Hrmm that's an interesting assertion: my psych proffs were actually pretty bitchy about being "real scientists" and doing "real science". Well, if it doesn't matter that it isn't science, let me ask: is there any use for it? Can it predict anything? If it can't, then why bother concocting such a theory anyway?
I'm having trouble answering the questions: What do you mean by "it"? Science? Psychology? Emotional IQ?
If you mean Psychology, yes, if it's predictive, it has value. To some extent, there's a semantic argument here: by 'science', most people mean 'natural science'. This can include a cross-disciplinary specialty called 'biopsychology' which is the study of how the brain works. This discipline works with the faculty of physiology and medicine to inform psychiatrists in their practice of medicine.
On the other hand, the faculty of Arts has a department of psychology, which is the study of the mind, and overlaps a bit with antrhopology, which is the study of people and organizational behavior. Also involved in the EQ debacle is the faculty of Commerce, which explores how businesses work.
I am unusual in that I have degrees from two faculties: Science and Arts. My arts degree is in psychology (family psych). While psychology does some experiments that are very aligned with those conducted in the natural sciences, such as running rats through mazes or confusing monkeys with wire moms, these are mostly confined to animal testing, and tend to find themselves in biopsych.
When it comes to humans, testing usually looks like a questionnaire, and the best they can do is argue that the survey tests the property they claim it does.
Confidence in a test's validity is improved when the test produces the same results in a subject when taken over and over, and if different testers use the test and get the same basic results.
Great. So in order to find out if someone is successful, you ask them whether or not they are successful. This is also how charlatans evaluate whether someone has Psychic Powers. You ask them whether or not they do. "Excuse me Miss, can you communicate with spirits? You have? Well then you should know that you are psychic! By the way, have you met your life goals? You have? You should know that you're successful, probably due to your high emotional intelligence!"
I think your analogy is inappropriate. I'm saying that the specific measurement of success used in this test, and many others, is asking a subject if they are successful according to their own criteria. This is close to a real-world definition, and why it is popular within the literature. Success is a cognitive factor, not a behavior.
There's an old joke about the difference between the cognitive versus behavioral in tests: after sex, a behaviorist says, "It was good for you; was it good for me?"
So if you're saying "there is as solid of research being done on EQ as there is on ESP", then I guess that I can't disagree with you.
I'm not sure I said that. In fact, I think I said the opposite: there is scant little research done on EQ. There is, however, a great deal of research done on emotional sensitivity.
Also: ESP claims to be a naturalistic property, and is a scientific field in the conventional sense, even though it is popular among psychologists, and the field is named parapsychology. Psi is independently verifiable by observations of objective observers. Psychology, on the other hand, is extremely contained within the mind of the subject, and at best, we can observe a subject's behaviors for independent verification, behaviors which are under control of the subject's mind.
) Perhaps your local library or bookstore has a copy, and you could see if any of the footnotes would point you towards a worthwhile double blinded study. You may also find what you need in the sources for Appendices D, E & F.
You know, I should have gotten that.