Many modern researchers, while sharing the need to study the problem of emotional intelligence, suggest at the same time to set the task wider and discuss this problem in a broader context. It is about considering emotional intelligence through the prism of common social abilities, as their integral part. Therefore, it is necessary to speak about a phenomenon that can be more accurately called "social intelligence", and emotional intelligence as part of it.
In contrast to emotional intelligence, the study of social intelligence has a long, eventful history and discoveries. According to most experts, the concept of "social intelligence" (social intelligence) was introduced by Edward Thorndike back in the 1920s. He saw the social intelligence as "the ability to understand other people and act or act wisely in relation to others." Later these ideas were refined and developed by many researchers.
At different times, supporters of various psychological schools interpreted the notion of social intelligence in their own way:
- the ability to get along with other people (F. Moss, T. Hunt);
- the ability to deal with others (T. Hunt);
- knowledge of people (R. Strang);
- the ability to easily converge with others, the ability to enter their position, put themselves in the place of another (RE Vernon);
- the ability to critically and correctly assess the feelings, moods and motivations of other people's actions (J. Wedeck).Summarizing these views, the American psychologist David Wexler suggested defining social intelligence as an individual's fitness for human being.
Many psychologists were also actively interested in this phenomenon in the middle of the 20th century. Joy Paul Guildford, who created his famous multi-factor model of intelligence, places special emphasis on social intelligence in it. His multi-factor model of intelligence was designed as an open system, and at the time of creation the author did not yet know all the elements that were included in it. He assumed there were about 120 of them and jokingly remarked that he had found 120 ways to be clever, but then added, "... unfortunately, there are far more ways to be stupid". Now these elements are found more than 180, but the joking statement of J. Guilford that the ways to be stupid even more, continues to remain true.
He predicts that in his model of intelligence there are at least 30 abilities related to social intelligence. Some of them relate to the understanding of behavior, some to productive thinking in the field of behavior and some to its assessment. It is also important that J. Guilford emphasizes that understanding the behavior of other people and himself has a largely non-verbal nature.
The researchers always faced the task of defining the boundaries of social intelligence. Her decision required separating social intelligence from abstract (IQ) or academic. But the work on creating methodological tools for measuring social intelligence did not lead to the desired results. As a rule, these attempts failed. The main reason, apparently, lies in the fact that the main thing in the surveys of social intelligence was his verbal assessment. During diagnostic examinations, the specialists gave priority to cognitive aspects, such as the perception of other people, an understanding of the motives of their behavior, and so on. And all this was revealed only as a result of verbal measurements, and even the evaluation of the behavioral aspects of social intelligence was also carried out using verbal methods (self-report, etc.).
Meanwhile, it is well known that verbal assessment of one's own emotional or social sphere and real behavioral characteristics do not always coincide. Therefore, gradually a growing place in the study of social intelligence began to be occupied by studies based on behavioral, non-verbal methods of evaluating social intelligence. One of the first to combine these two approaches to the consideration and diagnosis of this psychological construct - S. Cosmitsky and OP John (1993), proposing the concept of social intelligence, which includes seven components. These components they completed in two relatively independent groups: "cognitive" and behavioral & quot ;.
The cognitive elements of social intelligence were assigned to them: assessment of perspective, understanding of people, knowledge of special rules, openness in relations to others. To the elements of behavioral - the ability to deal with people, social adaptability, warmth in interpersonal relationships.
Thus, the idea was stressed that social intelligence is an area where cognitive and affective interaction is closely intertwined. As it is easy to see, this model quite fully reflects the essence of the phenomenon and definitely indicates what is to be diagnosed and developed. Using it, you can develop a diagnostic program and formulate the goals of pedagogical work on the development of social intelligence. This model is fully capable of serving as a basis for solving applied problems.
Special attention should be paid to the opposite approach. So, in the work of DV Ushakov, "Social Intelligence as a Kind of Intellect" it is noted, in particular, that the definition of social intelligence should be limited. "Social intelligence, if we understand it as an intellect, is the ability to cognize social phenomena, which is only one of the components of social skills and competence, and does not exhaust them." Only under these conditions does the social intelligence, but DV Ushakov's opinion, become one with other types of intelligence, "... forming together with them the ability for the higher kind of cognitive activity - generalized and mediated". We can agree with this if we set ourselves the task of purity of using the term "intellect", but the desire to solve larger problems related to the problem of forecasting the degree of success of the individual at further stages of its development dictates other approaches.
Theoretical models are created to solve applied problems, in the first place - these are diagnostics problems. Therefore, the methods used by different authors to diagnose social intelligence are well illustrated by their understanding of the essence of this phenomenon.
