Something that has puzzled me is the concept "social intelligence" or "social giftedness".
Partial illustration of problems:
There do not exist consistent general values.
- implies: e.g. both "being good with people" and "being bad with people" may be regarded as "social intelligence", just that their goal is different.
both intelligence and giftedness are somewhat vague, because e.g. valuation of them is subjective and because people may not display these traits consistently ("a Ph.D. with 20 years of experience can still be wrong"). That which is intelligent for someone else might not be that for someone else. Unless one can devise some "semi-objective" measure (which is what I'm asking here).
Some people regard these concepts as "being good with people" or "using right kind of communication techniques". However, I find that these are not necessarily suitable for semi-scientific definition, because from these it's not a very long distance to rhetorics.
How is "socially gifted" or "social intelligence" defined "in a scientific way" or "semi-objectively"?
Can there exist a "right type" of "social intelligence"? Judging by that some people exhibit that there exists wrong forms, like bullying, would suggest that some people think there are right and wrong types. However, if this is subjective, then its point is (since I can still disagree)?