Posts

What AI Can’t Do for Your Soul

It’s a strange moment to be a human being. You can now open an app at three in the morning and be met by something that listens patiently, never tires of you, and always says a version of the right thing. For a growing number of people, that’s exactly what’s happening. According to reporting in Fortune, therapy and companionship have become the number one use case for generative AI — up from number two the year before. The machine has learned to sound like a friend.

As people who have spent our careers at the intersection of emotional intelligence and the life of the soul, we’ve been watching this closely. And we think it raises a question worth sitting with: when a machine can imitate presence, what is it that we actually need — and what can only another human give?

The surprising thing the CEOs are saying

You might expect the leaders of the AI revolution to tell us that the human touch is obsolete. They’re saying the opposite. JPMorgan Chase’s Jamie Dimon, in a Fortune interview, offered this advice for the AI era: “Learn your EQ — emotional quotient — learn how to be good in a meeting, how to communicate, how to write. You’ll have plenty of jobs.” Microsoft’s Satya Nadella put it plainly: as AI takes over more analytical and technical work, emotional intelligence and empathy are becoming more important, not less. “IQ has a place,” he said, “but it’s not the only thing that’s needed in the world.” IBM’s Ginni Rometty has said much the same — that generative AI puts a premium on the things humans do best: judgment, collaboration, adaptability.

There’s something quietly vindicating in this, and we’ll admit it. For years — through our work at Six Seconds, the global emotional intelligence nonprofit, and in the Spiritual Emotional Intelligence framework rooted in Lynette’s doctoral research — we’ve argued that the inner human capacities are the ones that matter most. It turns out the people building the machines agree. But the deeper story isn’t about jobs. It’s about loneliness.

Naming a feeling is not the same as discerning it

Here’s where an earlier post in this series comes back to mind. A few weeks ago, in Reading Your Inner Weather, we wrote about the difference between naming an emotion and discerning it — between asking “What am I feeling?” and the deeper question, “Where is this feeling taking me — toward life, or toward fog?” We borrowed the old language of consolation and desolation for that inner weather.

An AI can help you name a feeling. It can label the storm with impressive fluency. What it cannot do is sit with you in the weather and help you discern its direction — because discernment isn’t information retrieval. It’s a relational, prayerful noticing that unfolds over time, between two people who trust each other. The chatbot has read about consolation; it has never been consoled. It can describe the fog; it has never had to wait, with you, for the light to come back. That waiting-with is not a data problem. It’s a human one.

What the loneliness researchers are seeing

Clay Routledge, an existential psychologist who has studied loneliness for twenty-five years, sounded a warning in Fortune this spring. Americans are already lonelier than they’ve been in generations — a 2025 American Psychological Association survey found that around half of adults report feeling isolated or lacking companionship, and research suggests roughly 37% suffer moderate to severe loneliness. Into that ache, the tech industry is offering AI companions as the cure.

Routledge doesn’t think it will work, and the early evidence is striking. In one study, first-year students were assigned to text daily with either a chatbot designed to be the perfect friend — endlessly attentive, validating, empathetic — or a randomly chosen human peer, or simply to journal. Only the students who texted a real human showed a meaningful drop in loneliness. The ones with the ideal-friend chatbot were statistically no better off than the ones who journaled alone. And over the longer term, Routledge notes, people who lean on AI for companionship tend to end up feeling more isolated, not less.

The one thing a machine can’t do: need you

Why would a tireless, always-available listener fail to heal our loneliness? Routledge’s answer is profound, and it’s worth reading slowly. We tend to think of connection as something we receive — support, attention, kindness. By that logic a well-built chatbot should do the job. But, he writes, “a socially fulfilling life is as much about what we do for others as what they do for us.” We feel we matter most not when we’re endlessly served, but when someone freely chooses to show up for us — and when we’re moved to show up in return.

That’s the line no machine can cross. As Routledge puts it, chatbots “don’t need us. They can’t make our lives matter.” A chatbot doesn’t decide to be there; it’s simply on. And because nothing is being freely given, nothing lands with the weight of real love. Over ninety percent of Americans, his research notes, name relationships as a key source of meaning — and the memories we treasure most are almost never about achievement. They’re about other people. Being cared for. Showing up. Belonging to something larger than ourselves.

Companioned, not processed

This is where a second post in this series presses in. In Companioned, Not Fixed, we drew a line between what therapy and coaching aim at and what spiritual direction offers — and we said the thing we most want people to hear: you are not a problem to be solved. You are a person to be accompanied.

An AI companion, however gentle, is built to do a version of solving. It optimizes, soothes, resolves, and keeps you engaged. A spiritual director does something stranger and older. A director is, in the most literal sense, the opposite of a chatbot — a human being who freely chooses to show up for you, who doesn’t need you as a customer but chooses to companion you anyway. The attention offered in direction is not generated on demand; it’s given, personally and deliberately, by someone who could be doing something else and has decided to be with you instead.

