Myths around emotional intelligence travel faster than papers. Each item pairs a folklore line with a tighter claim.
Worldwide notes name real systems — 영재교육, 예고, 部活, CTY, AIS, Iten — as places and policies, not racial essences.
Myths
- EQ is a second IQ that predicts all success — A Goleman-era overclaim Ability EI is narrower; mixed models wander into personality.
- Goleman is the methods paper — He is the populariser Salovey & Mayer 1990 is the coinage.
- A 15-minute quiz measures the construct — Inventories leak into traits MSCEIT vs EQ-i is the first question.
- Faces are a universal EQ test — Barrett contests simple mapping Display rules differ.
- EI ranks warm cultures — Inventories travel badly No people-ranking.
- You cannot train it — Labelling and regulation drills exist Size is usually modest, not magical.
Worldwide
- United States — Yale coinage to HR procurement — The brand’s home market.
- Israel — Bar-On’s inventory path — A mixed model that travelled through workplaces.
- United Kingdom — SEL and “character” policy waves — Imported vocabulary, local tests.
- Portugal / US labs — Damasio’s clinical-theoretical line — Stricter emotion science beside the brand.
- East Asia — Display-rule mismatch with US inventories — What counts as regulation is not a universal quiz item.
- Nordic schools — Low-volume emotion talk as competence — A different aesthetic than US “share the feeling” SEL.
Emotional intelligence: drop the folklore that ranks groups. Keep the systems that can be named and improved.