[Education] Emotional Intelligence and Intelligence Quotient

Author: JEFFI CHAO HUI WU

Time: September 1, 2025, Monday, 5:20 PM

········································

[Education] Emotional Intelligence and Intelligence Quotient

Many of my ideas were completely denied by many people at the beginning, but I have accomplished those things that were denied. From intelligent logistics systems to the "Era Leap" monthly magazine, from extreme martial arts systems to extreme innovations in photography, communication, and publishing, over the past thirty years, I have repeatedly let results speak for themselves, paving the way for others with facts.

The popular discussion of "emotional intelligence and IQ" often stops at labels: high IQ and low emotional intelligence, or high emotional intelligence but lacking logic. In my experience, the real obstacle does not lie in these two dimensions themselves, but in a more insidious structure—cognitive closure. Cognitive closure leads people to accept only self-affirming information, reject external corrections, ask questions to validate existing answers, and when opposing, fail to provide actionable solutions. Communicating with such a mindset is futile when discussing emotional intelligence and unhelpful when competing on IQ; the only effective approach is to build a system that allows facts to emerge automatically.

When I proposed the prototype of intelligent logistics in 1997, it was declared impossible; when the system was implemented in 2013, it was again declared impossible to stabilize. Ultimately, I used a home computer, Excel, and a small number of scripts to stably manage the import and export business of tens of thousands of standard containers globally with a configuration of 2.5 people, breaking down complex problems into verifiable metrics and processes, rendering doubts powerless. I do not rely on eloquence; I rely on structure; I never argue; I only build.

In martial arts, I have turned the concept of "the flow of qi rather than its storage" into reproducible training and documentation. I stood on one leg with my eyes closed at the beach in Sydney for over fifty-six minutes, accompanied by heart rate, breathing, temperature, wind direction, timestamps, and visual evidence, published in "Extreme Martial Arts | Daily Eyes Closed One-Legged Stand" and "Extreme Martial Arts | Evolution from Cold Sensitivity to Cold Resistance." When the data chain is complete and in place, the so-called "feeling of right or wrong" becomes irrelevant, because facts do not need defense; they only need to be presented.

In terms of publishing and dissemination, I used FrontPage 2003 to build the ten-language structure of times.net.au in three hours; the inaugural issue of "The Era Leap" has been permanently archived by Trove; for the second issue, from selection, translation to typesetting in ten languages, I completed it in 1.5 days, with 25 articles totaling nearly 600 pages. This is not about showing off skills, but about creating a closed-loop assembly line for writing—translation—typesetting—publishing, turning all processes into measurable, traceable, and reusable modules. High-level cognition is not about being more articulate, but about letting the system speak for you.

Looking back on these experiences, my understanding of "emotional intelligence and intellectual intelligence" resembles two interconnected pathways. Intellectual intelligence is the ability to abstract and deduce, while emotional intelligence is the ability to perceive others and the context. The decisive variable lies in a third pathway: structured capability. Only by translating abstract deduction and contextual perception into verifiable metrics, rhythms, and interfaces can cognition leap from "viewpoint" to "system." When the structure forms a closed loop, debate naturally paves the way.

Therefore, my basic approach to handling disagreements is three steps. First, prioritize the facts: define measurable key indicators and validate the path with the minimum viable version, rather than getting caught up in the right or wrong of concepts. Second, minimize the closed loop: use the least resources to connect the key links, allowing results to be visible, verifiable, and replicable as soon as possible. Third, open feedback: expose the system to the noise and constraints of the real world, allowing external data, rather than internal emotions, to drive iteration. My confidence does not come from "I think I am right," but from "I know how to prove I am right."

Many people understand "high emotional intelligence" as being accommodating and pleasing, while "high intelligence" is seen as winning arguments and dismantling strategies. What I care more about is incorporating both into the grammar of engineering: delivering a verifiable chain of evidence at the right moment, using language that others can understand. You may deny my judgment, but it's hard to refute my process; you may dislike my conclusion, but you cannot dismiss my replicable experiment.

I have also seen many intelligent and respectable people make wrong decisions at critical points due to cognitive closure: only consuming self-confirming information, ignoring boundary conditions, mistaking noise for trends, and ultimately collapsing when reality tests them. Solving such problems relies on structuring the "self-confirmation—verification—iteration—solidification" process in a way that anyone can understand and follow; when outputs are standardized and inputs are auditable, the closed loop will be pierced by the open loop of reality.

Emotional intelligence and intelligence quotient are not opposing items, nor are they a multiple-choice question. They need to be governed and organized by a third ability—structural ability. Structural ability transforms soft empathy into interfaces, hard reasoning into modules, and personal experiences into shareable protocols. Ultimately, what truly convinces people is never what you said, but what you created, what you left behind, and whether others can continue on your path.

For decades, I have done one thing: upgrading "I thought" to "I proved." When I turn ideas into systems, systems into evidence, and evidence into public resources, the clamor of denial naturally diminishes. If I had to define this journey, I would say: high emotional intelligence allows me to engage in less futile debate, high intelligence enables me to abstract essence more quickly, and what truly determines victory or defeat is my ability to repeatedly integrate abstraction and emotion into structure.

Source: https://www.australianwinner.com/AuWinner/viewtopic.php?t=697380