The concept of emotional intelligence is considered as one of the most important topics of discussion in the modern world of science. There are different views regarding the concept of emotional intelligence in terms of its definition, interpretation, significance, actuality, and connectedness to the teaching process, in general.

Critics of the concept of emotional intelligence cite the following arguments to substantiate their position regarding the notion of emotional intelligence: first, “intelligence” in this case is an inappropriate, misleading metaphor, which should be replaced by the term “competence” to more accurately express the essence of the phenomenon under discussion; secondly, intelligence is defined as an ability, and “there are no unique abilities associated with emotions” [8, p. 434]; third, in the concept of emotional intelligence, emotions are replaced by intelligence.

Such criticism seems to be not entirely justified for several reasons. First, rational and emotional are traditionally considered interrelated, which is confirmed by the data of clinical experiments, according to which the implementation of an effective or satisfactory decision-making process is impossible if the thought is deprived of emotional reinforcement. Second, if emotions are understood as “data, exactly the same as any other”, it can be assumed that there is a kind of thinking designed to process this particular type of information. Thirdly, emotional intelligence cannot be defined as “competence”, since the concept of competence presupposes the achievement of a certain level of quality representation.

Nevertheless, the question may arise: “Is the term "emotional intelligence" controversial?” This is so if emotions are viewed as interferences so disruptive to mental activity that they must be controlled. In the first century BC, Publilius Syrus noted: "Control your emotions, otherwise your emotions will control you." Modern proponents of this approach describe emotions as a spontaneous, mainly internal reaction resulting from disturbances in affective regulation. From this position, emotions in their pure form are viewed as caused by a complete loss of intellectual control and do not contain a trace of a conscious goal [7, p. 101].

Apparently, in accordance with this tradition, emotional thinking is sometimes understood as a certain defective component of the thinking process, which reduces the objectivity of cognition and is characterized by rigidity and inertia. Researchers often limit themselves to stating the existence of the concept of “emotional intelligence”, without defining it, without clearly identifying its structural components. Perhaps this is due to both the semantic ambiguity of this concept and the resulting problems of the operationalization of emotional intelligence.

In order to raise reasonable objections to critics of the concept of emotional intelligence, it is necessary to clearly define what emotions are within its conceptual field and what are the ideas about intelligence. In the past, it was believed that the distinction between emotions and cognitions was based on the processes that underlie them. Thus, emotions have traditionally been related to more primitive (vegetative, biological) processes. Emotions were thought to be the product of phylogenetically earlier parts of the brain (limbic system), while cognitive processes are the product of later structures (neocortex).

In contrast to the concept of emotions as primitive biological processes in a number of modern foreign and domestic theories, emotion is considered as a special type of knowledge. According to G.M. Andreyeva, although emotion is associated with simple perceptual signals, it is at the same time “embedded” and integrated into systems of meanings. Emotional states can be interpreted as meanings, since they are significant for individual experience and serve to express it, conveying information about the individual himself and his environment [1, p. 14]. Therefore, it is no coincidence that the metaphor of “cold” and “hot” cognitions which precisely fixes the recognition of the status of knowledge for the emotions has arisen in the literature.

Clarifying the role of emotions in the construct "emotional intelligence", J.Averill makes three proposals on this issue, which are implicitly, one way or another, present in the theory of J.Meyer, P.Salovey, D.Caruso:

a) for each type of emotion (for example, anger, fear, etc.), we have our own essential features – the character, which are biologically determined;

b) simple emotions can form certain combinations – thus, complex emotions are formed;

c) emotions can be regulated, but not fundamentally altered their manifestations. Describing the role of emotions in emotional intelligence, J. Meyer, P. Salovey, D. Caruso make the following additions to J. Averill's proposals:

d) emotions signal the relationships between people and their environment (including other people) and changes in these relationships, real or imagined;

e) emotions and cognitions represent various functions of mental activity, which often interact with each other and can be expressed in an integrated form [6, p. 251]. The distinction between emotions and cognitions is to a certain extent theoretical, conceptual in nature. It makes no sense to talk about a purely emotional, mental or purely physiological reaction, because certain mental or neurological processes can be part of both emotional and cognitive behavior, although their degree of importance and proximity to the center varies.

