Chandana:

I fully agree that with the right environment to nurture emotional intelligence (EI), one can achieve higher levels of it. Whether this is the only route to do so is still debatable as I believe some persons can actually learn vicariously from others' experiences or literature without actually being placed in the ideal environment. But the latter is only my lay opinion.

Best regards,

Debra

Can we achieve higher levels of emotional intelligence through metacognitive practices?

Yes. Not only that; emotional intelligence as identified by H. Gardner can ONLY be achieved through a meta-cognitive process (reading both "my emotion" and that of "others".

While agreeing with What Debra and Jae said earlier, I believe this article  "Relationship between Emotional Intelligence and Language Learning Strategy Use' http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1877042814027219 is relevant as it seeks to determine the influence of emotional intelligence on the choice of learning strategies.

Can we achieve higher levels of emotional intelligence through metacognitive practices?

EQ/EI centres upon how we perceive and react to what we experience in our interactions with others and the world around us. Although 'thinking about thinking, learning about learning, developing self-awareness through self-reflection' can conceptually give an explanation of why we react the way we do (and implicitly, how we could improve), there will always be a cause and context that is unique to the individual. So, whilst the theoretical study of EQ can give pointers about why others may react and perceive things (and thus how we can preempt issues which may arise), asking whether WE can ACHIEVE higher EI is perhaps another issue. We can read and interpret our own emotions as much as we want, but to appreciate and achieve a positive directional change in ourselves is a different matter.  

I suggest you may like to see mapping of cognitive and affective domain of Bloom's Taxonomy as well. I hope it will help!

The current development proves that it can be achieved, but it requires a lot of studies and research until it is perfected

Is there a contradiction implied in your question that you are wondering about? I think that it could be viewed as a contradiction to use only congitive functions to develop emotional ones. There is a danger that this turns the emotional into another form of cognition rather than valuing the emotional in its won right (some argue that this is what has been done with the term 'emotional intelligence'). There are more emotional / existential ways of supporting people's reflections and developing self-awarness - in my work I am currently using Martin Buber's I-It and I-Thou to see how both might be utlisied together. There are also processes from Indigenous scholarship and practice that provide alternative approaches.

I don't know if the conversation could be considered a metacognitive practice, but it seems to me that emotional education is always the result of a long interaction with other human beings. People develop and become aware of their emotions in relation to others. The emotional experience is the key. And then the reflection. And better if it is done with others, with the collaboration of others. The literature can help along those lines. A conversation, from a book, for example, is an old and efficient practice.  A community reflection does not guarantee, however, a good emotional 'education', although it can help.

Hi, Chandana,

I totally agree. In fact, I consider that emotional intelligence (EI) begins evolutionarily through interpersonal intelligence by learning the small child (1 year on) to interpret the emotions and feelings of others. And from adolencence, the child learns to develop metacognitive processes such as emotional self-knowledge, emotional self-regulation, self-esteem, etc., which are intrapersonal emotional intelligence skills.

Best regards

Yes, meta-cognitive practices leads to control of emotions and coping mechanisms

Dear Chandana,

I think about so many claims of 'programming the brain/mind' (1) they are wordy theoretical conjectures, often boring (2) the pretension of 'programming' should be critically examined. It cannot be 'infused' and it even sounds like brain washing. We all agree that 'determining' people's thinking and freedom is poisonous.

Jae - so how about the influence of more 'natural' processes like parental instruction, socialization, societal/peer influence etc.? These things tell us how to get along in our societies, & what others are likely to expect from us (& what we can reasonably expect from them). When we do not conform to these constructs, then we encounter conflict. 

Q.  Where is the line between preparing someone to fit into a particular group/community, & conditioning them to behave in a prescribed manner?

I know people who are prominent in their group/community, but do not behave in a manner that is either pro-social or empathetic. If I take issue with this (as in I believe I maintain higher levels of respect and give wider individual license for those who are different to me than they do), then am I emotionally weak (should I subject myself to their deficient behaviour without making a fuss); am I hypocritical (i.e. I expect others to meet my standards, but do not afford them the same courtesy)?  Suppose you get someone who's behaviour is (in relation to EQ principles) 'poisonous' or negative - do you allow such thinking & action on the grounds of individual freedom, or do you try to influence or shape their behaviours to conform with the mainstream view of society? How far do you go before you punish such behaviours, or curtail the benefits that an individual gets from the mainstream society?

I think you are right when you look at the difference between theoretical norms, values & actions, & how realising them can result in biased or restrictive practices. However, societies will always have a main core, and also those who exist as peripheral or minority actors. I think societies concentrate on the main group's expectations, perhaps at the expense of individuals. Lots of the EQ/EI literature I know takes this approach - learn to pre-empt, interpret and manage behaviours, in order to avoid conflict & promote working, healthy relationships. 

Nicholas. We are on the same page. The fact that an array of different value systems are inter-generationally transmitted cannot be refuted. I have just questioned the 'scientificist pretense' of neuro-programming regardless of its method (logotherapy, hypnosis, electric shock, gene implant, game-based conditioning or nagging with theoretical conjectures to death)