The Tea

I was in conversation with a curious mind—someone who approaches the unknown and the less explored with remarkable intellectual humility. While I didn’t have anything particularly novel to contribute to the discussion, I found myself recognizing something else: the presence of an apparent asymmetry that often goes unnoticed but shapes the entire exchange.

In most social dynamics, there’s an asymmetry in how emotional intelligence is defined. One side takes on the role of establishing the standard—deciding what counts as being attentive, considerate, empathetic, or emotionally aware. They determine what qualifies as “high EQ” and what falls short of it. They decide whether listening is active or performative, whether humor signals sensitivity or deflection, and whether openness is authentic or overexposed. They act as the reference point—the baseline.

The other side participates within that framework. They’re not passive in the sense of being uninvolved, but their role is adaptive rather than generative. They adjust their behavior to align with the expectations already set, whether consciously or not.

This creates an uneven structure: one side determines the benchmark, while the other side is measured against it. It’s not an even exchange. One side builds the measuring stick; the other side measures up against it. The asymmetry matters because it explains why one group’s perception of “emotional intelligence” consistently prevails. While the other tends to focus less on defining the standard and more on meeting it.