One of the first special measuring tools aimed at solving this problem is the George Washington test - GWSI T. He included a number of subtests assessing critical decisions in social situations. The procedures included in the test determine a person's mental state after completing assignments, evaluate memory for names and persons, determine human behavior and sense of humor. In our country this test was not used.
In RI Riggio's research (1991), when testing social intelligence, his assessment is suggested for six social skills:
1) emotional expressiveness;
2) emotional sensitivity;
3) emotional control;
4) social expressiveness;
5) social control;
6) using the test for hidden ethical skills (assessing the knowledge of correct behavior in social situations).
It's easy to see what Riggio proposes to call social intelligence, largely reminiscent of what many call the intellect emotional. This, of course, is not accidental, their inseparable connection is obvious.
Researcher FS Chapin (1967) proposed a test of "social intuition". Subjects were asked to read the text about problematic situations and choose, in their opinion, a better description of each situation of the four alternative ones. R. Rosenthal (1979) and his colleagues developed a test called "profile of nonverbal sensitivity" (PONS). The subjects were shown the image of the same woman, but in different situations. They were asked to decipher the hidden information they see on the picture presented, and from two alternative descriptions of the situation, choose one that, in their view, better characterizes what they saw or heard.
Successful development of the alternative
PONS test was undertaken by D. Archer and RM Akert (1980). They called their technique the "social interpretation test (SIT)." The subjects were offered visual and sound information about a situation. For example, they see an image of a woman who speaks on the phone, and they hear part of the conversation. Then they are asked to evaluate whether the woman is talking with another woman or with a man. Another task is to assess whether the women pictured in the picture are familiar with each other. Are they good friends or just acquaintances. When testing using SIT , attention was given to the conclusions made by the test subjects on the basis of verbal versions of non-verbal information.
Using this test (SIT), R. Sternberg and J. Smith developed a technique called them "the way to determine the deciphered knowledge". They offered test participants two types of photographs. For example, one was shown a man and a woman. Their posture said that they are in very close relationship. Those who participated in the survey were asked to say whether these people really are connected by family relationships or only play a role. In other photographs, the mentor and his subordinate were depicted, the subjects were asked to say which of the two mentors. Researchers came to the conclusion that the ability to accurately decipher non-verbal information is one of the important indicators of social intelligence.
Of particular interest is the idea of K. Jones and JD Day (1997). They suggested concentrating on another important issue. In their work, the relationship between two characteristic factors of social intelligence is represented: "crystallized social knowledge" (declarative and experienced knowledge of well-known social events) and "social-cognitive flexibility" (the ability to apply social knowledge in solving unknown problems).
P. Cantor and R. Harlow (1994), drawing attention to the transitional periods in human life, managed to find a way to assess individual differences in people's definition of life's tasks. These researchers were interested in the transition from college to higher education. They found that people formulate action plans, track their development, evaluate the results of their own activities, turn to their biographical memory to understand the various reasons that led to the achievement of the results obtained, and the alternative actions that were possible. When the fulfillment of the life task faces serious difficulties, people should reconsider their plans or outline new ones.
The integration of the above solutions can give a general idea of what should be considered social intelligence. From this point of view, the characteristic features of the structural features of social intelligence, given by Ushakov, deserve special attention. Social intelligence, according to his just statement, has a number of the following characteristic structural features:
- a continuum character;
- using nonverbal representation;
- loss of accurate social assessment during verbalization
- formation in the process of social learning;
- Using the internal experience .
Probably, it can be argued that the separation of emotional intelligence and social intelligence is unproductive. In the theoretical model proposed by AI Savenkov, emotional intelligence is regarded as an element of social intelligence. The author, following K. Jones and JD Day, distinguishes two of its factors.
The first is "the crystallized social knowledge". They refer to declarative and experienced knowledge of well-known social events. Under the declarative, in this case, one should understand the knowledge obtained as a result of social learning, and under experienced ones, those obtained in the course of one's own practice.
The second is social-cognitive flexibility. Here we are talking about the ability to apply social knowledge in solving unknown problems. Obviously, know something is very important, but one should not confuse knowledge itself with willingness and ability to apply it.
Characterizing the concept of social intelligence, AI Savenkov identifies three groups of criteria that describe him: cognitive, emotional and behavioral. Each of these groups is as follows:
- social knowledge - knowledge about people, knowledge of special rules, understanding of other people
- social memory - memory for names, memory for faces
- social intuition - assessment of feelings, determination of mood, understanding of the motives of other people's actions, ability to adequately perceive the observed behavior within the social context;
- social forecasting - the formulation of plans for their own actions, tracking their development, reflecting their own development and evaluating unused alternative opportunities.