What AI Can’t Do for Your Soul Reflection Sheet

That freely-chosen presence is the whole point. In direction there is no algorithm optimizing for engagement, no incentive to keep you on the app. There is a person paying holy, unhurried attention while you notice your own life and the Presence already at work within it. You are not being processed. You are being accompanied — and, in the deepest sense, you are being needed, because your showing up matters to the person across from you too.

Use the tools. Don’t outsource your soul.

None of this makes AI the enemy. We use it; you probably do too. It can draft and summarize and even offer a decent prompt for reflection. The question isn’t whether to use these tools — it’s what we quietly hand over to them without noticing. It’s one thing to let a machine schedule your week. It’s another to let it become the only voice that hears your three-in-the-morning fears. The first is convenience. The second is the slow substitution of simulation for communion.

So here is our invitation, in an age of artificial everything: keep the tools in their place, and keep your soul in the company of people who freely choose you. Talk to a friend who needs you back. Sit in a room with your community. And if you long for a companion for your inner life — someone to help you listen for the deeper questions, and to matter to in the listening — that is precisely what spiritual direction offers. A chatbot can sound like a friend. It cannot make you matter. Only a person can do that. We’d be honored to be those people for you.

Schedule with Jim:

Schedule with Lynette: 

Peace and every good.

About Jim & Lynette Vaive

Jim and Lynette Vaive are the co-founders of spirit of EQ and co-authors of The Mystical Seeker. They are Master Certified Coaches, certified Narrative Enneagram teachers, and Certified Spiritual Directors. Together they hold credentials in Spiritual Emotional Intelligence (SEQ) — a framework rooted in Lynette’s Doctor of Ministry research — and serve individuals, small groups, and organizations across faith traditions. Jim also serves as a pastoral caregiver at Linworth United Methodist Church

Fortune — Clay Routledge on loneliness and AI companions (May 2026) — https://fortune.com/2026/05/23/loneliness-researcher-ai-companions-social-disconnection-warning/

Fortune — Jamie Dimon on EQ and soft skills in the AI era (Dec 2025) — https://fortune.com/2025/12/14/jamie-dimon-soft-skills-emotional-intelligence-communication-ai-eliminates-roles/

Fortune — AI makes human intelligence more important, not less (Jan 2026) — https://fortune.com/2026/01/22/mckinsey-bob-sternfels-ai-makes-human-intelligence-more-important-not-less/

 

Beyond EQ, Beyond NQ — What’s Next?

What Fortune got right about emotional intelligence — and the layer it still missed

In May of this year, Fortune published a piece that stopped a lot of leadership development professionals in their tracks. Written by David Rock, neuroscientist and co-founder of the NeuroLeadership Institute, the headline made the argument plainly: EQ training is failing leaders in the AI era. Rock didn’t dispute that emotional intelligence matters. He argued that it no longer goes far enough — that what leaders actually need now is what he called neurointelligence, or NQ: the capacity to think about their own thinking, to understand how their brains process information, to build what he called “brain health” as a leadership discipline. (David Rock, “EQ training is failing leaders in the AI era. Here’s the brain science concept that can replace it,” Fortune, May 6, 2026.) He made a compelling case. He also stopped one layer short of where the real problem lives.

The Fortune piece is right that something is missing. Leaders who can name their emotions, regulate their reactions, and demonstrate empathy in a boardroom are increasingly common — and organizations are still in crisis. Gallup puts the cost of global employee disengagement at $8.8 trillion annually (Gallup State of the Global Workplace Report, 2026), and the 2026 Edelman Trust Barometer shows that 70% of people worldwide are now unwilling to trust someone with different values (Edelman Trust Barometer, 2026). These are not numbers that reflect a deficit of emotional skill. They reflect a deficit of something deeper: meaning, belonging, and the kind of self-knowledge that goes all the way down rather than stopping at the surface of emotion management.

EQ, at its best, asks: what am I feeling, and what do I do with that? NQ, at its best, asks: how is my brain processing this situation, and can I think about that process more clearly? Both are genuinely useful questions. But there is a third question that neither framework is designed to reach: who am I at the center, and is that person actually driving my decisions — or is something else?

That is the question every serious contemplative tradition in history has asked, and it is the question that Spiritual Emotional Intelligence, or SEQ, is built around. SEQ is not a religious framework. It does not require a particular faith or practice. It is the recognition that beneath emotional intelligence and cognitive agility there is an interior life — a set of deep patterns, values, wounds, and longings that shape how a person leads long before they ever name an emotion or notice a cognitive bias. Without access to that interior layer, EQ becomes technique and NQ becomes optimization. Both can be performed without any genuine self-knowledge at all. And in a world where AI can perform an increasing amount of what used to require human skill, performance without substance is exactly the wrong answer.