The results of a survey of six hundred experts in the field of psychology of intelligence are given by A.V. Libin: 99.3% of them agree that intelligence is associated with abstract thinking or logic; 97.7% - with problem solving; 96% - with the ability to acquire knowledge. If we integrate the main provisions, then it can be argued that intelligence is the general ability to think rationally and adapt to changes in the environment. With this approach, the concept of intelligence acquires greater certainty, but continues to remain quite broad. It is possible that it can be clarified by identifying the following functions of intelligence: universal adaptation to the environment, choice of a new environment, transformation of the environment, learning, development and decision-making, cognition and creativity, self-government [2, p. 89].

The problem of defining intelligence largely depends on how researchers interpret its nature.

In this regard, M.A.Kholodnaya identifies nine main directions in experimental psychological research of intelligence:

1) sociocultural approach. Intelligence is viewed as a result of the process of socialization, while the intellectual capabilities of a person are not only generated by the cultural context, but also limited by it;

2) genetic approach. Intelligence appears as a consequence of the increasingly complex adaptation to the requirements of the environment in the natural conditions of human interaction with the outside world;

3) procedural activity approach. Intellect is a special form of human activity;

4) educational approach. Intelligence is a product of learning and is a process of forming cognitive skills;

5) informational approach. Intellect is a set of information processing procedures;

6) phenomenological approach. Intelligence is a special form of the content of consciousness, it is considered in the context of the phenomenal field of consciousness;

7) functional-level approach. Intelligence is a system (hierarchy) of different-level cognitive processes;

8) regulatory approach. Intelligence is considered as a factor in the regulation of mental activity;

9) ontological approach. Intellect is a form of organization of individual mental experience [4, p. 54].

The three most general approaches to intelligence: psychometric, adaptive, and informational, were identified by R.K. Wagner and R. Stenberg.

The psychometric direction is based solely on quantitative measurements of intelligence.

The adaptive approach is represented by the theory of J.Piaget. He considers intellect as an active process, including progressive adaptation to the surrounding reality as a result of the processes of assimilation and accommodation. According to J.Piaget, certain cognitive structures develop and form in the process of adaptation with age. The scientist focuses on the qualitative measurements of intelligence.

The information approach considers intelligence from the point of view of detecting and processing information, intellectual processes, and not only the results of its measurement [2, p. 122].

For this research, the informational approach to intelligence seems to be the most relevant. Internal and external information is very heterogeneous, and different intellectual abilities are required to process it.

According to H.Gardner, multiple intelligences include a wide range of abilities. The intelligence model structures the organization of this space. H. Gardner's model includes seven main subspecies (forms) of intelligence, among which, along with verbal-linguistic and logical-mathematical, there are visual-spatial, musical-rhythmic, bodily-kinesthetic, finally, interpersonal (interpersonal) and intrapersonal (intrapersonal). Interpersonal intelligence includes the ability to observe the feelings of others and use this knowledge to predict their behavior and cooperate with them. Intrapersonal intelligence allows you to understand yourself and cooperate with yourself. One of the aspects of personal intelligence is also associated with feelings and is very close to what J. Meyer, P. Salovey and D. Caruso call emotional intelligence. Different types of intelligence are distinguished in accordance with the quality of the information with which they operate [5, p. 135].

According to G.M. Andreyeva, both the cognitive and emotional systems “contain two stages: the perceptual (or figurative) and the “planning stage,” i.e. proper cognitive” [1, p. 13]. On this basis, it can be assumed that emotional and cognitive processing of information can be to a certain extent independent.

Almost all authors agree that emotional intelligence can be measured and that its levels can be distinguished. The problem lies in identifying objective criteria for measuring emotional intelligence.

The connection of intelligence with other individual parameters in foreign psychology has always been at the center of discussions. The first part of the discussion, devoted to the mutual influence of intellect and personality, was started by L.Thurstone and R.Cattell, who discovered a close intertwining of certain personal properties with intellectual characteristics.

