The Real HouseDogs of Willowdale offers a glimpse inside the world of luxurious fluffiness and pampered privilege, where being seen and sniffed (and who you know) is everything. These dogs are in the center of it all and they have the rawhide, the toys, and the rhinestone collars to prove it. From Maltese to mongrels to poodles – The Real HouseDogs of Willowdale deliver canine power and drama.
It's that time of year again - for more subversion. According to the Columbia Journalism Review, Pinto and Nemorin's Elf on the Shelf controversy was resurrected by social media when last year's elf-centric Washington Post article went viral (again) a year after its initial publication (according the publisher, reaching 450,000 new reads in this first week of December!
Never one to shy away from politics, Humphrey had a "Very [Xavier] Powerman Holiday" photo shoot with none other than St. Nick, who read him Karl Marx's Capital while a sneaky elf looked on. Humphrey's guardian read up on surveillance (sort of) through the classic Graydon Carter masterpiece.
#YULEbeSubversive 2015
It was all good fun, and Humphrey re-watched that elf video which as become a holiday tradition in its third year:
He also participated in lots of decorating at his home, which is the best way to kick of a subversive stretch.
Little sparkly bird in glittery nests in the dining room.
Then the birds get more flamboyant as you approach the living room, especially these on the mantle.
The tree top was so dope, bird dropped his mic.....
....and it's still there at the base of the tree!
Yes, it's festive, alright
"“As a matter of fact, the methods of primitive accumulation are anything but idyllic,” Santa read to Humphrey. "No wonder this guy wears red," Humphrey thought to himself.
See you on the flippity!
Humphey's best pals are his many animatronic bouncing Tiggers - which, incidentally, are no longer in production because their exuberant display of affection injured children. These mischievous creatures often spend time together after dinner, busting rhymes, dropping mics, and all the other things that kids do these days.
This video (seriously, it contains explicit canine-tiger content, and a parental advisory is in order!) traces Humphrey's lifelong friendship with Tigger.
Humphrey found some interesting tags in the park and placed his squeaky just so in order for this photo opp to occur.
Soon, he will post his thoughts on rebellion, resistance, subversion, and the like. He has weathered the storm of the century in his personal life this year, and regrets not having blogged much as a consequence!
Emotional intelligence means being reflective and not reactive as demonstrated here, right? Or, is Humphrey manipulating that butterfly into believing he has no intention to pounce, when that is not actually the case?
"Emotional Intelligence" (EQ, EI) has been in vogue among practitioners for about 2 decades. Originally popularized by Daniel Goleman based on the work of Salovey and Mayer in 1995 (and at that time, based on very little research), it has since been debated in academic circles.
In 2004, Zeidner, Matthews & Roberts stated the following about emotional intelligence: "the ratio of hyperbole to hard evidence is high, with over-reliance on anecdote, expert opinion, case studies, and unpublished proprietary research."
Now, a decade later, controversy over continues to rage. John Antonakis was quoted in The Atlantic as saying, "practice and voodoo science is running way ahead of rigorous research."
The common critiques circulating (see list of references below for details) include:
Not based on good research (though many proponents argue this)
Not predictive of effective leadership (this is debated, but there is one scholar whose name I cannot recall who has replicated this over and over; the Entrepreneur article talks about this)
EI in practice can be used as a form of manipulation (see Entrepreneur and The Atlantic in references), and examples call into question the ethics of its application. Kristjánsson makes a compelling argument for the ways in which EI runs contrary to Aristotelian emotional virtue because of its moral shortcomings.
Fails to account for cultural and gender differences - for example, loads of research reveal that culture plays a huge role in what behaviors are perceived as "caring" or not, what constitutes civil and polite actions. Rather, the standardized test is highly culturally bound, and couched in middle-class, North American perceptions.
One of the critiques not often addressed in the literature is the problem of epistemology. Readers know that epistemology represents one of Humphrey's main areas of interest and research. If you're not sure what he's talking about, maybe this will help to refresh your memory:
Proponents of EQ/EI are undoubtedly coming at it from a positivist epistemology - this is clear because they are relying on standardized, quantitative tests to measure EQ/EI. Based on their views on the nature of knowledge and truth, things like "emotion" (or lack of awareness of it) can be captured in multiple choice tests. Rather, the complexity of emotions, the situational variables, and a whole host of other features of "emotion" as a construct cannot be reduced to simplistic measurement (or in the words of Lewis, Rees, Hudson & Bleakley, 2005, "measuring the unmeasurable")!