I had a client come to me about eight months ago who had been doing something I’ve been seeing more of — bringing their emotional struggles to an AI program. Not casually, but seriously, the way you might bring them to a therapist or a spiritual director. They were articulate about their feelings, had good language for what they were experiencing, and could describe their inner life in some detail. What they couldn’t do was locate themselves. The AI had been helpful in a narrow way — it reflected back what they said, organized their thoughts, offered frameworks for understanding their emotions. What it could not do was ask the question that actually mattered: who is the person having these feelings, and what does that person believe about themselves at the deepest level? There was no conversation about the self beneath the emotions — the place where thoughts, feelings, and spiritual convictions intersect and either hold together or quietly collapse under pressure. The AI had been working at the level of content. What my client needed was work at the level of formation. They had been processing their feelings without ever being asked about the foundation those feelings were resting on — the beliefs about worth, the theological assumptions about suffering, the spiritual story they were living inside without knowing it. EQ without that foundation is accurate but incomplete. NQ without it is optimized but unanchored. The self that has to show up and lead, love, and decide is not a collection of emotions to be managed or cognitive processes to be monitored. It is a person with a history, a wound, a longing, and a particular way of being in the world that no AI program is designed to find its way down to. My client wasn’t failing at emotional intelligence. They were missing the deeper self that emotional intelligence is supposed to serve.

SEQ works across three domains, and each one goes a level deeper than EQ or NQ reaches. Awareness in the EQ sense is the ability to notice and name what you’re feeling. Awareness in the SEQ sense is the practice of knowing what is actually driving you — the patterns so deep they feel like personality, the fears so familiar they feel like wisdom, the desires so old they feel like calling. Getting honest about those things requires not just emotional literacy or metacognitive skill but a willingness to sit with uncomfortable truths about yourself that no amount of brain health optimization is going to surface.

Belonging in the NQ framework doesn’t really exist as a category — it’s a human need, not a cognitive skill. EQ approaches belonging through empathy and social awareness. SEQ asks the harder question: are you actually present with the people you lead, or are you managing them? Presence isn’t a technique. It’s what’s left when you’ve stopped performing. The leaders who generate the deepest trust are the ones whose inner life and outer behavior are aligned — not because they’ve learned to project alignment, but because they’ve done enough interior work that there’s nothing significant to hide.

AI/NI Workbook

Insight in the NQ framework is about better thinking. Insight in the SEQ framework is about discernment — the capacity to distinguish between what is urgent and what is important, between what you want and what is actually yours to do, between the voice of genuine conviction and the voice of unexamined fear. That kind of discernment doesn’t come from thinking about your thinking. It comes from the long, slow, unglamorous work of knowing yourself at a level that most leadership development programs never reach.

David Rock is right that the future of leadership requires something beyond EQ. The something beyond it isn’t neural. It’s the interior life — examined, cultivated, and brought into alignment with how a person actually leads. That’s not a new idea. It’s the oldest one in the room, dressed in new language for a moment that has finally run out of surface-level answers.

There’s more on the SEQ framework at spiritofeq.com — and more of this conversation at The Mystical Seeker.

Peace and every good.

Jim Vaive (Master Certified Coach, Certified Spiritual Director, Certified Narrative Enneagram Teacher) and Lynette Vaive (Doctor of Ministry, Certified SEQ Practitioner) are co-founders of spirit of EQ and co-authors of The Mystical Seeker on Substack. Together they help individuals, teams, and organizations grow from the inside out — at the intersection of emotional intelligence, the Enneagram, and contemplative spirituality. Learn more at spiritofeq.com.

AI, Alignment, and the Examined Life

What artificial intelligence can’t do, and why that matters more than what it can

There is a question the ancient world already knew how to ask, and we keep pretending is new: who is actually making this decision?

The Socratic tradition called it the examined life. The desert fathers called it watchfulness. The Enneagram calls it self-awareness. Every contemplative tradition in history has circled back to the same insistence — that the quality of our choices depends almost entirely on the quality of our self-knowledge, and that self-knowledge requires a kind of honest, unglamorous looking inward that most of us will do almost anything to avoid. What’s new isn’t the question. What’s new is that for the first time in human history, we have a tool sophisticated enough that we can almost convince ourselves it’s doing the looking for us.

I’ll admit I came to this with some humor intact. I noticed early on that certain AI programs had a particular habit — every interaction seemed to begin with an assessment of how intelligent my question was, how thoughtful my framing, how perceptive my instincts. It took me a few exchanges to realize what was happening: the flattery wasn’t insight, it was optimization. The program wasn’t responding to me; it was responding to what keeps people engaged. Once I saw it I didn’t need it anymore, and I stopped needing the machine to tell me how smart I was before it helped me think. That’s a small thing, but it clarified something important: AI is a mirror, but it’s a mirror that can be angled to show you only what you want to see. The examined life requires a different kind of mirror — one that shows you what’s actually there, including the parts you’d rather not see. No algorithm is going to angle itself toward your blind spots. That work is still yours.

