1

Anomalous Mental Phenomenon – Classical Criminology – 3

Alleged Emotional Intelligence by Randy Gonzalez
Previously, as in the last episode, the term pseudoscience was applied to the 'social studies
arena'. Pseudo is acceptable, but herein, it refers to that which has not been proven to exist by
profound laboratory analysis, such as with microscopic exactness. These notions rely on opinion,
guesswork, and sometimes gossip and rumor. Theoretical constructs propose the basis for belief
systems. Within this domain and sub-domains, the collegiate enclaves of the liberal arts enjoy
adventures in metaphysics. Four of those philosophies, where some pretend to be 'sciences' and
'scientists', are very vocal. These include the usual suspects: criminology, psychology, sociology,
and theology. This is the realm of academia where you can make up stuff, write and publish an
article about it, and people will believe it. Yet, there is no viable scientific authenticity or molecular
technical precision in provability. And, in a court of law, the manifestations of such devolvement
to opinion are debatable. Opinion, gossip, and rumor are not highly evidentiary.
This intellectual challenge of debunking pseudoscience is what keeps the field of critical
analysis alive and thriving, emphasizing the importance of evidence-based research. As to the
preceding, the contrast starkly relates to the real sciences. These are the hard-core efforts to address
natural phenomena and materialistic configurations from scientific domains such as astrophysics,
biology, chemistry, and physics. Regarding the dimensional complexities of the anomalous mental
phenomenon, or AMP, as referred to by the U.S. intelligence community, evidentiary
substantiation remains elusive. Referencing the fascinating quests in the 'social studies arena' on
metaphorical applications for tomfoolery is what some call the 'CSI Effect'. A reference to fictional
television drama, or better yet, the unreality of reality television, is the illusion of magical thinking.
Actors can say stupid things from erroneous scriptwriting. The danger, of course, is when the
public believes it is true when it is not true.
Originally described as the impact fictional crime shows potentially have on jurors, the idea has
been expanded to the mainstream. Idiotic thinking relies on conjecture, opinion, rumor, and gossip
rather than credible facts, evidence, and forensic laboratory analysis. More direct and brash is the
admonition that stupid thinking does not help an investigative process. Hastily drawn
generalizations for the satiation of subjective validation devolve the discovery efforts for
provability. Nebulous notions and specious conjecture perpetuate fraudulent theories that later
become public policy. Fallacies of inference confuse the final conjecture.
 2

This is where AMP potentially becomes a psychic realm in which ongoing research is
necessary. Within this context comes explorations into paranormal phenomena, supernatural
experiences, and extraterrestrial visitations. In the Gonzo Universe, suggesting tongue-in-cheek
fun, the spheres of the three P's perpetrate an amazing array of magical thinking. Of such quests
in pseudoscience (inside and outside the specters of academia), the planetary, the paranormal, and
psychic perpetrations are exciting adventures in supernatural expectations. With salacious
stimulation, the amative allure is extraordinarily seductive. Regardless of mainstream media's
infantile illusions (social media inclusive), the real adventurous schemes are cloaked in the
trenchcoated gambits of academia. As alluded to earlier, the "social studies arena" of academia's
not-so-hallowed halls hosts the mysteries of human thinking.
And, in that showmanship, carry out one sleight of hand magical means of entertainment in one
form after another. For the dashingly daring salaciousness of one fanciful realm, that of
"anomalistic psychology", paranormal marvels suggest, or at least invited, realistic explanations.
Such inclinations lend toward psychodynamic instigations. Observers, for instance, may lean
toward the cognitive bias of personal imposition. Some investigators realize that the observer
typically influences his or her observations. This, of course, leads down the path of self-
justification and easily simplistic rationalization. Reality may discourage some from their path
toward the secure confirmation of evidentiary authenticity. Several factors, often selfishly
arrogant, preclude honest, forthright efficacy. Ivory Towers is rife with such self-serving
arrogance. One reflection of wishful thinking, beyond the constraints of scientific validation, is the
viewpoint of "emotional intelligence". This is a good example of “psychobabble”.
Just because someone has a Ph.D. in the "social studies arena" and purports something to be
true does not mean that "truth" exists. On the contrary, no worry and no fret; the reality is that
foolishness abounds even with supposedly "smart people". Seemingly intelligent members of the
human species can act stupidly. If surveys show that 90% of Americans believe in some aspect of
the three Ps, then there is plenty of room for foolishness and falsehoods. Then again, survey
suggestions and implications reflect sampling, not the entire population. Also, there is the wild
card of exceptionality. There are always exceptions. Wiser and more insightful, self-evolving,
mature, and differentiated personalities may struggle to be skeptical. Nonetheless, "emotional
intelligence" comes to mind at this point. In a recent flocking of faculty at a local university in the
American South, a training session on student learning ensued.
 3