Currently, it is not denied the possibility of a link between intelligence and non-cognitive personality characteristics, but it is noted that this link is less obvious and requires "careful verification."

In order to establish which personality parameters are interconnected with emotional intelligence, it is necessary to determine within which model - abilities or “mixed” - the research is conducted. “Mixed” models of emotional intelligence are those that “describe the concept of emotional intelligence, which includes not only mental abilities associated with intelligence and emotions, but also other personal dispositions and traits, such as motives, sociability, cordiality. ".

There are a number of concepts related to emotional intelligence (as ability), including empathic accuracy and non-verbal perception.

Other phenomena associated with emotional intelligence, such as emotional competence, emotional maturity, emotional enlightenment, emotional creativity are similar or complementary in relation to emotional intelligence. Other types of intelligence are very close and partially overlap emotional intelligence, such as personal intelligence, social intelligence. However, among them, only social intelligence is satisfactorily operationalized as a mental ability [9, p. 170].

For the proponents of "mixed" models of emotional intelligence, the "family" of emotional intelligence -related and partially overlapping concepts looks broader. This is due to the fact that in these models the term "emotional intelligence" itself is identified with a significant set of well-studied personal characteristics, supposedly leading to success. With this approach to the specified set can be attributed to the motivation of achievement, openness, optimism, practical intelligence, self-respect, a tendency towards pleasant or unpleasant experiences, subjectively experienced well-being.

D.Goleman admits that his model of EI is not significantly different from the model of "ego power" of J. Blokov.

Close to the position of D.Goleman, A.I.Chebotar, who, in the context of emotional intelligence, examines the personal properties of ego-plasticity and ego-control, studied in detail within the framework of this model. Ego-plasticity is personal resilience, flexibility, while ego-control means introspection of emotions, the ability to restrain the urge to immediately satisfy needs for the sake of distant but more significant goals, constructive behavior in a situation of frustration, restraint. An individual with a high level of ego-plasticity in the presence of formed self-control reveals the following characteristic features: does not feel great discomfort in the face of new, unfamiliar situations; easily adapts to them; inextricably linked with the world, but does not obey it; resolutely overcomes obstacles; able to maintain composure and internally gather in a stressful situation. A person with a low level of ego-plasticity has meager adaptive reserves, behaves stereotypically in various new situations, often feeling helpless, confused, showing rigidity, has difficulty in extreme situations (for example, in a stressful situation), shows anxiety and concern in a situation of change (both personal and social), is experiencing great difficulties in restructuring their own rhythm in accordance with the requirements of reality [3, p. 191].

In accordance with the structure of "mixed" models, emotional intelligence is associated with general intelligence, in general, and practical and creative intelligence with constructive thinking, motivation for social desirability and social insight, in particular. "Mixed" models of emotional intelligence include components such as warmth, self-confidence, self-discipline, and others. Since emotional intelligence in such models is understood quite broadly, it is desirable that in the future a distinction be made between emotional intelligence with phenomena that, although interconnected with it, nevertheless belong to different conceptual fields.

The terms "emotional culture", "emotional thinking", "emotional intelligence" and "emotional ability" are sometimes used interchangeably.

In "mixed" models, the definitions of "emotional competence" and "emotional intelligence" are practically identified.

The term "emotional creativity", like emotional intelligence, sometimes seems quite contrived. The psychological content of emotional maturity is still not clearly defined; the research belongs to underdeveloped areas of psychology.

The identification of some of these concepts was facilitated by the common origin of the mental phenomena designated by them and the closeness of their functions in the structure of individuality. The phenomena associated with emotional intelligence have a common genotypic basis (temperament properties) and contribute to adaptation and effective social functioning of the individual. At the same time, these mental phenomena are different from it, although closely related to emotional intelligence. In this regard, it is necessary to clarify the content of the concepts of "emotional thinking", "emotional creativity", "emotional competence", "emotional maturity", "emotional culture" and determine their place in the conceptual field of emotional intelligence.

Emotional intelligence and psychological phenomena such as creativity, cognition, identity, personality, maturity, etc. are closely interconnected with each other and play a crucial role in development of one’s cognitive abilities, in general.

The list of used literature: