Somewhere along the line, we decided everyone needed to be smart—just in “different ways.”
It wasn’t enough to admire the emotionally supportive friend, the empathetic boss, or the skilled communicator for what they were: emotionally attuned, socially skilled, or just really good with people. No—we had to call them intelligent. And so was born the phrase emotional intelligence, or EQ.
But here’s the problem: emotional intelligence isn’t intelligence. It’s a category error dressed up in flattery. And the more we inflate the definition of intelligence to include feelings, vibes, or social maneuvers, the less the word means anything at all.
What Intelligence Actually Means
Traditionally, intelligence refers to your capacity for reasoning, problem-solving, abstract thought, and learning. It’s the stuff IQ tests (imperfectly) try to measure—your ability to understand and manipulate information.
This is not a popularity contest or a self-esteem booster. Intelligence isn’t about how “good” a person is. It’s not a moral ranking. It’s a word to describe cognitive horsepower. And crucially, it’s not something everyone has in the same measure, or in the same way.
Which is probably why emotional intelligence became such a popular workaround. If someone struggles with logic, math, memory, or analysis—but is warm, charming, or emotionally in tune—why not reframe those traits as a different kind of intelligence? Voilà: you’re smart too, just emotionally!
It’s flattering. It’s convenient. But it’s not honest.
Emotions Aren’t Intelligence. They’re Skills.
Being empathetic is a skill. So is staying calm under pressure. So is listening, reading a room, or resolving conflict without making people hate each other. These are powerful abilities. They matter deeply in relationships, work, leadership, and life.
But none of that requires the word intelligence to have value. Calling emotional skills “intelligence” is like calling athleticism physical intelligence, or good taste in clothes fashion intelligence.
It’s semantic inflation. And it’s a slippery slope.
Let’s Play This Out: Other ‘Intelligences’ We Might As Well Invent
If emotional regulation qualifies as intelligence, then why stop there? Here are a few other “intelligences” we might as well start measuring and adding to résumés:
- Vibe Intelligence (VQ):
- The mystical skill of sensing a room’s energy, curating a playlist that “just hits,” and exiting the party five minutes before it turns awkward.
- Clout Intelligence (CQ):
- The strategic instinct for what to post, when to post, and how to go viral without looking like you’re trying.
- Office Politics Intelligence (CQ):
- The subtle mastery of nodding at the right moments, never challenging bad ideas in meetings, and surviving in middle management by appearing useful but non-threatening.
These sound absurd because they are. Yet they follow the same logic as emotional intelligence: they’re valuable social behaviors rebranded as cognitive gifts. And the moment we start handing out intelligence points for every soft skill, we flatten the meaning of the word entirely.
Where This All Came From (And Why It Stuck)
The blame for this trend goes back to psychologist Howard Gardner’s theory of multiple intelligences, which proposed that musical, bodily, interpersonal, and even existential intelligence are all valid forms of “being smart.” It was a well-meaning framework, mostly designed to improve education and recognize that kids learn in different ways.
But what began as a teaching tool metastasized into a cultural coping mechanism—especially in the era of participation trophies and self-esteem curriculums. Suddenly, everyone was intelligent, just not in the traditional sense.
Emotional intelligence rode that wave. It gave people a flattering label for traits that used to just be called maturity, tact, or interpersonal skill. And in a world that over-values being “smart,” calling those things intelligence made people feel validated.
Why This Actually Matters
You might be thinking: Who cares? So what if we call it intelligence? Language evolves. Isn’t this just semantics?
It’s not just semantics. It’s clarity.
Words matter. Intelligence is a specific thing, and it’s okay that not everyone is intelligent in the same way—or at all. That doesn’t mean other traits are worthless. But calling every desirable trait intelligence creates confusion in education, hiring, leadership, and even how we raise kids.
When you tell a child, “You’re emotionally intelligent,” they don’t hear you’re emotionally aware. They hear you’re smart. But what happens when that illusion meets the reality of a math test? Or a logic-based job interview?
We’re doing people no favors by wrapping every form of social skill in the language of intellect.
There’s Nothing Wrong with Being Good at Feelings. Just Stop Calling It Smart.
This isn’t a call to devalue emotional awareness or interpersonal skill. Quite the opposite. The world could use a lot more of both.
But let’s stop pretending that every strength must be a form of intelligence to matter. You can be insightful, kind, self-aware, or even socially brilliant—without being intellectually gifted. And that’s okay.
Smart isn’t everything. But when we pretend everything is smart, we lose the ability to say what actually is.