Talk:Sex differences in emotional intelligence

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 23 January 2019 and 17 May 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Lemieuxa, Oimoenm, KusztybS. Peer reviewers: Ocheck05, AubreighZ.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 03:27, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Edit on Sex differences in emotional intelligence

User:Charlotte135

As long as you know the differences between primary studies, meta-analysis and reviews. On the sex difference in emotional intelligence page, you would find that I cited the latest meta-analysis on emotional intelligence (tens and tens of studies) which suggests greater female EI (Joseph & Newman 2010) as well as three meta-analysis of sex differences in reading body language, processing emotions and reading of the mind empathy tests which all amounts to hundreds of studies. Based on hundreds and hundreds of studies analyzed by the authors of these secondary sources, the literature suggests women have greater EI. Hence that is what I put on the wikipage, just so you now know.

Shootingstar88 (talk) 04:14, 18 January 2016 (UTC)User:shootingstar88Shootingstar88 (talk) 04:14, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Fair call. I will re-check what the sources say. By the way I've noticed on more than one occasion, your style of writing is non encyclopedic in many cases. I say that not as a personal attack, but I even tried to add a cleanup header to a couple of articles you are working on,a few days ago, but decided to revert my edit to do so, and am electing instead to just mention it to you here, as it just needs to be said. In fact, most of my edits to these few shared articles, (spatial reasoning is another) are cleaning up your style. Please don't take offence. I just needed to say that for you perhaps to review your style of writing. Good luck. And look forward to working with you. Thanks.Charlotte135 (talk) 04:21, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

User:Charlotte135

Actually the writing style is similar to that of many researchers in the field of psychology. It is from a non-expressive objective perspective of data found within sources especially higher level sources such as meta-analysis and reviews. You can't blame my writing if overwhelming evidence points toward one direction.

This is freaky because I just noticed this....but why are you following me on the pages I edit? It is too consistent to be a coincidence.

Shootingstar88 (talk) 05:44, 18 January 2016 (UTC)User:shootingstar88Shootingstar88 (talk) 05:44, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Oh ok so you cant take constructive criticism. Even when I frame it so diplomatically and kindly careful not to offend. I have had to clean up much of your writing style if you look at my actual edits on these all of 3 common articles we are editing. Big deal. Why the heck would I be following you? What are you talking about. I am still concerned about your writing style though although you are trying to deflect my concerns. I'll provide some diffs to show you what I mean if you like?Charlotte135 (talk) 06:25, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

"Not only do spatial abilities involve understanding the outside world, but they also involve processing outside information and reasoning it through mental and visual imagery in the mind." This sentence I just copied directly from the lead of the spatial ability article. It is not succinct nor encyclopedic, that's all. I don't even know what you mean so it is hard to even correct. "......reasoning it through mental and visual imagery in the mind." I could provide 100 more examples. Do you see?Charlotte135 (talk) 06:37, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Decided to add cleanup tag and reasons. This article is sloppily written, riddled with errors as per tag.Charlotte135 (talk) 06:50, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Do the cut the pretenses. Why you are following Shootingstar88 is very clear. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:04, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Olivia's Peer Review

In the "understanding" section under "Emotional Intelligence" subtitle: the wording is a little confusing. For example: " understand why they someone or they themselves might feel a certain way." I would try to re-word or use commas to break up your thought.

In the MSCEIT section: Keep the wording present. It says "Experiential EIQ included being able to ..." then a few sentences later, it says "Strategic EIQ focuses on the ..." make sure to be consistent with the verb tenses throughout the page.

I would also recommend defining terms such as "area score" and "branch score" It may help to understand the method of the MSCEIT test and how it comes to a conclusion about one's EI.

Try to avoid informal language, especially when discussing previous literature. Replace "_______ looks at..." with synonyms such as "analyzed" or "examined". Similarly, listing the different studies becomes repetitive, so try to use different phrases to keep the reader engaged and help with the flow of the section.