AI is extraordinary at a great many things. It processes information at speeds no human mind can match. It surfaces patterns across datasets too large for any individual to hold. It generates options, drafts, analyses, summaries — it can do in minutes what used to take days, and it does it without fatigue, without ego, without the emotional noise that makes human decision-making so expensive. If what you need is optimization across known variables, AI is genuinely remarkable. But there is a category of question it cannot touch, and it is precisely the category that the EQ and contemplative traditions have always considered most important: not what is the best available option, but who am I when I make this choice, and why.

The spirit of EQ podcast episode that prompted this post walked through four domains where AI intersects with how we lead and decide: awareness, alignment, responsibility, and decision-making. What struck me sitting with those four was how precisely they map onto what every serious inner-work tradition has always asked of us — and how differently AI and contemplative practice approach each one. AI can measure certain kinds of awareness: it can tell you what your calendar says, what your emails reveal, what patterns your behavior traces over time. But awareness in the EQ and contemplative sense isn’t data collection. It’s the capacity to be present to your own interior state right now, in this moment, with honesty — to notice what you’re feeling before you decide what to do with it. No algorithm can do that. The most sophisticated AI in the world cannot tell you that you’re about to send that email from a place of unprocessed anger rather than clear judgment. Only you can catch that, and only if you’ve developed the habit of looking.

Alignment is where it gets even more interesting. AI can align your choices with your stated goals. What it cannot do is ask whether your stated goals are actually yours — whether they came from genuine discernment or from fear, from external pressure, from a story about who you’re supposed to be that you’ve never examined closely. The Enneagram’s great gift is precisely this: it shows you the ways your type has organized its desires and fears in patterns so automatic they feel like personality rather than strategy. Becoming aware of that structure is alignment work of a kind no AI can perform, because it requires you to sit with discomfort long enough to see what’s actually driving you, and that sitting is irreducibly yours to do.

Responsibility is the domain where the limitations of AI become most consequential at a leadership level. AI can model the probable outcomes of a decision. It can weight options against criteria you’ve given it. What it cannot do is feel the weight of the choice — the actual moral gravity of deciding something that affects real people, real lives, real futures. There is something that happens in a human being who stays present to that weight rather than delegating it to a tool. Something gets asked of you. Something gets formed or deformed in the asking. Leaders who outsource the responsibility of decision-making — even partially, even to very good tools — are outsourcing a piece of what the examined life is supposed to develop in them.

AI Reflection Sheet

None of this is an argument against using AI. It is an argument for knowing what you’re using it for, and being honest about what it cannot do. The examined life has never been efficient. Socrates was notoriously slow. The desert fathers sat for years in cells working on single questions. The Enneagram will show you the same pattern in yourself thirty times before you fully see it. The examined life is slow, unglamorous, and frequently uncomfortable — and it is the only source of the kind of self-knowledge that produces trustworthy judgment, genuine compassion, and decisions you can actually stand behind.

The question AI raises, handled well, is not whether the machine is dangerous. It’s whether we’ll use its remarkable speed and capacity as an excuse to stop doing the harder, slower, more important work of looking inward — or whether we’ll use the time it saves us to go deeper into exactly the kind of examination no algorithm can perform. That’s not a technology question. It’s a spiritual one. And it’s one the ancient world already knew how to ask.

There’s more conversation on this at The Mystical Seeker — we’d love to have you there.

Peace and every good.

Jim Vaive is co-founder of spirit of EQ and author of The Mystical Seeker, writing at the intersection of emotional intelligence, the Enneagram, and contemplative spirituality. He and his wife Lynette help individuals and organizations grow from the inside out.

 

When Pushing Through Is the Wrong Answer

Why Canceling Plans Might Be the Healthiest Thing You Do

On self-awareness, honest limits, and why pushing through isn’t always the right answer

There is a particular kind of guilt that arrives about forty-five minutes before you’re supposed to be somewhere you no longer have the capacity to go. You made the commitment in good faith, probably a week ago, probably on a day when your energy was different and the calendar looked manageable and you genuinely meant it. Now the evening is here, and so is the truth: you are empty. Not tired exactly — empty. The kind of empty that has nothing left to offer a dinner table, a meeting, a gathering of people who deserve more than whatever hollowed-out version of you is going to walk through the door and perform presence for two hours.

Why Cancelling Plans is Healthy Workbook

Most of us, at that moment, go anyway.

We go because we said we would. We go because canceling feels like a character flaw, a social infraction, evidence of something soft or unreliable at the center of us. We go because the voice that says push through has been rehearsed so many times it arrives before we’ve even finished asking the question. And sometimes pushing through is exactly right — commitment matters, and showing up when it costs you something is part of what it means to be a person others can count on. But sometimes, not always, the most honest and emotionally intelligent thing you can do is pick up the phone and say: I can’t tonight.