- social expressiveness - emotional expressiveness, emotional sensitivity, emotional control
- empathy - the ability to enter the position of other people, put oneself in the place of another (overcome communicative and moral egocentrism);
- the ability to self-regulation - the ability to regulate your own emotions and your own mood.
3. Behavioral :
- social perception - ability to listen to the interlocutor, understanding of humor;
- social interaction - the ability and willingness to work together, the ability for collective interaction and as a higher type of this interaction - to collective creativity
- social adaptation - the ability to explain and convince others, the ability to get along with others, openness in relationships with others.
Using the selected criteria, it is possible to develop procedures for identifying and quantifying each of the indicated parameters of social intelligence. It is especially important that this concept of social intelligence, reflecting its main components, is able to serve as a general program for its development in the educational environment.
Predictors of "life success"
One of the important practical problems of pedagogical psychology is traditionally the task of predicting the development of the individual (in particular, the prediction of "life success") and whatever definition of giftedness we take -
B. M. Teplov, working concept of giftedness or J. Renzulli - it's easy to see that talent is always seen as a potential opportunity for high achievements. Naturally, the problem of "life success" there is a special culturological turn connected with differences in the mentality of different peoples, this can not but influence the direction of research searches in the field of psychology. However, noting that these differences exist and they are very significant, we will not discuss this problem more deeply.
The question of what makes one person great and outstanding, and the other - average and inconspicuous, wave and explorers, and inhabitants from ancient times. Philosophers of the era of the first European civilizations talked about the divine predetermination of talent and diligently built on this subject the theoretical theoretical constructions. In the identification of gifted people, they were offered to rely on divine providence and their own intuition. Pragmatic XX century. refused such decisions. Scientists of this period tried to study the psychology of giftedness with the help of "strict" scientific methods. For these purposes, along with the psychology of creativity, even a special science was created-acmeology (from the Greek acte - the highest degree, the peak). She was called to consider a person in a complex, in the most productive period of his life. On this way, significant progress has been made, but the truth has not been revealed.
Throughout the XX century. some psychologists believed that a high abstract intellect ( IQ ) is necessary for the successful realization of the personality in life, and from childhood it is necessary to strive to develop it, others advocated the need to first identify and develop creativity. And teachers, arguing with both of them, were inclined to assert that for outstanding achievements, first and foremost, deep and versatile knowledge is needed and important. It is them that should be considered as the most reliable predictor of outstanding achievements. Now it is not a secret for anyone that all these statements are wrong. Speaking more diplomatically, they can be considered only partially true. Everyone knows how important they are to the winner in the life race for success " and high natural intelligence, and developed creativity. Everyone knows what a crucial role in achieving life's heights is played by profound and versatile knowledge. But the psychological research of the late XX century. convincingly show that success in life is determined not by this, it largely depends on other personal characteristics.
In the late 1990s. louder and clearer voices of psychologists began to sound, asserting that the most important thing for the successful realization of a person in life and activity is the ability of effective interaction with surrounding people. Such as, for example: the ability to act effectively in the system of interpersonal relationships, the ability to navigate in social situations, correctly determine the personal characteristics and emotional states of other people, choose adequate ways of communicating with them and realize all this in the process of interaction. These ideas were generated by special studies in the fields of study of the "emotional" and social intelligence.
As a result of these studies, in modern psychological theories, the potential of the individual is no longer so unilaterally assessed, as was done, for example, in the concepts of "intellectual endowment" or "creative talent", popular in the XX century.
In the works of modern psychologists, the idea that, expanding the range of tested personal properties, including the emotional sphere of personality, and the ability for effective interpersonal interaction, we get a much more accurate picture of a person's mental potential.>
But it's not just that, DV Ushakov, in one of his works on social intelligence, cites a curious quote from the works of Confucius: "In a society that is honestly organized, it is shameful to be poor in a society that is not honestly organized - ashamed to be rich. " Paraphrasing it, the author, not without reason, argues that if our society were organized "honestly", then the advantage would be "intellectuals" and "creatives", and since this is not observed, to achieve life success, first of all, the gift of interaction with other people is necessary.
Also We Can Offer!
- Argumentative essay
- Best college essays
- Buy custom essays online
- Buy essay online
- Cheap essay
- Cheap essay writing service
- Cheap writing service
- College essay
- College essay introduction
- College essay writing service
- Compare and contrast essay
- Custom essay
- Custom essay writing service
- Custom essays writing services
- Death penalty essay
- Do my essay
- Essay about love
- Essay about yourself
- Essay help
- Essay writing help
- Essay writing service reviews
- Essays online
- Fast food essay
- George orwell essays
- Human rights essay
- Narrative essay
- Pay to write essay
- Personal essay for college
- Personal narrative essay
- Persuasive writing
- Write my essay
- Write my essay for me cheap
- Writing a scholarship essay