Would it be appropriate to add statistics to some of the mentioned studies? It may help the reader better understand the results. Some of the studies in the later sections of the page have p-values, so maybe stay consistent with the format of the research references.

In the TIE section, the phrasing is a little awkward, especially in the first paragraph. I would break up the categories similar to how you broke up the four ability of EI. That may help with organization. I am not sure if there is any information regarding the theory of TIE, but you mention "The TIE uses these categories and theory in its structure." The only time you mention theory is in that sentence, so maybe add more about TIE's theory.

In the Behavioral Tests section, I would add more to the importance of the Hertenstein and Keltner (2011) study. It is significantly smaller than the two sections prior to it, so adding more would be beneficial. I would also add more about the purpose of the decoders in the Hertenstein and Keltner (2011) study. What did this tell us about behavioral tests? There is also no description about what behavioral tests are and what they show. This would be a good section to add to.

In the Social Cognition section, there are some capitalization errors. In the first paragraph, it says "emotional Intelligence". Be consistent with how you present "emotional intelligence" throughout the page.

In the introduction section you list social cognition, empathy, and reasoning about the emotions of others as abilities. You have sections regarding social cognition and empathy, but not about the reasoning about emotions. Unless it is built into the other sections, I would make it more clear in the later sections because you listed it in the introduction.

Overall, this is a good start to the page. I would add more regarding the sex differences about cognition and empathy in the introduction, making it more clear about how sex differences play a role in EI would help.

Furthermore, are there any studies in which their results are contrasting with the current research? That may be important to include so that it is not all one sided.

I liked the overall organization and topics that are discussed in the page. It is very concise and specific. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ocheck05 (talk • contribs) 14:43, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

Aubreigh's Peer Review

I agree with Olivia on a few points from her peer review. You need to take a look at the wording in certain sections (Emotional intelligence and the TIE section) to ensure transparency of the topic.

Is there any way you can add more to the Behavioral tests section? Every other test section has more information and goes into greater detail. Do you have enough information to expand on this?

I would just suggest going through and checking for grammatical errors, you do have a few throughout the page. Check for run-ons, capitalization errors, where you may need to add commas, etc...

I would also look at finding research that is on the flip side of what you have, the studies are a bit one sides. I am not sure if you did that because there isn't any research available but I would look into adding the other side if that makes sense.

Overall, I think it is a great start to the page, I would just look at adding a bit to a few sections that I mentioned above and work on cleaning up the little things throughout the page. I also think that everything is formatted well/correctly but I could be wrong, I am still trying to figure that out myself. Just keep working, it is a very interesting article.

Salvaging content

An editor made these removals[1][2] and a bunch of removals at other pages. Let's review the "try to fix problems" policy. Is everything the editor removed in the "can't fix" category? When information is supported by a primary resource, this doesn't mean it must come out of the article. It only takes a few minutes to replace a primary resource in most cases. More than that when it's a whole a section, of course. But if it's "facts or ideas added to an article [that] would belong in the 'finished' article, they should be retained." We can fix other issues with it after that. GBFEE (talk) 20:44, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

I said more in my edit summaries.[3][4] I did a rvt on the latest large piece the editor removed. I'm applying the "try to fix problems" policy and this is just another one of the articles I'll build up and fix to comply with Wikipedia standards. Other pieces the editor removed will also be appropriately returned to the article. GBFEE (talk) 19:35, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

I definitely shouldn't have changed the citation templates, I apologise to that. However, the burden for citing information is with the editor adding or restoring information, not the editor removing it. Further, WP:HANDLE primarily relates to issues with styles - it does mention citations, but it's very clearly not the main focus. I'm definitely happy to leave it while you work on it, but if no substantial progress is being made in improving citations, I will remove the content again, especially because sex difference articles have a tendency to attract absolute nonsense.