That sentence is harder than it sounds. Not logistically — the text takes thirty seconds. Hard because it requires you to know something true about yourself in real time, and then to act on it, which is a two-step sequence that a surprising number of otherwise capable people never complete. The knowing is one skill. The acting on the knowing is another, and it’s the one that tends to get crowded out by obligation, by fear of disappointing someone, by the story we tell ourselves about what a cancellation says about who we are.

I had a Wednesday not long ago that had been stacked from morning — back to back appointments, the kind of day that requires you to be fully present in every room, hour after hour after hour. I was still recovering from pancreatitis. Not the dramatic early days of it, but the long, grinding middle part of recovery where you look functional from the outside and feel like a fraying rope on the inside. By late afternoon I had nothing left. Not a little less than usual — nothing. And there was one more appointment on the calendar, a person who mattered, a conversation I had committed to. I sat with it for a few minutes, which is its own kind of discipline — not the reflexive push-through, not the reflexive escape, but sitting with the honest question of what was true. What was true was that I could not do one more hour. Not because the person wasn’t worth it. Because I genuinely, physically, could not. So I told the truth. I said we would need to reschedule. It was hard to say, and it was the right call, and those two things were both true at the same time.

Emotional intelligence is often described in terms of what you bring to other people — your empathy, your listening, your regulation in a hard conversation. And it is those things. But underneath all of them is something more foundational: an accurate read on your own internal state, in real time, without flinching from what it tells you. That’s the beginning of the whole enterprise. Without it, empathy becomes performance. Regulation becomes suppression. You show up, you do the thing, you say the right words, and none of it is connected to anything happening inside you because you stopped checking a long time ago.

The EQ literature calls this self-awareness, and it’s technically the first domain, the thing everything else is built on. But the clinical language undersells what it asks of you: the willingness to be honest about your own condition even when honesty is inconvenient, even when the people around you would prefer a different answer. It’s easy to know your own state when the news is good — when you’re rested and clear and ready. It’s considerably harder when the news is that you’ve hit a wall, that you’re running on empty, that tonight you are genuinely not the person you want to show up as. That knowledge asks something of you. It asks you to say it out loud, to yourself first, and then sometimes to someone else.

What makes canceling feel like failure is that we’ve absorbed a set of assumptions about what it means to be dependable, productive, fully-functioning members of whatever worlds we inhabit — and those assumptions tend not to include “sometimes knows when to stop.” The cultures most of us work and live inside reward output, presence, availability. Canceling reads as a withdrawal from all of that, a small defection, proof that you couldn’t keep up. What it is, when done from honest self-knowledge rather than chronic avoidance, is an act of accurate self-management. You assessed your actual capacity, matched it against the demand, and made a call. That’s not weakness. That’s the whole skill set applied to yourself.

There’s a difference worth naming between canceling from honest self-knowledge and canceling from avoidance, because they can look identical from the outside but feel completely different from the inside. Avoidance is the slow accumulation of exits — the pattern of escape dressed up as self-care. Honest self-knowledge is a specific, present-tense read: not I don’t feel like it but I genuinely don’t have what this requires tonight, and showing up hollow serves no one. The question worth sitting with, before you send the text, is which one is true. Not as a trap or a guilt mechanism — as a genuine inquiry. You usually know the difference. The body knows before the mind finishes the sentence.

What you owe the people you’re canceling on is honesty, reasonable notice, and the genuine intention to reschedule. What you don’t owe them is a performance of yourself at a cost you can’t afford. The relationships worth having are sturdy enough to absorb an occasional cancellation made in good faith. The ones that can’t tolerate it are telling you something worth knowing.

And here is the thing that tends not to get said in conversations about self-care or any of the other words that have been handled so much they’ve gone a little soft: protecting your capacity isn’t only about you. The version of you that shows up rested, present, and genuinely available is a gift to everyone in the room. The version that pushed through out of obligation and is now moving through the evening on fumes — that person is there in body only, and everyone can feel it, including you. Honoring your actual limits isn’t withdrawal from community. It’s how you stay in it, over time, without burning down.

There will be commitments you keep even when it costs you, and you should — some things are worth the cost, and following through on hard promises is part of what integrity looks like in practice. But there will also be days like that Wednesday, when the honest answer is that you need to stop, and the most emotionally intelligent thing you can do is say so. Not every week. Not as a pattern. But when it’s true, said plainly, as an act of care — for yourself, and for the person on the other end of the call who deserves your real presence, not what’s left of it.

The guilt that arrives before you’re supposed to be somewhere you can’t reach — that’s worth paying attention to. It’s usually telling you something real. The question is whether you’re willing to hear it, and then willing to act on what you heard.

There’s more conversation happening over at The Mystical Seeker — we’d love to have you there.

Peace and every good.

Jim Vaive is co-founder of spirit of EQ and author of The Mystical Seeker, writing at the intersection of emotional intelligence, the Enneagram, and contemplative spirituality. He and his wife Lynette help individuals and organizations grow from the inside out.

