Can Emotional Intelligence Be Taught?

Enter a school of education today and you’re likely to hear a phrase like this: “IQ is good, but EQ [emotional intelligence] is essential.” This reflects a profound shift in how we think about education and human potential. Emotional intelligence, once a niche concept within psychology, has become a cornerstone of modern pedagogy, seen as indispensable for preparing students to navigate the complexities of 21st-century life.

How did this transformation occur? Why have educators increasingly emphasized that thriving academically and personally requires more than cognitive ability, content knowledge and academic skills? Why do they now argue that emotional and social skills are equally essential?

For much of the 20th century, education focused on intellectual ability, often measured through test scores and IQ, as the primary predictor of success. This approach prioritized the transmission of content knowledge and academic skills, especially for students deemed high achieving. However, this singular focus began to falter in recent decades as researchers and educators recognized that neither intellectual ability nor mastery of content alone suffices in preparing students for the complexities of modern life.

Emotional intelligence emerged as a framework to fill this gap, emphasizing self-awareness, empathy, emotional regulation and relational skills alongside traditional academics.

Consider a student who aces exams but struggles to handle conflict, manage stress or build meaningful relationships. Gaps in emotional and social skills can hinder long-term success, even for the most academically gifted. Emotional intelligence addresses these shortcomings by focusing on the whole person, reshaping education to prioritize interpersonal and intrapersonal skills as much as intellectual development.

The rise of emotional intelligence in education reflects a broader cultural movement toward valuing deeply human qualities—compassion, self-awareness and connection. By integrating emotional intelligence into curricula, schools aim to prepare students not only for the workplace but also for meaningful and fulfilling lives.

Yet this emphasis on emotional intelligence is not without its challenges and trade-offs. While its advocates celebrate its potential to create more well-rounded individuals, questions remain about its impact on traditional academic preparation. Has the focus on emotional and social skills diluted the rigor of content-driven education? Has it shifted attention away from developing critical academic abilities that students need in higher education and beyond? In too many instances, the answer is yes.

Here, I will explore the emergence of emotional intelligence as a critical educational priority, the cultural and institutional forces that brought it to prominence, and its mixed impact on the preparation students bring to college. By examining both its promise and its limitations, we can better understand how emotional intelligence fits within the broader goals of modern education.

---

In 1904, the French government asked the psychologist Alfred Binet to develop a tool to identify schoolchildren in need of special education. The goal was practical: to assess cognitive delays, not intelligence as a whole. Collaborating with Théodore Simon, Binet introduced the Binet-Simon Scale in 1905, a groundbreaking method that evaluated mental age relative to chronological age through tasks measuring memory, attention and problem-solving. A key innovation was the concept of mental age, which compared a child’s performance to age-based norms.

In 1912, German psychologist William Stern coined the term “intelligence quotient” (IQ) to quantify this relationship. IQ was calculated as the ratio of mental age to chronological age, multiplied by 100. For instance, a child with a mental and chronological age of 10 would have an IQ of 100, signifying average intelligence. This concept gained traction and evolved significantly.

American psychologist Lewis Terman refined Binet’s work with the Stanford-Binet Intelligence Test in 1916, standardizing scoring and introducing the test as a tool to identify gifted individuals. Further innovations came in 1939 with David Wechsler’s Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale, which replaced the mental age–based model with a deviation IQ, using statistical norms to evaluate performance.

IQ tests quickly became integral to education, psychology and workforce assessments, measuring problem-solving, reasoning and cognitive skills. They were widely used to diagnose intellectual disabilities, identify giftedness and assess cognitive decline in cases of dementia. However, IQ’s applications often extended into darker domains, misused to support eugenics, racial hierarchies and discriminatory policies.

Critics have long argued that IQ tests oversimplify intelligence, focusing narrowly on verbal and mathematical reasoning while ignoring creativity, practical problem-solving and cultural influences. These critiques have led to a broader understanding of intelligence as a multifaceted construct that cannot be fully captured by a single number.

