Patri Lily
(about the picture: someone drew this for me as a gift)A writer, a music composer, a gamer and such.🇻🇳 Vietnamese 🇻🇳Born in 2004.
She/her.Article name: The nuanced nature of EQ-Patri Lily: the author of this article-
Written in: May 2025
red and blue, ドン AND カッ!Taken from: my WIP book
WARNING: This article can be more suitable for readers aged 16-18 and above. Although it does not contain any adult/mature content, the ideas presented and the language used could be too complex for younger readers.Having said that, if you can still read this article at a younger age, go ahead.Also, this was written with a literary mindset and based on lived experiences and philosophical reasoning/analysis, rather than a strict adherence to rigourous scientific research etiquette. Additionally, some words, phrases and "collocations" are intentionally put for unspoken implications and/or metaphors that are implicitly shared and used by the writer.
The nuanced nature of EQ
EQ (emotional intelligence) itself, based on my experience, is good, bad, not good, not bad, an abstract dictator, not an abstract dictator, a concrete dictator, not a concrete dictator and a double-edged sword.To begin with, I would like to explain the common incomprehension of its nature.Why are many people around the world unable to comprehend the disadvantages of EQ?To start with, they mostly lack awareness of its manipulative uses. To explain, they may not realise that high EQ can indeed be used to manipulate others, control social dynamics and/or achieve selfish goals at the expense of others’ well-being. That is, the idea that a set of skills associated with emotional understanding can be weaponised contradicts its idealised image deeply held in their minds.Not only that, but there is also a factor that partially contributes to this way of thinking: mainstream discussions about emotional intelligence tend to focus on its benefits without delving into its darker aspects. That is to say, this one-sided presentation of the phenomenon can maintain the belief that EQ is always beneficial, even in perceivably negative ways.To add to that, some cultures and societies, especially Asian ones, place an extreme emphasis on social harmony and emotional regulation, which can further blind the drawbacks of EQ. Based on this, acknowledging its potential downsides might be considered counterproductive and/or even taboo, because this, very likely, goes against the “general good” features and aspects considered by those communities.Also, there is a difficulty in balancing perspectives about this aspect of life in many people’s minds. To explain, understanding emotional intelligence as a nuanced phenomenon requires at the very least holding two seemingly opposing ideas simultaneously: that it can foster connection and growth but also lead to exploitation and/or excessive emotional burden. That is, many struggle with this level of complexity, especially if they lack exposure to nuanced discussions about the topic.There are indeed many other factors of this, but I would like to keep this brief.Next, why are many individuals unable to comprehend that EQ is “...good, bad, not good, not bad, an abstract dictator, not an abstract dictator, a concrete dictator, not a concrete dictator and a double-edged sword...”?First, generally, people tend to categorise complex ideas into simple, digestible labels: this leads to emotional intelligence being marketed as universally positive, and it can then overshadow the potential harm and misuse of that aspect.Second, about cultural biases: cultural norms can heavily influence how EQ is perceived across various regions. For example, each of this couple of biases can obscure its complexities: in collectivist cultures (eg Asia), EQ may be valued for promoting general, societal harmony; in individualistic ones, it may be seen as one of the tools for personal success.Third, emotional intelligence is rarely taught in a nuanced way, especially in compulsory education. To briefly explain this, a large number of high schools, secondary schools and lower schools around the world often focus on the benefits of EQ without addressing its ethical implications and the dangers of emotional manipulation with its use.Finally, nuanced discussions about EQ often evoke strong feelings coming from the majority of concrete-thinking individuals, because they can touch on personal identities, relationships and such: those people’s emotional involvement can prevent them from getting out of their likely biased views on emotional intelligence.(Please note that some, if not all, of the factors of the incomprehension of EQ’s drawbacks above are also those of this issue.)And again,
“There are indeed many other factors of this, but I would like to keep this brief.”Now, why are many people around the world unable to comprehend the statement “EQ itself is a dictator”?