Humphrey recognizes that emotions are important and valid parts of every life - and in fact, he concurs with a very prominent philosopher who has identified emotions as reasons in the informal logic and argumentation community. Yet, the reduction of emotions to a multiple-choice, standardized instrument troubles him.
What do you think? Can EI/EQ scales overcome the well-documented shortcomings of similar tests like IQ? Do EI/EQ inventories fall short of virtue ethics? As a construct, are they useful to the study of leadership and/or organizational behavior in their current form?
References: Antonakis, J. (2004). On why “emotional intelligence” will not predict leadership effectiveness beyond IQ or the “big five”: An extension and rejoinder.Organizational Analysis, 12(2), 171-182. Fambrough, M. J., & Hart, R. K. (2008). Emotions in leadership development: A critique of emotional intelligence. Advances in Developing Human Resources,10(5), 740-758. Grant, A. (2014, January 2). The dark side of emotional intelligence. The Atlantic [online ed] Kristjánsson, K. (2006). “EMOTIONAL INTELLIGENCE” IN THE CLASSROOM? AN ARISTOTELIAN CRITIQUE. Educational Theory, 56(1), 39-56. Lewis, N. J., Rees, C. E., Hudson, J. N., & Bleakley, A. (2005). Emotional intelligence medical education: Measuring the unmeasurable?. Advances in Health Sciences Education, 10(4), 339-355. Lindebaum, D. (2009). Rhetoric or remedy? A critique on developing emotional intelligence. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 8(2), 225-237. Matthews, G., Zeidner, M., & Roberts, R. D. (2004). Emotional intelligence: Science and myth. MIT press. Matthews, G., Roberts, R. D., & Zeidner, M. (2004). Seven myths about emotional intelligence. Psychological Inquiry, 179-196. Matthews, G., Zeidner, M., & Roberts, R. D. (2012). Emotional intelligence: A promise unfulfilled?. Japanese Psychological Research, 54(2), 105-127. Murphy, K.R. (Ed.) A critique of emotional intelligence: What are the problems and how can they be fixed? Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates (pre-pub version of Chapter 14, Evaluating the Claims, here; a review of that book here)
Tuback, S. (2014, September 14). Don't believe the hype around emotional intelligence. Entrepreneur [online ed]
Waterhouse, L. (2006). Multiple intelligences, the Mozart effect, and emotional
intelligence: A critical review. Educational Psychologist, 41, 207–225 Zeidner, M., Matthews, G., & Roberts, R. D. (2004). Emotional intelligence in the workplace: A critical review. Applied Psychology, 53(3), 371-399. This is not a reference for this piece, but an entire website exists to describe how Goleman misled readers when he developed and began promoting EI. Goleman's rebuttal is here, but as you can see from the comments, doesn't satisfy critics.
On this ridiculously cold February afternoon, Humphrey is huddling under a comforting duvet, fighting not only a chill, but the blues. Why, you ask? A recent entry in Professionally Speaking's Blue Pages has left him rather unsettled.
For those unfamiliar with the publication in question, Professionally Speaking is the glossy magazine put out by the Ontario College of Teachers (OCT), the body responsible for the certification and regulation of teachers in the province of Ontario. One of OCT's roles is investigating complaints of misconduct or incompetence made against members. These complaints can be initiated by anyone – a parent, a supervisor or board, or even by the College itself. Once a complaint is made against a member, the OCT initiates and investigation through the Investigation Committee. If the complaint is deemed to have merit, disciplinary action begins through a referral to the Discipline Committee.
Generally, complaints are considered in light of Regulation 437/97 of the Ontario College of Teachers’ Act (1996).While the Regulation is important for controlling “dangers” to students in cases where teachers are abusive, it winds up being used to deal with minor situations. This piece of legislation is objectionably vague – and as such, when applied, they result in penalties for OCT members that can be unfair. For example, point 19 from the Regulation, “Conduct unbecoming a member,” is frequently used as a rationale for this.
