between the sexes.
Lovism 