(Please note that these factors can possibly overlap some of those that are elaborated above, with small differences)Firstly, around the world, emotional intelligence is widely promoted as a universally positive set of traits: our human society is then conditioned to view it as a necessity instead of a potential constraint. In this case, if something is framed as beneficial, the number of people who question whether it can be oppressive can be low.Secondly, not only is the phenomenon conditioned as something good for the human world, but it is also forced as a duty: many societies often push the idea that managing emotions (eg one’s own and others’) is an inherent moral obligation. This can likely lead to large numbers of individuals overtly self-censoring their own authentic selves, in which they suppress their true reactions and emotions to try to fit into the “standard emotional intelligence” mould.Thirdly, those with high EQ often wield influence, especially in workplaces, schools, social settings and such: they can shape how others should/must adapt and/or behave within those spaces. That is, if someone chooses to deviate, whether by showing too much bluntness, failing to “manage” emotions “correctly” and/or any other similar things, they may be labelled as lacking emotional intelligence even when their response(s) is/are valid.Finally, high EQ can be weaponised: leaders, influencers, manipulative individuals and various other similar types of people can use emotional intelligence to subtly control and/or steer others’ behaviours and decisions without both sides realising and recognising that it can certainly be a dictator in this case.Let me repeat this quote,
“There are indeed many other factors of this, but I would like to keep this brief.”Then, there is a valid concern on this: some individuals may feel that EQ is forcing them to act in ways that are not authentic. That is, if emotional intelligence really dictates that certain emotions must be masked and/or framed in “acceptable” ways, this can feel restrictive: very similar to, or even is, an unspoken emotional dictatorship.After that, this comes into play: there is an inherent self-refuting aspect to the idea that EQ is a dictator, which makes this a really interesting paradox in this analysis.First, let’s analyse emotional intelligence as a dictator and as a form of self-regulation.A dictator, by the term’s common and shared definition, enforces control over others, often limiting their freedom. However, emotional intelligence, at least in its widely adapted definition, is a form of self-awareness and self-regulation. That is to say, they do not inherently impose themselves on others; rather, they can be part of an individual’s capacity to manage emotions effectively, mostly in practical situations.To explain, if EQ was truly dictatorial, it would imply an external force that is restricting people’s emotional freedom and therefore harshly throwing them into emotional regulation. However, this is internal: it is about understanding emotions instead of being ruled by them. This means that the very ability to recognise EQ as a dictator requires using EQ to detect its own oppressive nature: the phenomenon itself paradoxically relies on the very thing it criticises.Second, let’s do the same on the aforementioned phenomenon, but this time as a constraint and an ignorable aspect of life.If EQ is really an oppressive force, individuals should feel compelled to act in emotionally intelligent ways at all times. Nevertheless, people frequently ignore, reject and/or misuse EQ in various ways, for example: some choose to be blunt rather than respectful, some others manipulate emotions instead of empathising and many of us tend to disregard emotional cues and prioritise logic over feelings.Since people can reject emotional intelligence in certain contexts, it does not behave like a dictator. To briefly explain this, a dictator does not allow defiance without punishment, but most of us regularly act outside EQ norms without existential consequences. Thus, if EQ was really and literally an inescapable dictator, people would have no choice but to conform to it in all circumstances, which is demonstrably false here.Third, let’s analyse this: if emotional intelligence/EQ was truly a dictator, it would contradict its own purposes.Again, based on our general knowledge base…
Emotional intelligence is often defined as the ability to (1) recognise and understand emotions (self and others), (2) regulate and express emotions appropriately and (3) use emotions to facilitate one’s thoughts and decision-making.
A dictator, on the other hand, enforces control through rigidity and suppression.If EQ was really a dictator, it would suppress emotions rather than helping people manage them. This would contradict its own fundamental premise, making it self-negating.
To explain further, if emotional intelligence forces people to suppress emotions, it already ceases to be emotional intelligence and instead becomes emotional conformity. Also, if emotional intelligence encourages free emotional expression, it cannot be a dictator because dictators do not promote freedom.All that is to say, either EQ is not a dictator or it ceases to be EQ the moment it becomes one.Finally, the “dictator” framing, based on this analysis as a whole, relies on a high-EQ perspective.That is to say, to claim that EQ is a dictator in this case, one has to be able to recognise that people are expected to behave in emotionally regulated ways, which requires a degree of emotional perception: this typically includes (1) the ability to observe social and societal expectations, (2) an awareness of emotional norms and consequences and (3) a sensitivity to manipulation.
