Talk:Spiritual intelligence

I agree with the critics. In the academic litterature you will not encounter anything remotely related to this topic. The closests you get to an academic is an author as Danah Zohar. It is pseudoscientific new age theories. Doubleblinded studies etc. imo isn't an infallible criteria for something being scientific. Logic, mathematics, philosophy, theoretical physics and every subcategory within those fields are respectable disciplines. The content of this article preys on misconceptions about philosophy and psychology. It should be either deleted or merged. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.163.36.197 (talk) 09:49, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

This entire article is very strange. What does "spiritual" mean? It should be defined at the top of the article. Does it have something to do with spirits? The spirituality page refers to "God," but that word isn't defined either. Does it mean that if you don't believe in a supernatural being in the sky (or other kinds of supernatural beings) that you lack some kind of intelligence? Let99 (talk) 21:07, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Proposal to merge this article

I just searched 3 databases of academic journals for "spiritual intelligence" and "spiritual quotient" and came up with nothing. Maybe you could cite the journals/papers?
—Preceding unsigned comment added by Razarax (talk • contribs) 21:30, 16 April 2010 (UTC) Can I please propose that this article is merged with the article on SQ? How can one can call "spiritual intelligence" pseuodoscientific when papers in academic journals have been devoted to this topic? ACEOREVIVED 19:50, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Strongly agree (though I'd link directly with spiritual quotient rather than SQ, which is a redirect link page. WotherspoonSmith (talk) 08:38, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Could this article be either shortened, merged with pseudoscience or deleted? This is firmly pseudoscientific, and anyone with a modicum of basic intellect can see that it is a load of illogical rubbish. This goes for anything that cannot be backed up by double blind hard evidence. Please do not blur the boundaries between unprovable conjecture and reality. Fortunately allowing consideration of ideas not completely formulated is permitted in our society-sneering put downs of 'pseudo-science' for anything that only has double blind hard studies to back it up means there is no conjecture, that everything is fixed in the present state of knowledge. How can anything be condidered, how can anything even 'begin'?. Isn't science about finding out, looking at concepts-human spirit does not live in a bottle on a laboratory shelf and the spirit of true science is surely investigation. Take a look at the science of Quantum physics if you want to define reality and whose reality is it anyway? Take a look at Richard Maurice Bucke, here is a true scientist humilty underpinning a genuine attempt to understand the wondrousness of humanity...humility being the key word,a great beginning for any scientific thinker. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.5.32.73 (talk) 06:27, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

sharpbrains.com

The sharpbrains.com link has been spammed across wikipedia by editors that have been warned multiple times and have yet to respond to these warnings. Please see WP:EL and WP:SPAM before considering restoring it. Thanks! --Ronz 03:21, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

The article is a promo piece

As noted above is a brochure for those who sell related items. Will trim. History2007 (talk) 15:23, 25 November 2011 (UTC) New Age Woo probably I think! Anonymous User