Since the weekend, thousands of words have been written about the death of the singer, Amy Winehouse and the Norweigan mass murderer, Anders Behring Brevik.
Amy Winehouse (AW) regularly pressed her own self destruct button, while Anders Behring Brevik (ABB) destroyed other people's lives.
Could there be any common link at all between the behaviour of these two, wildly differing people? It would seem unlikely. I would suggest that there was. Their Intelligence Quotient (IQ) and Emotional Quotient (EQ). Their Intellectual Intelligence would appear as high, as the their Emotional Intelligence is low.
In reading about these two people, I have also to take into consideration whether I am reading facts or opinions and gossip. This blog is my own opinion based on what I understand to be facts, but are not proven.
Whether AW's music is to someone's taste or not, I will accept from those who have considerable musical talent themselves, that she had writing and singing abilities that were high on the scale of brilliance. Maybe to genius level. A comment was made that AW couldn't possibly be a genius, because of her substance abuse. Though, wasn't it was obvious to all, that AW was a very unhappy woman? Her emotions appeared unbalanced. There is evidence, that at times, she was just a lost little girl. Thumb sucking adults beg questions about their EQ, however high their IQ is.
ABB has been called intelligent. I assume he must have had a certain level of intelligence to organise his activities to the level it appears he has done. There has been mention that he showed 'no emotion' and was 'emotionless', possibly due to high drug consumption. But was he not passionate about his opinions? Was he not angry? Are these not emotions?
It has also been reported that ABB was indulged by a highly besotted mother. I heard those words used about my father in the 1960s and he also had obsessions, that reached government level. His tantrums were legend, even into his 80s and he was always right.
I am sure the 'nature versus nuture' argument will rage for a long time about these two people. I am in no position to analyse them, so will not. I will use the opportunity to highlight a difference between IQ and EQ and how I believe we concentrate on the importance of the former, at the expense of the latter.
I am fascinated by people's backgrounds, their childhoods particularly. I greedily read about background information on someone involved in an incident or event. The adult experiences are of interest, but I have a 'homing instinct' for signs of emotional immaturity. I look for certain words. They are nearly always present in some form or other, written by a commentator, an opinion maker or the person themselves.
They "didn't feel good enough". I have read these words in articles about AW and ABB.
I think my husband is a little bored by the predictability of my 'Got it!' moments, but he too can become frustrated, when the blindingly obvious leaps from the pages of the research he undertakes into the usability of buildings.
Those childhood feelings of "not being good enough..." in some way, can be the motivating emotions behind a great deal of adult behaviour. Both helpful and unhelpful. These feelings have a strong connection with fear and trauma too.
The majority of people grow up chronologically and physically on a gentle curve. Intellectual growth can be seen to develop in a more irregular way. But emotional growth is completely different. For evidence, look at expressions like 'emotionally stunted', 'grow up', 'act you age' and there are many others.
In a social conversation with an intelligent person in their fifties, they told me that they were still looking for a life partner who matched their lost love of 30 years ago. They still carried around a photo with them. Their professional work was that of a mature brain. They looked middle aged. But their emotional age? For all the evidence of intellectual intelligence, their emotional intelligence seemed lacking. Back to emotional memory matching again, but with the possibility of unsatisfactory consequences. I thought it was sad.
I spent much of the first thirty seven years of my life, thinking that because I don't have the abilities to concentrate, assimilate information, process academic arguments written in complicated language, write complex arguments or pass most exams, that I was stupid and not intelligent. Attending a school with an academic bias didn't help.
People with high IQs can be seen making great achievements. But go to any institution packed with high IQs and there will be plenty of emotional incontinence on show too. Educators are slowly becoming aware of the need to include lessons in emotional intelligence too.
It never occurred to me, as an early morning shelf filler in a supermarket, that I could possibly be capable of doing any other job in the shop. I was also running a playgroup, but that didn't need a high IQ either. (The nursery nurse exams were not academic in 1968.) It did need common sense, intuition and a level of emotional intelligence.
In 1986, Sport Aid, later to be Sports Relief, launched its first event. I organised a local fun run in the local village. It was very successful and I received a great many compliments. But it hadn't really been that difficult to do and I couldn't understand the compliments. Anyone could have done it. After all, I was stupid wasn't I?
A few months later, I felt brave enough to ask the supermarket manager whether I could go on the management training course. I had looked at some of the managers and thought, "I could do that'. Indeed I could and The John Lewis Partnership showed me the way. I have much to thank them for. Perhaps I should thank the amazing founder, John Speden Lewis, who had such vision in 1920. http://www.johnlewispartnership.co.uk/about/our-founder.html
For many years I was intimidated by anything intellectual. Then one day, when I was Checkout Manager (I had progressed in the supermarket) I was invited to lunch with an academic professor. I was truly concerned that I would embarrass myself. He and his wife were welcoming and not intimidating. She asked me what work I did. I took a deep breath and told her.
"How brave of you to admit that", she said.
"How ignorant you are," I thought.
In fact, I discovered last year, that the supermarkets are still using a matrix I designed in 1994, because "technology hasn't come up with anything better."
After that lunch, I began to gain confidence and realised that my failure to understand or process complexity, did not mean that I was stupid. I was unable to be 'blinded by science'. Though people have tried. It has saved me a great deal of time and trouble. I have a tendency to be able to see the facts through the waffle.
This knowledge has helped me have the confidence to write this blog. Despite it being called 'facile', by a reader, I will not be put off. It's not meant to be academic and psychobabble. Due to readers' feedback, I know that it is proving helpful to enough people to make it worthwhile.
One of the few school lessons I enjoyed was English precis. We would be given long magazine articles or passages out of books and we had to reduce to content by a third, but retain its meaning.
This skill came back to help me in the 1980s, when I was editing a weekly 'Talking Newspaper for the Blind'. To reduce the weekly local paper into an enjoyable 45 minute tape could be a challenging exercise.
I could precis psychology too...but not yet. Anyway who's going to listen to me? It makes too much money for organisations and people. I won't give up though. I've witnessed too much distress and loss of life.
I think a precis has already been written in allegorical form. It's called 'The Kings New Clothes' by Hans Christian Anderson.
That is why at the top of the every blog page you will find the following quote:
"Believe nothing, no matter where you read it or who said it, unless it agrees with your own reason and your common sense." Buddha
©RitaLeaman2011