Alternative frameworks of intelligence emphasized the complexity and adaptability of human thought. Here are some:

• General intelligence (g): Charles Spearman proposed that a single general cognitive ability underlies all intellectual tasks. This “g factor” was thought to predict performance across a wide range of abilities, including mathematics, language and abstract reasoning.
• Fluid and crystallized intelligence: Raymond Cattell, with a method further developed by John Horn, distinguished between fluid intelligence—the ability to solve novel problems and think abstractly without relying on prior knowledge—and crystallized intelligence, the accumulation of knowledge and skills gained through experience. While fluid intelligence peaks in early adulthood, crystallized intelligence often remains stable or improves with age.
• Multiple Intelligences: Howard Gardner’s 1983 theory expanded the definition of intelligence to include:
  • Linguistic intelligence: Sensitivity to words and language.
  • Logical-mathematical intelligence: Abstract reasoning and problem-solving.
  • Spatial intelligence: The ability to visualize and manipulate spatial environments.
  • Musical intelligence: Sensitivity to rhythm, tone and sound patterns.
  • Bodily-kinesthetic intelligence: Mastery of physical movements, evident in athletes, surgeons and dancers.
  • Interpersonal intelligence: Understanding and relating to others.
  • Intrapersonal intelligence: Deep self-awareness and insight into one’s emotions and motivations.
  • Naturalistic intelligence: Recognition and categorization of elements in the natural world.
  • Existential intelligence: The capacity to ponder profound questions about life and existence.
• Social intelligence: Edward Thorndike introduced this concept to describe the ability to navigate social interactions effectively, later expanded to include emotional and relational dynamics.
• Practical intelligence: Robert Sternberg’s Triarchic Theory of Intelligence added practical intelligence, or “street smarts,” alongside analytical and creative intelligence. This emphasized the ability to solve everyday problems and adapt to real-world environments.
• Cultural intelligence (CQ): Recognizing the importance of global interconnectedness, CQ reflects the ability to adapt and function effectively in diverse cultural contexts.
• Creative intelligence: Focused on innovative thinking and the ability to develop novel solutions.
• Moral intelligence: Explored by psychologists like Lawrence Kohlberg, this examines ethical decision-making and integrity.
• Computational intelligence: A domain tied to artificial intelligence, modeling human problem-solving and adaptation in machines.

---

In recent years, the concept of emotional intelligence has gained significant traction, particularly in K-12 education, where it is increasingly regarded as essential for personal and social development. Popularized by Daniel Goleman and rooted in the foundational work of psychologists Peter Salovey and John Mayer, EI emphasizes five key components:

• Self-awareness: Recognizing and understanding one’s emotions.
• Self-regulation: Managing emotional responses.
• Motivation: Using emotions to pursue goals.
• Empathy: Understanding others’ emotions and
• Social skills: Building and maintaining healthy relationships.

This framework reflects a broader shift in how intelligence and success are understood, placing emotional and relational competencies alongside traditional cognitive abilities.

The rise of emotional intelligence in the late 20th century stemmed from growing doubts about the adequacy of IQ alone as a predictor of success. This insight aligned with Howard Gardner’s theory of multiple intelligences, which identified interpersonal and intrapersonal intelligence—abilities tied to understanding others and oneself—as critical dimensions of human potential.

Humanistic psychology, championed by figures such as Carl Rogers and Abraham Maslow, further shaped the concept of emotional intelligence. These psychologists emphasized the importance of emotional well-being, self-actualization and relational skills as essential components of human growth. Their focus on the whole person aligned with the principles of EI, prioritizing empathy, emotional awareness and the ability to navigate relationships effectively.

The mid-20th century’s burgeoning psychotherapy movement also reinforced the value of emotional regulation and understanding. Therapists emphasized managing emotions and fostering meaningful connections as foundational to personal and professional success, legitimizing emotional skills as indispensable.

The economic transformations of the late 20th century, marked by a shift from industrial to service- and knowledge-based economies, amplified the demand for emotional and social skills. Collaboration, leadership and communication emerged as critical to workplace success. Corporations began prioritizing soft skills, such as emotional regulation, conflict resolution and teamwork, integrating emotional intelligence into leadership training and organizational development programs. EI became a practical framework for understanding how emotional awareness and management could enhance productivity, innovation and interpersonal dynamics.

Cultural movements during this period further elevated the importance of EI. Feminism, civil rights activism and antiwar protests emphasized empathy, relationships and the need to bridge emotional divides. Simultaneously, the self-help movement of the 1970s and 1980s popularized personal and emotional growth, setting the stage for widespread acceptance of emotional intelligence as a transformative skill.

Goleman’s 1995 book, Emotional Intelligence, brought these ideas into the mainstream. Building on Salovey and Mayer’s research, Goleman framed EI as critical not only to personal well-being but also to professional success. His accessible writing and case studies resonated widely, making EI a staple of media discussions, educational strategies and workplace initiatives.