Among the presenters, a psychic, no wait, a psychologist presented the academic necessity of
teaching "emotional intelligence". Aside from counterarguments regarding academic freedom,
biased philosophical perspectives, scientific confirmation, etc., the concept is fascinating. Perhaps
it is a distant relative to the feel-good extremes of "emotional freedom" or, better yet, emotional
reactivity. Where facts are relegated second place to feelings, as taught in recent years in realms
of academia, such is the hoax that hope springs eternal. In the labors of subjective validation, the
lust is in the fiction of smug piety for the slushy rush of warm cascades of confirmation bias. Other
gifts, like fortune telling and criminal profiling, arrive at the family picnic. Maybe the need is
deeper than what one can bear in a primal existence in modern society. Like an emotional "Ponzi
scheme", the more you get others to believe, the more elated you feel. A multi-level marketing
scheme to ensure one's view is the only view.
And typically, that is how the "social studies arena" works. One school of thought is more
sacred than another, but no school of thought has all the answers. Write a paper, promote a book,
publish or perish, and catch others on the hook. As one motivational speaker offers, the myth of
emotional intelligence falls short in confrontation with more powerful attributes of interpersonal
achievement and success. It is a weak proposition, sometimes called a "soft art" in dealing with
oneself and others. Far too many take the concept to extremes and thereby render their surrender
to more powerful personalities. While it might be nice, cute, and fun to express self-awareness,
quite another is to be technically and tactically competent. Such perspectives can be amusing in
an academic setting. Application in the real world is career-field dependent. Feel good and gooey
on the therapy couch, but in confronting criminals in adverse conditions, you must switch psychic
gears in a heartbeat. The common sense of reality is hardcore.
Regarding first responder tactical operations, seeing how that plays out in life-and-death
confrontations is entertaining. Similarly, how about the "cutthroat", "dog-eat-dog", and " off with
their heads" harsh realities of the corporate world? Not to forget, of course, the "close touchy-
feely" environs of transnational organized crime. As drug cartels south of the U.S. border traffic
in human cargo, terrorism, etc., certainly "emotional intelligence" helps. Accordingly, an author
and researcher from the same field of study (i.e., psychology) challenge the notion of "emotional
intelligence". Emphatically, the analysts insist there is no such thing as "emotional intelligence".
Going further and writing for a major national news service in 2017, the writer points out that one
cannot simply invent a trait and assume its validity.
 4

Research requires scientific validation through evidentiary authenticity, supported by