Disciplinary hearings are open to the public and a summary of hearings and their outcomes is published in Professionally Speaking in a section called The Blue Pages. It was this passage that caused Humphrey to experience the blues:
p. 125 of the March 2015 issue of Professionally Speaking
This passage is part of the decision summary for a member named as Heather Anne Ashford-Smith, and the full report can be viewed here. Before launching into the reasons for Humphrey's concern, it is worth noting that the teacher's employment with the private school in which the allegations were made was terminated in 2011 after two written warnings about her poor classroom management skills. Ashford-Smith was not represented at the hearing by counsel, and did not attend. The ultimate decision was "Reprimand and Conditions" (which stays on her public record). It seems the main cause for the decision has to do with what was deemed inadequate "classroom management" (already an antiquated term steeped in neoliberal ideology!) as well as teaching that was not developmentally appropriate.
In this post, Humphrey will *NOT* attempt to make sense of the classroom management nor teaching charges. Rather, in Humphrey's view, the following aspects of the case were highly problematic:
(1) The section titled "Reason for Decision" in the full report states that the teacher "over the course of 3 academic school years, spoke in a loud and shrill voice and/or yelled at students." The report also states the teacher says that her "naturally loud voice could be misconstrued as angry."
(2) The "Reason for Decision" also includes the statement that "her facial expressions were interpreted as angry and frustrated by some of her students." Note the use of "some" and not "all."
Humphrey's blues surround these two statements. The use of the word "shrill" to describe the teacher borders on (or embodies? See, for example, Kahn, 1975 who names this word as) sexist language. "Shrill" has an anti-feminist connotation, having been used to demean women. By focusing on a "shrill" voice, the accuser and/or OCT panel is reducing her to a physical attribute, and possibly one out of her control (Merriam-Webster defines "shrill" as high-pitched, which very well may be her natural voice pitch and therefore not appropriate for discrimination).
While this video alleges to deal with a "very serious medical condition," its light-heartedness speaks volumes about the conjecture surrounding the teacher's "facial expressions" in the case. Perhaps the students were not perceiving expressions for what they really were?
And even if the teacher had unpleasant facial expressions, is that a reason to professionally discipline a person such that her public record contains the ruling and case details?
Does this ruling leave you with a case of the blues, too? In fact, many prior cases have left a lot of people experiencing a range of emotions, from the blues, to the mean reds. OCT disciplinary hearings have been subject to legal rulings in Ontario courts that suggest a “kangaroo court” environment in which the OCT does not adhere to just legal processes. For example, in Kalin v. Ontario College of Teachers, Ontario Reports citation 75 O.R. (3d) (Part 7 p. 523), the judge ruled that OCT applied 1997 standards of conduct to incidents that were alleged to have happened in 1991; thus “offending the rule against retrospective application of legislation.” Moreover, the OCT gave no reasons for its procedural rulings, and arbitrarily refused to accommodate Kalin's absence from the country and arbitrarily refused his request for an adjournment so that he could attend the OCT hearing. This example suggests that once disciplined, an OCT member cannot expect procedural fairness from a body which is supposed to represent her.
@HumphreyChimp often finds himself frustrated with the reductionist "inspirational" quotes he finds on Twitter, such as this gem:
Really, internet?
Given the recent Bell Let's Talk campaign, @HumphreyChimp found the reductionist nature of this quote problematic. Anti-stigma programs (including Let's Talk) caution against pathologizing and simplifying concepts like "happy," "sad," and "depressed" as though one simple behavioral change will take care of the problem. Mark Kingwell's excellent book, In Pursuit of Happiness: Better Living From Plato to Prozac, does a great job of inviting people to think critically about concepts of happiness. Kingwell suggests that the current emphasis on individualism is problematic, as are a very new (and odd) hedonistic pre-occupation with happiness - including the historically unprecedented individualization of social problems (as opposed to seeing them as a collective pursuit).
@HumphreyChimp also challenges the idea that happiness would be an "inside job," as though situational and systemic factors (such as oppression, discrimination and abuse) would play no part. Undoubtedly, some issues around happiness (such as that original meme) have to do with the "first world problems" of the very privileged (like Mandy Hale, the sassy author from whose book the original quote originated).
But that over simplification doesn't stand simple tests of examples. If you are, for example, a women who lives in a society in which you are silenced, beaten, refused the right to an education, and generally oppressed, then is that woman's unhappiness her own fault?
If you are a person who is experiencing heath issues - perhaps a painful physical illness, or perhaps a mental illness, does Hale's flippant sentiment apply? (Actually, Barbara Ehrenreich already wrote extensively about this in Bright Sided).
Perhaps this is a little less truthy and reductionist than the original:
