REDACTED

The fact that their logo is a dinosaur destroying a book..

I never made that leap.

You literally wrote it

I was mocking your own logical leaps, which is typical of a lemmy poster who can't let go of the fact they are wrong, so they must demonize someone else to discredit the legtimiacy of their comments.

This is so ironic. Do point out where I attempted to demonize you, like you did with me.

And yet you keep going here, eating your own tail at this point. You're conflating everything I said into a incoherent mess because you clearly lack the ability to understand my original criticisms in the first place.

I already said the discussion is over and we will both stay true to our beliefs. No need to become toxic here - just because someone disagrees with you, doesn't mean they're lacking ability to understand things. You really need to understand this to avoid further conflicts, which should not even be a conflict. I'm just answering your comments which don't seem to end.

Doubt it, because it's wild how can one go from "I don't think EQ exists/is a good measurement of anything" to "you think I'm a Nazi" without me even mentioning anything from politics, how did you even come to that leap. Thinking of Nazis, you could have just used the Hitler as an argument for EQ being bad measurement because it's safe to assume he measures in both directions at the same time.

Genuine question - are you on drugs?

Pulls out a mirror

Just because I try to be respectful and talk like an adult, does not mean I'm postering myself above others. If my way of talking makes you think less of yourself, that really isn't my problem.

Your comparison is so wild.. And your assumptions are not really matching my real world experience. I wish you the best, but there's obviously no point to continue

I never said you have low EQ. You said it yourself - no objective way to measure it, and I myself have never thought about others EQ, I just recognize it as group/complex of psychological/personal traits that affect your neurological behaviour.

However, it is interesting to me how angry/personal you seem about this argument. I'm going to assume this isn't your first time talking about this, and getting disagreed with.

Just because you can't objectively measure amount of love between two people, doesn't mean it's invalid theory. You are overthinking this too much, using weird arguments and then try to push a narrative that says "anything that isn't standardized is meaningless". By the same logic, pretty much every psychological/personal trait is a buzzword that cannot be objectively measured, and so it's meaningless. It's intellectually lazy argument.

And no, empathy or ethics or emotions are not race-based (referring to your previous argument where it could be different between groups)

I guess we will stay true to our beliefs. Being able to rationally understand emotions, reflect, feel empathy, etc. are not some foreign concepts, it's real, categorizable human psychology (and neurology?) behaviour.

But the idea is still clear. Sure, you have essentially steered the argument to "tests are unreliable", but you haven't disproved the emotional intelligence itself. You said it - just a buzzword