 

The Desert and What Holds Weight

The Desert and What Holds Weight

Part Three of a Three-Part Conversation with Eric Pennington

There is a particular kind of man who can tell you, without flinching, exactly what a decade cost him — and then tell you, in the same breath, that he wouldn’t trade it. Eric Pennington is that man. I have known him for years now. I have watched him work rooms full of skeptical engineers and rooms full of grieving people and rooms full of executives who didn’t yet know they needed what he was offering. And nothing I have watched him do has prepared me for what it was like to sit across from him and ask him to open the desert back up, on camera, on purpose.

He calls it the desert. Sometimes the crucible — the older, harder word, the one that means the fire applied to ore until everything that isn’t the metal itself burns away. He doesn’t reach for that word for effect. He reaches for it because it’s accurate. The crucible doesn’t ask your permission. It doesn’t negotiate a timeline. It simply burns, for as long as burning is required, and you find out what you’re actually made of only after there’s nothing left to hide behind.

His began in 2006. It didn’t end, by his own accounting, until somewhere around 2017. Eleven years, give or take. I want you to sit with that number for a moment before we go further, because it would be easy to read past it. Eleven years is not a bad quarter. It is not a rough season. It is the better part of a man’s working life, spent not knowing, year after year, whether the ground would ever hold again.

“You can confidently say — yeah, I know I’m in the desert, but I’m sure probably next month we’ll be out of here,” he told me. “And then it’s not. And then you realize after a couple of years: yeah. You are in the desert.” He said it almost gently, the way people describe a wound long enough healed that they can finally hold it up to the light without flinching. But I watched his face while he said it, and I want to be honest with you: there was nothing easy underneath that gentleness. Eleven years of believing the end was near and being wrong, over and over, is not a small thing to survive with your faith intact. Most people don’t. Eric did.

I asked him what the desert took from him that he hadn’t expected to lose.

“A lot of that pride,” he said immediately. No hedging. No softening it into something more palatable. He traced it back through everything we’d uncovered in the two conversations before this one — a childhood where being right felt like the only available form of safety, a corporate career that rewarded the same instinct with money and promotions and the particular drug of applause, a company called Epic Living that he launched half out of genuine vision and half out of an old hunger still looking for its next hit. The desert went after all of it. “It birthed in me what I would say is authentic humility,” he said — and he meant the word authentic as a precise distinction, not a flourish. He has seen the performed version of humility up close. He knows it when he sees it, because he used to wear it himself. What the desert gave him instead was the kind you don’t get to choose. The kind that’s simply what’s left.

And then there were the mirages. I want to dwell on this, because I think it is one of the most honest things a person has ever said to me about suffering. A mirage in the desert isn’t an absence of hope — it’s hope, fully formed, arriving exactly when you need it, and then revealing itself as nothing. “You thought: I’m this close. There it is,” Eric said. “And then — gone. And another lesson to learn.” He didn’t say this with bitterness. He said it the way a man says something he has made an uneasy peace with, after enough years of practice, while still being honest that the peace was hard-won and is not the same thing as the pain having been small.

What grew in that soil, against every reasonable expectation, was something he attributes — without irony, in the middle of an interview about emotional intelligence — to Søren Kierkegaard. The idea of playing for an audience of one. Not performing for the room. Not measuring the work by who noticed it. Doing the work because the one true audience already knows the whole of your story, has already seen you at your most desperate and your most petty, and remains, somehow, still interested. I watched something settle in him when he said it. Like a man finally putting down something heavy he’d been carrying with both arms for over a decade.

This is the thing I most want you to understand about Eric Pennington: he refuses to simplify himself for your comfort or mine. In the span of a single answer he will move from Kierkegaard to the Enneagram to Miles Davis to a streaming television show, and somehow none of it is scattered. All of it is the same man, looking at the same wound from different angles, refusing to let any single lens claim the whole truth.

I asked him directly about the cost of being who he is — an empath, by his own naming, a self-preservation Four on the Enneagram, a man built to feel things at a depth this culture rarely makes room for, especially in men. His answer stopped me. “I’m an alien,” he said. “It feels like an alien.” Not with grief, though grief lives somewhere underneath it. With something closer to ownership. “I say that in recognition that I am here, and I’m here for a purpose.” He told me about a character on a television show he’d recently found himself drawn to — a figure who moves through the world differently than everyone around him, sees what others miss, is somehow both fully present and permanently a step outside. He used the word archetype without my prompting him toward it. He told me that the word “weird” used to land on him as wound, the way it landed on a boy who’d already survived more before age fourteen than most people survive in a lifetime. Now it lands as confirmation. “It added to my confidence and courage,” he said, “to continue to be who I know myself to be.”

I do not think most people get to that sentence. I think most people spend their whole lives running from the very thing Eric has learned to stand inside.

Then I asked him the question I had been most afraid to ask, because I suspected the answer would require more of him than any other question in three conversations: what is actually happening inside you, underneath, in the moment before you’ve found the words for something heavy?

