Is Terrorism Effective

Is Terrorism Effective?

Mayer, Salovey and Caruso use the word "effective" over and over in their writings about EI and in the test they claim is a test of EI, the MSCEIT. But how do they define effective? To the best of my knowledge they never even try to define this word. They simply use it without defining it. Yet it is a key word in their model of EI and in what they say are the correct answers to their test questions.

So, then, how do we define “effective”? I would say it depends, among other things, on the goal. And goals depend on a lot of factors. So I came up with the question:

Is terrorism effective?

Let's think about this in terms of cultures. If you ask people in an Arab country what is the most effective way to achieve a political goal and the most common answer is by killing people, then would you call that the correct answer? This is the way the MSCEIT test is scored.

Now take the same issue to the USA. If you ask people what is the most effective way to stop "terrorism" and one answer is something like “Try to understand the motives behind it” and another is “Kill the terrorists”, and the majority of the people choose the latter, do we then say “Ok, that’s the correct answer” and leave it at that?

In other words, do we let the majority define what "effective" means?

This is related to the question of what is emotionally intelligent. We have seen that Mayer, Salovey and Caruso have defined what is emotional intelligent as conformity to the norm within a culture. (See EI and conformity article.)

So if one culture says that it the most effective way to communicate feelings and achieve goals is by killing, do we then call killing not only effective but also emotionally intelligent?

S. Hein
August 17, 2006

Conformity and Simplicity