In those cases emotion has overwhelmed reason. Higher reasoning and analysis are literally not functioning when emotions are so strong. I would argue they don't have access to most of their knowledge in those moments.

All emotions are primal, though, as the limbic system is one of the oldest parts of the brain, developing much earlier than the faculties of reason. Are you suggesting only emotional responses you deem 'bad' are primal and uneducated?

They hate because their experiences trained those coping responses and those coping systems worked effectively to protect them. Those responses are often still protecting them. They didn't just mimic others to learn deeply held responses, they almost certainly had traumatic experiences that provoked the creation of strong defenses the rnateojg motivators to keep those responses. Any attempt to highlight those defenses, triggers them.

I don't see how any of that relates to intelligence, though. Self awareness and emotional management skills would be more accurate in my mind, neither rof which are intelligence. Intellect is not a characteristic of emotions at all, it's a characteristic of reason, a faculty that is often in directly competition with the emotions of the limbic system for driving behavior.

This is why I think people who are easy to emotion, or mostly drive by emotion, may use 'emotional intelligence' as a term to gain validation and elevate emotion to the same level of respect and value as reason, especially when they may not possess much of capacity for reason.

Okay. The emotion part is pretty apparent but where is the intelligence part?

Are you trying to explain what 'Emotional Intelligence'(EI) is? Or just discussing the topic in general? I'm a little confused what you're trying to explain.

True. The last decade or so I've seen an argument emerge around the value and role of emotions as a source of truth with most proponents seemingly more interested in validating emotions as equally valuable, equally capable, as reason. I've always been wary of these argument as they seem like an attempt by emotionally indulgent people to justify being indulgent, especially if they aren't considered particularly intelligent in the normal sense.

'Emotional Intelligence' is a phrase that makes me cringe for similar reason. I'm still not even sure what that's supposed to be as every definition sounds more like a skillset for, or knowledge base of, emotion, not intelligence. We wouldn't say a physicist is Physics Intelligent or a doctor Medical Intelligent or an athlete is athletics intelligent. The choice of calling it intelligence seems a disingenuous attempt to equate emotions with intellect, as emotion is much maligned as a trustworthy system of assessing truth. One could make a similar case for being culturally aware and call it Cultural Intelligence, and it would seem equally inaccurate. It's a bit confusing tbh.

As if autonomy amongst the workforce is a priority for anyone in power.