As elaborated, also ironically, these three are literally the functions of EQ. To explain, if one did not possess emotional intelligence, they would likely be indifferent to its supposed, perceived oppression.Is this a false dilemma?To answer this question, I would like to sum things up here:
The claim that EQ is a dictator presents a false dilemma: either EQ exists and controls people, or EQ does not control people, making the claim false.
However, the reality here is more nuanced: EQ is a tool, not an enforcer; it can be used for manipulation and also for liberation; it is influential but not inescapable.That is, this can be both a false dilemma and not a false dilemma, further reinforcing the nuanced nature of EQ.Here, there is also something to consider: “EQ is a dictator” and “EQ is not a dictator” are both self-refuting.How can “EQ is a dictator” be self-refuting?Based on the analysis above, claiming that EQ is a dictator requires the use of EQ itself. That is, when one has the ability to perceive and articulate its oppressive nature, they already, very likely, possess a certain level of emotional intelligence, such as an awareness of -social pressures-, -manipulation-, -emotional regulation norms- and such.Here, a related paradox would be presented like this: if EQ was truly a dictator, then recognising its dictatorship would itself be an act of emotional intelligence; however, if recognising that this is an act of emotional intelligence, then EQ cannot be a complete dictator, because a dictator does not grant the awareness necessary to question its rules/guidelines.Thus, the statement collapses on itself because it assumes a level of autonomy that contradicts the idea of absolute emotional control.Next, how can “EQ is not a dictator” also be self-refuting? Interestingly, this claim, like the one above, can also be self-defeating under various conditions in society.This can be presented as follows:
To begin with, if EQ is truly not a dictator, one should be free to reject it completely without consequences. Nevertheless, in reality, completely rejecting emotional intelligence may lead to social, professional, interpersonal penalties and many other perceivably negative effects on oneself. That is to say, in practice, people are often compelled to adhere to EQ norms at times in order to function in society.Thus, in this case, if EQ enforces compliance through social conditioning without formal authority, it operates as a form of soft dictatorship: this refutes the claim that it is not a dictator. That means this: while EQ might not be a dictator in the traditional sense, it still exerts some kind of, perhaps invisible, control over individuals in society.Now, let’s discuss the paradox of its dual nature.Here is what makes both claims self-refuting: EQ typically functions in paradoxical ways. That is, it is supposed to liberate individuals by giving them control over their emotions, interactions and such, but it also simultaneously puts a certain force on them by imposing expectations on how emotions should be managed. Based on this and the explanations above, if one argues that EQ is a dictator, they tend to rely on emotional intelligence to form that argument; also, if one argues that EQ is not a dictator, they could be ignoring the implicit pressures that force people to conform to EQ norms.
This means both claims eventually defeat themselves because they fail to account for the dual nature of EQ: it is both liberating and constraining; it is both self-imposed and externally enforced; and finally, it is both an individual tool and a set of societal expectations.To conclude this, I would like to present my non-binary perspective on the phenomenon.The issue here arises because both claims assume an absolute stance, which makes them vulnerable to self-refutation (as explained above). So, I would say this: instead of putting the phenomenon into a binary classification like that, it can be framed as (1) a soft power instead of a hard, strict dictator, (2) a social contract rather than an authoritarian force, (3) a double-edged tool instead of something absolutely good or bad and/or (4) many other similar, possible ways and presentations.I know that this can be mentally taxing and/or even internally, deeply painful for some, but the action, when tried, could be an opportunity for novel explorations, potential knowledge broadening and such. This way, we can avoid the self-defeating extremes and recognise that EQ is neither fully oppressive nor fully liberating: it is, or can be, actually both, depending on the context(s) it is implemented, used, presented and such in.