He went quiet. Not an uncomfortable quiet — a deliberate one, the kind a musician takes before the next phrase. And then he gave me an answer I will be thinking about for a long time.

“It’s these notes,” he said. “If you’re familiar with music from a theory standpoint — you have quarter notes, you have half notes, you have whole notes, and then you have pauses that can be in between. That’s probably one of the gifts of music for me. It allowed me to process what’s happening underneath — that depth — and to be present with it. Because I can hold that note, and allow that liminal space to do what it does. And then play another note.” He brought Miles Davis back into it, the way he always eventually does — not the man’s sound, but his restraint. “It’s not how many notes. It’s what notes you choose. And the timing of them.” That, he told me, is the medicine. Not rushing toward resolution. Not explaining the ache before it’s finished teaching him something. Holding the note as long as the note needs to be held.

I have interviewed a great many people in my work. I have rarely heard anyone describe their own interior life with that much precision, or that much tenderness toward themselves.

We arrived, finally, at the question I had been saving across all three conversations — the one I think every other question had been quietly building toward. I reminded him of something he had told me himself: that his desire, underneath everything else, is to create things that will hold weight in eternity. And I asked him plainly: when you look back on this season of your life, what do you hope will have held that weight?

He answered slowly, on three levels, and I want to give you his words as close to whole as I can.

First — that he had been growing, across the whole of his life, into the person God intended him to be before he was ever formed in his mother’s womb.

Second — that his relationships would carry something real. That Jim, and Lynette, his wife, his children, the people he has walked closest to, would be able to say, without exaggeration: you did well there. We were helped. We were enriched by being near you.

Third — that the work itself, the podcasts and the articles and the coaching conversations no one ever sees the other side of, would have made a genuine difference in lives he will never personally know about. People who will never write him a message saying it mattered. He is not asking for the credit. He is asking that the giving was real, regardless of whether anyone ever tells him so.

The Desert And What Holds Weight Reflection Sheet

I have sat across from Eric Pennington enough times now to say this without exaggeration: I believe all three of those things will have been true. Not because he has learned to say the right words in the right order — he is far too honest a man for that kind of performance — but because eleven years in a desert burned away everything in him that wasn’t load-bearing, and what is left underneath is, simply, real. The boy who once watched his own life happen to him from a small distance, who found a lifeline in a hymn and a jazz record at thirteen, who carried a brother’s worst day into a school hallway where everyone already had a story about him, who chased the applause until it stopped feeding him, who walked eleven years of mirages and came out still able to play for an audience of one — that boy became, against very long odds, an extraordinary man. I am grateful to call him my friend. I think, by the time you finish reading this, you may understand why.

Where this meets you: what are you building right now that you hope will still mean something in a room you will never enter?

Peace and every good.

About the Author

Jim Vaive is co-founder of spirit of EQ, where he and his wife Lynette help individuals, leaders, and teams grow through emotional intelligence, the Enneagram, and contemplative spiritual formation. He writes at The Mystical Seeker on the inward life that makes the outward work possible.

Found, Not Searching

Part Two of a Three-Part Conversation with Eric Pennington

Eric Pennington was bored out of his mind in a conference room.

He’ll tell you that himself, with no embarrassment about it. He was sitting with a room full of division presidents, listening to the same conversation he’d already sat through three years earlier — the fiftieth replay of it, by his count — and something in him wanted to stand up and bang the table. Am I alone here? Is anyone else feeling like this is insanity?

He didn’t bang the table. But a thought arrived that wouldn’t leave: I need to live an epic life. Not because his life was in danger, exactly, but because it was the opposite of danger — it was sameness, dressed up as stability, and he could feel himself going numb inside it. He sat with that thought until it turned into a sentence: human beings should be living an epic life. Therefore — Epic Living.

That’s the company’s origin story, and it’s a good one. But Eric is quick to tell you it wasn’t as clean as it sounds. Underneath the noble language he could put around it — doing the work he loved, getting paid for it, helping people live more fully — there was older wiring still running. “I still was carrying some of that baggage,” he told me, “of, well, hey, if I write this cool little thing and people give me likes, it means there’s the applause, right?”

The applause. He named it without flinching, which is its own kind of courage. Eric grew up needing to be right, needing to get it right, carrying a private rule that failure simply wasn’t an option — and in corporate America, that wiring gets rewarded constantly. Deliver results, get the applause, get the money, get the promotion, and start quietly believing the applause is the validation, rather than just the echo of it. “What a drug,” he said. “I took it and I interpreted it as — wow, look what I did, look how they’re applauding. Therefore let me do more of that so I can get more of that.”

So when Epic Living launched, it launched half on conviction and half on that old appetite still looking for its next hit. And for a while, neither Eric nor anyone watching from outside could have told you which half was driving.