Globalization and the technological advances of the late 20th century seemed to underscore the need for emotional intelligence. In an increasingly interconnected world, cross-cultural communication and collaboration became essential and EI provided a framework for navigating diverse emotional landscapes.

Meanwhile, the rise of digital communication introduced new barriers to emotional understanding. As face-to-face interactions gave way to mediated exchanges, emotional nuances were often lost, making EI even more crucial for maintaining meaningful connections.

In education, emotional intelligence was increasingly seen as integral to developing students’ academic, social and personal competencies. Schools began to emphasize self-awareness, empathy and emotional regulation as vital tools for navigating the complexities of relationships and life. This reflects a broader recognition that success depends not only on intellectual achievement but also on the ability to manage emotions and build meaningful connections.

---

Now a corporate buzzword and self-help mantra, emotional intelligence is not an unqualified good. Like any skill, it can be wielded for both virtuous and exploitative purposes. Manipulative leaders, cunning salespeople and con artists often exhibit high emotional intelligence, using their ability to read and manipulate emotions for personal gain. This raises a necessary question: Does emotional intelligence deserve its glowing reputation?

In a world rife with inequality, EI is frequently used by those in privileged positions to maintain control or deflect criticism. By prioritizing harmony and understanding, it can sometimes silence dissent or suppress necessary conflict—particularly in situations where justice and accountability demand confrontation.

Despite being promoted as essential for personal and professional success, its focus often shifts responsibility for well-being from institutions to individuals. Employees are told to manage their emotions rather than addressing toxic workplaces or structural inequities. Women, in particular, are often expected to manage others’ emotions while suppressing their own, turning EI into unpaid emotional labor that perpetuates inequality and exploitation.

Nor does high emotional intelligence inherently lead to ethical behavior. In relationships, it can foster intimacy and understanding, but it can just as easily enable manipulation and control. The ability to read and respond to emotions is a skill, not a moral compass, and does not guarantee empathy or good intentions.

Moreover, the pursuit of emotional intelligence often prioritizes polished, measured responses over raw authenticity. It can encourage people to mask their true feelings, creating an illusion of harmony at the expense of genuine connection. This tension underscores the challenge of balancing emotional regulation with the value of honest, unfiltered expression.

Despite its reputation as a universal skill, emotional intelligence is deeply shaped by cultural norms, which determine what is considered emotionally appropriate or intelligent. These biases complicate its application across diverse contexts, raising important questions about how EI is taught and understood.

Without the humanities and arts, emotional intelligence risks being a hollow skill. History, literature, philosophy and art provide the depth, conscience and wisdom that EI alone cannot offer. These disciplines enrich our understanding of emotions by connecting them to broader human experiences and moral frameworks. This is a lesson K-12 schools have yet to fully embrace: The humanities are essential to turning emotional intelligence into a force for ethical and meaningful connection.

---

During the early 20th century, IQ tests promised to quantify intelligence and predict academic and professional success. This view aligned with the broader push in K–12 education to standardize curricula and differentiate instruction based on perceived student potential. IQ became a foundational concept in educational policy, shaping how schools approached learning and teaching for decades.

IQ testing reinforced the belief that intelligence was innate, measurable and stratified across a population. This perspective resonated with societal trends emphasizing industrial efficiency and scientific management, which sought to optimize productivity by assigning individuals to roles best suited to their abilities. In education, IQ testing became a tool for sorting students into distinct tracks: academic, vocational or general education.

Higher-achieving students, identified through IQ scores, were directed toward advanced academic skills and rigorous content, preparing them for college and professional careers. I was among those who benefited from this approach. Conversely, students with lower IQ scores were often placed in vocational programs that emphasized practical skills for immediate entry into the workforce. This dual system reflected societal beliefs in class stratification and the role of education in maintaining economic and social stability.

Tracking was justified by the notion that students had differing capabilities and should receive education tailored to their potential. Proponents argued that this approach maximized outcomes by addressing individual needs. However, in practice, tracking often reinforced existing inequalities. Students of color and from working-class backgrounds were disproportionately funneled into vocational tracks, while wealthier, predominantly white students enjoyed academic enrichment and opportunities.

