Summarize the arguments of scientists critical of the concept of EQ

Question

Summarize the arguments of scientists critical of the concept of EQ

Answer 1

EQ is greeted by scientists with about the enthusiasm they greet Creationism.

I.e. Scientists doubt the sincerity of those involved to pursue genuine science.

IQ is a VERY useful concept.  We all know the capacity to figure things out varies from person to person, so a number representing how 'smart' you are is useful, especially in careers requiring a high degree of logical thought.

But what specifically is one's Emotional Quotient?

There certainly is legitimate science in understanding how we emotionally respond to different things, but can this really be defined as a single number?    

Seriously, what does an EQ of 200 actually mean?  You are twice as emotional as the average person?     Are you twice as serious when you claim to be in love?  WTF does that mean?

Creationists aren't scientists because they aren't SEEKING the truth.  They are already certain they know the truth and are just looking for ways to prove it.

Scientists generally feel the EQ crowd are a bunch of touchy-feely egalitarian liberals inventing some kind of bullshit  'feel good' number to hand to  those the IQ tests deem 'less intelligent'

Specifically that EQ is not a scientific effort to measuring a meaningful aspect of human ability, rather 'faith based' effort to counter any assertion that humans are NOT equal.  

In other words EQ is Politics masquerading as science.   The mono wage of Communist Utopia rests on the notion that we are basically equal.  The varying paychecks of Capitalism presumes we are not.  

EQ is perceived as a politically motivated effort to muddy the waters of any science that implies we are not equal.