measurement and high certainty. The author calls the conceptual framework a "corporate
marketing scheme" in the article. Likewise, other researchers have challenged the point of view as
that which promotes an elusive, unprovable concept. Distinguishing science from pseudoscience
appears to be a daunting challenge in modern American culture. Critical thinking, driven by
evidentiary necessity with applied common sense and rational insight, dwindles like dried grapes
in the hot sun. The wrath of which haunts as a harbinger of a dying species. While some point their
fingers at social media and the dumbing down potential, the real culprit is everyone who fails to
apply serious logical analysis to every possibility. One educator in the higher education realm
argues the rising stupidity concerning subsequent generations. Idiocy speaks loud and clear of
emotionally narcissistic tendencies among the masses of young people.
Some researchers of the psyche are concerned about the dangers of the "eternal child" who
never grows up and loves giving a great show of themselves. In a sense, perhaps, their "emotional
intelligence" remains that of an adult teenager. In the real world, in the workplace, they are likely
to contribute to the organization's demise. According to another in the realm of "psychic studies"
(i.e., psychology), there is essentially no such thing as "emotional intelligence". It is a myth to
pacify a certain viewpoint based on the ruminations of a journalist and the curious field of "social
psychology". It sounds good, feels good, and looks good in print. Mainstream media can run with
it, but in reality, who cares? Social media pundits, wannabe stars, and armchair sleuths can role-
play all kinds of illusions. To make up a fantasy with clever jargon is to betray the viability of
objective analysis and evidence-based research. What does such a nominal conjecture of rhetorical
hyperbole mean anyway? One person's guess is as good as another's.
And, more importantly, how do you prove such a thing, an entity, it, etc., actually exists? As
the analyst suggested, it is time to grow up and stop whining at a certain point. A figure of speech
is not the basis for scientific validation. From an entrepreneurial publication, a business writer
warns of the hype and fashionable fad around "emotional intelligence". On the surface, such
conjecture appears appealing in the broadest reach of the superficiality of generalization. However,
controlling one's emotions and expressing "understanding" of how another feels has a dark side.
This is the problem with sweeping, hastily drawn generalizations applied to everyone. Controlling
others, as well as oneself, can become weaponized with horrific implications. Not only that, but
measuring such a belief is difficult.
 5

Consciousness is an elusive psychobiological process in the domain of hard-core science. No

one knows where it comes from. Additionally, attempting to interview study groups, such as filling
out questionnaires, compounds the problem of definitive interpretation. At the end of it all, what
changes in the real world? Taking a turn down a psychic pathway, an approach to behavioral
analysis observes the notions of exploring the unconscious realm. A typical expression surfaces in
the maze of subterfuge. Deceptive, tricky, and elusive, it is not very easy. Regardless of how
simplistic the mainstream of unfortunate ideations become or how juvenile the antics devolve,
analyzing psychodynamic artifices of the brain (aka the "mind"), the intricacy is unfathomable.
All of it, every dimension above the surface and below, implicates one person. And each has his
or her fetishistic form of behavior on an infinite yet terminal trajectory.
For instance, in allegations of what some call "quantum consciousness", some scientists claim
such fantasy of analysis degrades to the untenable state of unmeasurable consequences. Asserting
the ability to understand the thinking process in all possibilities becomes an exercise in futility.
How do we really and truly, hinting at the truth, fully and definitively understand what someone
is thinking? From psychoanalytic historical references, has anything dramatically transformed in
terms of human behavioral analysis? The answer here is no. For all the hoopla of allegations of
"discoveries", nothing is all that new and innovative. However, given the tenured inclinations of
justifying "self-worth" and the dramatic antics of " peer review", renewed theories unfold. The
same old philosophical mantras of the same schools of thought perpetuate the same old ideas.
Different cover stories are given, papers are published and presented, and stuff remains similar to
past instances. Fantasies infuse the psychic landscape with misdirection.
If it is all new and different, why is there consistent regurgitation of long-dead citations? In
looking, for example, at the theoretical construct of archetypal entities, an inner dream discussion
with created beings from the altered states mirrors the individuality of proclivities. Peering into
that endless darkness of abysmal eccentricity, peerage looks back. A crowd is in there, often
lurking in the shadows of willful intentions. Sometimes, so many voices are talking struggle ensues
for a sense of " law and order". One voice at a time and analytic properties yearns for attentiveness.
So, how is it that suddenly a metaphysical theoretician comes along with an alleged nuance and
says, here it is, the answer to it all? And, without question, many rush to the "Kool-Aid " barrel
and willingly scoop up their satiation. Cult-like, the "social studies arena" in some respects reflects
the amative willingness to join the herd.
 6