By the mid-20th century, critiques of tracking gained momentum. Research revealed that tracking frequently limited opportunities for students in lower tracks, creating self-fulfilling prophecies that perpetuated systemic inequities. The civil rights movement and broader efforts for educational equity highlighted tracking’s role in entrenching racial and socioeconomic disparities.

In response, many schools began to move away from tracking, adopting more inclusive approaches. The focus shifted toward providing all students access to a similar education, grounded in the belief that every child deserved the opportunity to reach their full potential. Innovations such as open classrooms, cooperative learning and differentiated instruction sought to bridge the gap between students of varying abilities while fostering a sense of community and inclusion. These changes marked a significant shift in educational philosophy, challenging the deterministic views of intelligence that had dominated the early 20th century.

---

In the latter part of the 20th century, as tracking systems and rigid ability grouping fell out of favor, educators faced the challenge of addressing the diverse needs of students in increasingly heterogeneous classrooms. The shift toward inclusive environments was driven by a commitment to equity and access, yet it introduced complexities that continue to shape educational discourse.

Heterogeneous classrooms—where students of varying abilities, backgrounds and learning styles learn together—emerged from a belief in the democratizing power of education. Advocates argued that such settings fostered social cohesion, reduced the stigma associated with tracking and provided equitable access to high-quality instruction. Collaborative learning in diverse classrooms was seen as an opportunity for students to benefit from one another’s perspectives and skills.

However, implementing this ideal proved difficult. Teachers had to address a wide spectrum of needs, from advanced learners requiring enrichment to students with learning disabilities or language barriers needing additional support. Differentiating instruction—tailoring teaching strategies to meet individual needs—became a central approach. Yet, the effectiveness of differentiation often hinged on teacher expertise, resources and manageable class sizes, all of which varied significantly across schools and districts.

Simultaneously, debates over the role of educational standards added to the complexity. Proponents of rigorous, standardized curricula argued that clear benchmarks ensured all students were held to high expectations, offering a road map for achievement and reducing disparities in educational quality. Standardized testing, they maintained, provided an objective way to measure progress and hold schools accountable.

Critics, however, contended that rigid standards often clashed with the realities of diverse classrooms. They argued that standardized approaches risked marginalizing students who did not fit the traditional mold, particularly those from disadvantaged communities or with unique learning needs. Differentiation, they insisted, offered a more flexible, student-centered approach that respected individual differences and promoted equity.

The tension between equity and excellence became a defining theme of late-20th-century education. While heterogeneous classrooms aimed to ensure all students had access to the same opportunities, implementation often revealed disparities. Schools in affluent areas typically had the resources, teacher training and smaller class sizes necessary to effectively differentiate instruction, while underfunded schools struggled to meet the same standards.

Critics of heterogeneous classrooms expressed concerns about diluted academic rigor. They feared that catering to a wide range of abilities might water down curricula, limiting the progress of advanced learners. This debate underscored the difficulty of balancing equity and excellence, with no clear consensus on how to achieve both simultaneously.

The importance of teacher preparation and professional development became increasingly evident in navigating these challenges. Differentiation required teachers to master a range of strategies, such as designing tiered assignments, managing small-group instruction and integrating technology to support individualized learning. Yet many educators reported feeling unprepared for these demands, particularly in underresourced schools with limited access to professional development.

Instructional models like universal design for learning offered promising frameworks for addressing classroom diversity. By designing flexible learning environments that accommodated varied needs from the outset, UDL aimed to create more equitable educational experiences. However, the uneven adoption of such models reflected broader systemic inequities.

The struggle to balance the needs of diverse learners in heterogeneous classrooms remains a pressing issue in education. Debates over standards and differentiation continue to raise fundamental questions about the purpose and goals of schooling. Should education prioritize uniformity and accountability or flexibility and individualization? How can schools achieve both equity and excellence without compromising one for the other? These questions remain central to ongoing efforts to create inclusive and effective learning environments.

---

During the early 21st century, debates about the purpose and focus of education intensified, driven by federal policies like the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 and the Common Core State Standards Initiative. These initiatives sought to address educational inequities by raising academic standards, emphasizing accountability and closing achievement gaps through standardized testing. While well intentioned, their implementation exposed significant flaws, sparking widespread reconsideration of educational priorities.