For the sake of proper collaboration, I should keep you up to date with my plans (I was intending to leave messages about this across the relevant articles). I intend to combine the three different empathy sections here (in line with WP:SUMMARY). --Xurizuri (talk) 00:22, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

The burden policy doesn't mean we can go to an article and take out what we want and the person who challenges the removal can't restore the material or needs a reason for restoring it beyond verifiability. What you seem to want to cite is the onus policy. The burden for verifiability was already met. It was just a matter of replacing lower-quality resources and fine-tuning wording and structure. The verifiability policy is not the policy on due weight. And unless you can demonstrate that things you remove from articles are undue or are of a different problem, you shouldn't remove them. The Mayer-Salovey-Caruso Emotional Intelligence Test (MSCEIT) is not undue for this topic. It's very important to the topic, but you removed it anyway, which indicates to me you're a stranger to this topic.

The "try to fix problems" policy isn't primarily about issues with styles. It's about article content, which is what I'm primarily focused on here. I didn't say this policy is about citations.

Your statement that "if no substantial progress is being made in improving citations", you "will remove the content again" is uncalled for. I don't require that kind of push from you, or any other incentive, to work on an article. I have a pace that's my own. And the only reason I made all these[5] changes so quickly is to show how easy it is to do the job an editor should do instead of removing all of that. If you're going to just go from article to article removing content because it's supported by primary resources, that can be a policy-violating issue. Even removing information just because it's unsourced may not be productive unless it should come out immediately because of harm, as in the case of biographies of living persons. It's so much easier to remove rather than fix things. When I remove things that only have primary resources backing them, it's usually not just because of that. Removing things doesn't help the encyclopedia when what's being removed should remain. If sourcing and fine-tuning whole articles is what it will take to challenge editing that may be irresponsible, I'll gladly do it. But I think there are other ways, which don't require me expending my time and efforts, to stop that type of editing. Even knowing this, I was prepared for your edits to this article beforehand and already had a lot of things ready. GBFEE (talk) 19:20, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

I should also note a couple of concerns that I had in addition to the primary source issues, to inform improvement. Firstly, the North American Journal of Psychology isn't exactly what I would call reliable ([6], [7], they also actively encourage their article writers to become editors). Secondly, there's no particular reason why a section to describe a test is needed in this article - that content would be more appropriate for the main Emotional intelligence article. While it may be useful to have a brief comment about the test when it's directly relevant to a review or meta-analysis, or to include some description of the model that the test used under the definition of EI section, a full section dedicated to explaining the test doesn't particularly add to a reader's understanding of sex differences. --Xurizuri (talk) 00:50, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Where does the summary guideline say this must be done? If you're truly interested in the sake of proper collaboration, then be careful to not give the appearance that you're making a demand or threat, and instead propose changes rather than say you're going to make them in a way that doesn't seem to welcome a difference of opinion.

For "Mayer-Salovey-Caruso Emotional Intelligence Test (MSCEIT)", I didn't restore the individual studies, considering I didn't see them in resources, which tells me they aren't important to mention. I don't know why you removed the information about the 2010 meta-analysis (as the medical up-to-date guidance doesn't mean this should be removed just because it's from 2010), but I restored it for the time being. For "Test of Emotional Intelligence (TIE)", I added a very brief summary of what the test is about because there's barely a thing available in resources on this test and I agree that it doesn't need all that other stuff that was there. We'll need to wait for more information about it. But primary resources aren't banned, and if we have to use one to fill this section out a little more, I'm okay with it.

For the sake of proper collaboration, maybe you'd like to add criticism of the topic from these two[8][9] book resources? Or from others of your choice? Or from reviews? I saw this[10] systematic review, but it's from MDPI. So...not eager to use it. GBFEE (talk) 19:26, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

As this isn't the main emotional intelligence article, however, we should focus more on resources that talk about sex differences. I added some sex difference information to the first section. GBFEE (talk) 19:33, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Three-section merge

I have proposed that the three "sex differences in empathy" sections across three articles be merged under Sex differences in psychology#Empathy. Please join the discussion. --Xurizuri (talk) 12:53, 5 January 2022 (UTC)