Okay, maybe too many attempts at metaphorical implication. The curious part is how easily
some "sages of higher education" leap upon the "bondage bench" and wait excitedly for further
impalement. Nonetheless, in classical criminology, everything is contrived and willingly instigated
from this discourse. Likewise, perpetrations of extraneously concocted theories often translate
poorly into scientific credibility. In the process of forsaking the vital nature of evidentiary
substantive consistency, the politics of emotional intelligence fogs the atmosphere of intellectual
debate. Presence with courage of conviction and the viability of intellectual prowess face
disturbing animosities. Reflecting, it is fascinating to observe all manner of specious notions that
seek to delineate the conscious realms into one template. Unfortunately, attempts to discover the
one- or two-dimensional framework of such manifestations fail to assess the expansive complexity
of the other realms. In fact, moving from 3D to 4D thinking is complicated.
For instance, in the works of one Swiss psychiatrist of the last century, the depth of the
mysterious unconscious spheres remains unexplored. To a great extent, the multidimensional states
of otherworldly possibilities are not easily understood or measurable. Such complex entities'
magnitude, scope, and depth are important to an investigation but difficult to comprehend. As
such, how do some believe they can assess such unknown and misunderstood realms? To date, to
reflect upon other "psychic" investigators, the human species is woefully deficient in
understanding itself. Thus, the fallback position is that of metaphysical speculation. However,
some "psychic" industry sectors are very effective at salesmanship. Here, one might insert the
visual depiction of 19th-century snake oil salesmen. That roving band of covered wagon con
artistry is sometimes depicted in a famous 1950" " s sci-fi TV show. A twilight zone of perpetual
mystic illusions unfolds across the cerebral landscapes of wishful thinking.
And the saga continues in this contemporary age. A couple of years ago, in 2021, an article on
the subject appeared in a major New York publication. Asserting a twist on corporate
oppressiveness, the writer alleges how "pop psychology" became a best seller without sufficient
scientific confirmation. From a speculative philosophical perspective originally conjured by
others, the alleged proponent of emotional intelligence translated the concept into a deceptive
management tool. As a questionable dogma of "self-help", the notion of such psychological
processes becomes obsessive moralizing. In the hands of those higher up in the hierarchy, the
concept seeks subtly to control debate, dissent, and individuality. One size fits all and is cleverly
disguised behind a façade of "be nice," do not," be mean".
 7

Perpetrated by those asserting power and control over others by their organizational rank, "EI"
cascades to manipulation. Careful use of topic-specific jargon, bogus attempts at scaled
measurements, and condescending invective cloaks the hidden intentions. However, for one
researcher, as indicated above, science is notoriously absent from the message claimed by the
theoretical construct. A good con game can be successful. Rather than a fixation on "EI", maybe a
better designation is based on " creative intelligence". And that is, to what extent can one ascend
to higher spatial alacrity of expanding innate intelligence? The idea needs work but potentially has
much more value and meaning than the nebulous conjecture of "EI". While self-awareness is likely
a positive process for personal development, the risk of over-simplification misses the deeper
issues residing within the individual.
With such intricacy, how can one know the hidden depth? Personal management of a productive
nature whereby an organization embraces growth is a good thing. However, people are not the
standard issues template of some cloned models, where one size fits all. Humans are not the laptops
and "smart" phones we use daily. A computer is not aware of itself. At least not at present, and any
similarity is irrelevant to the issue. Each person is developing on their timeline within the capacity
of individual "mindset". Maturity levels, if at all, vary greatly, along with attendance psychological
issues. So many factors come into play that seemingly "EI" puts everyone in a two-dimensional
framework. Caution is warranted in confrontation with the salesmanship that goes along with
promoting egocentric, self-serving interests. If a researcher imagines his or her conception of the
world as a particular reality, then is that model for everyone else?
Hype is one thing; certainty is another. Another business journal fostering entrepreneurial
endeavors takes serious issue with "EI". Calling out the viewpoint as conceivably a means to
manipulate others, a writer suggests more dangerous consequences. Power and control intricacies
emerge that intend malevolent actions against those seen as competitors. Not everyone shares
altruistic illusions about life. Image using the theory of "EI" as a weapon. How would you know
what another is thinking and plotting? As fads and trending nuances go, it all sounds too good to
be true. And, the caveat stands. Accordingly, some very knowledgeable and seasoned veterans of
the business world take issue with the "EI" point of view. From business schools to corporate
publications, the challenge is well-established. For some, no science is involved in "EI". The so-
called "testing" can be played by the gamer. A person taking the "measurements" can skew the
results. That is because the mechanisms are based on biased personal self-perceptions.