NCLB mandated annual testing in reading and math, tying school funding and teacher evaluations to student performance. This created immense pressure on schools to focus on test preparation, often at the expense of a broader curriculum. Subjects like art, music, social studies and physical education were marginalized, narrowing students’ learning experiences and disengaging those whose strengths lay outside the tested subjects. The emphasis on standardized testing encouraged “teaching to the test,” replacing deeper learning with rote memorization and test-taking strategies. Students and teachers alike reported increased stress, with some educators leaving the profession due to the high-stakes environment.

These unintended consequences led to growing criticism of what many perceived as an overly rigid, test-driven approach to education. In response, educators and policymakers began advocating for alternative frameworks like social-emotional learning, which emphasized nonacademic skills critical for personal and academic success. SEL focuses on self-awareness, emotional regulation, empathy and interpersonal communication, aiming to create supportive school climates and prepare students for the complexities of modern life.

The rise of SEL reflected a growing recognition of the connection between emotional well-being and academic achievement. Research indicated that students who could manage their emotions, resolve conflicts and work collaboratively were more likely to succeed academically and socially. SEL programs also addressed pressing concerns about student mental health, bullying and school violence, fostering resilience and emotional intelligence to create more inclusive learning environments.

Simultaneously, culturally relevant pedagogy gained prominence as a response to the lack of diversity and representation in traditional curricula. Developed by scholars like Gloria Ladson-Billings, CRP emphasized affirming students’ cultural identities while equipping them to navigate and challenge societal inequities. By validating students’ backgrounds and experiences, CRP aimed to foster a sense of belonging and engagement.

CRP addressed the disconnect between marginalized students and traditional educational models that often excluded or misrepresented their histories and contributions. By integrating culturally relevant materials and teaching strategies, CRP sought to empower students to critically analyze power structures and systemic inequities while affirming their identities. By encouraging critical examination of privilege, oppression and societal structures, CRP sought to promote personal and collective agency, making it particularly impactful in communities historically marginalized by traditional schooling practices.

Together, SEL and CRP represented a shift in education from a narrow focus on academic outcomes to a more holistic approach that acknowledged the interplay between emotional well-being, cultural identity and academic success. However, this shift also raised questions about the balance between these frameworks and traditional academic rigor, sparking ongoing debates about the goals and priorities of modern education.

---

Without the deeper insights provided by the arts, history, literature and philosophy, emotional intelligence risks becoming a shallow, utilitarian tool, detached from the richness of human experience and the complexities of moral and ethical life.

In its popularized form, emotional intelligence is often framed as a practical skill set for enhancing workplace performance, personal relationships and classroom dynamics. This instrumental approach emphasizes its utility—how it helps individuals manage conflict, collaborate effectively or influence others. This narrow focus reduces EI to a series of techniques rather than a means of fostering genuine self-awareness, moral reflection and meaningful connection. Stripped of context and depth, EI becomes transactional, neglecting the profound questions of what it means to feel, empathize and act ethically.

The humanities provide the depth and context that elevate emotional intelligence from mere functionality to a richer, more meaningful way of engaging with the world. These disciplines illuminate the complexities of human emotion, challenging us to understand how emotions are shaped by cultural, historical and personal forces. They encourage reflection on moral dilemmas, the ambiguities of human relationships and the ethical use of empathy and emotional insight.

Literature, for example, invites readers into the minds and emotions of characters from diverse backgrounds and eras, cultivating a nuanced empathy that extends beyond surface-level reactions. It reveals the depth and contradictions of emotional experiences, helping readers grasp the complexity of human motivations and relationships.

History provides a broader lens for understanding how emotions influence and are influenced by societal and cultural forces. It demonstrates how emotions drive human actions, shape ideologies and build or fracture social bonds. By studying historical events, we learn to recognize the role of emotions in navigating power dynamics, forging communities and addressing inequities—critical dimensions of a more robust emotional intelligence.

Philosophy goes further by interrogating the ethical implications of emotions and actions. While emotional intelligence teaches empathy and emotional regulation, philosophy asks, how should we use these skills? What responsibilities accompany our emotional awareness? Without ethical grounding, EI risks being misused, as in the case of manipulative leaders or exploitative relationships.

When enriched by the insights of the humanities, emotional intelligence transcends its practical applications to become a profound framework for understanding and engaging with the world. It equips individuals not only to manage emotions and relationships but also to navigate the complexities of human experience with empathy, integrity and wisdom.

In a world increasingly focused on efficiency and measurable outcomes, the humanities remind us that emotional intelligence is not merely a tool for success—it is a foundation for connection, understanding and the shared journey of what it means to be human.