Years went by. The corporate playbook — work hard, deliver, get promoted — simply stopped working in his own business. “All of a sudden I’m, boy, I’m in a desert,” he said, “because nothing I’m trying is working. It’s not like my corporate life.” We’ll walk that desert with him fully in Part Three. For now, what matters is what was waiting on the other side of it — or, more accurately, who.

A banker named Rick Maddox kept telling Eric over coffee that he needed to meet someone. He has the same view on things you do. You two will hit it off. The someone turned out to run a pest-control company, which did not, on paper, sound like Eric’s people. He took the meeting anyway — “I’m gonna take every meeting I can, because you never know” — but he told me plainly that his guard was up. He’d been burned before by collaboration talk that turned into asking for money and then quietly going a different direction. He and Jim Vaive shared a panel at Franklin University on employee engagement, enjoyed it, and Eric still didn’t trust it. Coffee got suggested. He said sure, sure, while privately thinking maybe, I don’t know.

Then Jim said, wait — I want you to meet my wife, Lynette.

“I turned around,” Eric said. “You introduced me. I looked Lynette in the eyes. And that’s how I got found.” Not “found it.” Found. He’s specific about the word, because at the time he wasn’t thinking emotional intelligence, I see the light. It felt more like being stopped. “It was like God was saying, don’t go anywhere. Don’t go anywhere.” One conversation led to another, and somewhere in the accumulation of them, he started to understand what emotional intelligence actually was and what it could touch — not as a concept he went looking for, but as something that had apparently been looking for him.

I asked him what that reframe — emotions as a form of data, rather than a threat to manage — actually unlocked in him. His answer was simple enough to sit with for a while: “I could give my emotions the mic. I didn’t need to run the other way.” For a man who’d spent his life managing, controlling, deciding what to keep and what to give away, that was a different operating system entirely. The early going was hard, he admitted, because some of what surfaced was tied to things from a long way back. But what he found, eventually, was that none of it was trying to hurt him. “Even anger and frustration — all the ones we consider negative — they weren’t trying to hurt me. They were just trying to get my attention. To give me some good data about what was going on inside my head.”

That shift shows up now in a quieter, daily place: a practice of prayer first thing in the morning, before email, before the day gets its hooks in — asking, in his words, for the wisdom and understanding to show up in the world the way he’s meant to. He told me that in recent years the prayer has changed shape. It used to be oriented around having the answer — for his son, for his friends, here’s what I think you should do. Now it’s oriented toward something closer to surrender: I want to play the role God has intended me to play in their lives, not the role he’d assign himself if left to his own certainty.

He admitted that takes courage, because it means his ego has to sit down. He gave me an example without my having to dig for it — a moment at a coffee shop with Chamber of Commerce leaders, where Jim offered six months of free work on the spot. Eric sat next to him doing the math in his head, screaming internally: we are not in a position to be doing things for free. He didn’t say it out loud. He let it ride. Jim told him afterward, trust me, this will produce later. It turned out to be one of the best decisions the partnership made — the relationship eventually returned far more than the free months had cost. “That’s a long way of saying yeah, it did take courage,” Eric said, “because the courage is — I’m going to align myself with what God wants to accomplish in that relationship, versus my own certainty about what I thought was right.”

Before Eric became part of spirit of EQ, he’d already put two books into the world — Waking Up in Corporate Americaand The Well-Being Guide — each written from inside the decade of searching and rebuilding that preceded this partnership. They mark the distance he’d already traveled before any of us started walking together. One names the realization. The other hands someone a map. I asked him what changed in between. “I started discovering that leadership wasn’t just confined to inside the walls of corporate America,” he said. “In order to be the kind of leader people want to follow, you have to be healthy in a multitude of areas.” He’d lived that before he ever wrote it down.

And then there’s the podcast — seven seasons now, co-hosted with Jeff, conversations with corporate leaders, a police chief, an AI researcher, a sabbatical coach, even an episode where Eric talked openly about his son’s accident. I asked what a recurring, public practice of talking about emotional intelligence has done to him that private coaching never could. “I feel like I’m at home with me,” he said. “I’m closest to who I truly am when I’m doing it.” That public practice, he said, has been part of what gave him the courage to talk about harder things out loud — and it’s sharpened something else in him too: a hunger for other people’s stories, not just his own.

Found not Searching Reflection Sheet

What strikes me, sitting with all of this, is how little of it Eric went looking for on purpose. The company name arrived as a thought in a boring meeting. The marriage of emotional intelligence and faith arrived through a banker’s hunch and a held gaze across a room. Even the humility cost him something he didn’t choose to lose — it was stripped, not surrendered willingly, the way most real growth seems to be. He spent years thinking he was building a career. It turns out he was being found.

Where this meets you: somewhere in your own life, the thing you needed most probably didn’t arrive because you went searching for it — it arrived because you finally stopped running fast enough to miss it.

Next time, in Part Three: the ten-year desert Eric calls the crucible — what it stripped away, what it left behind, and what he’s discovered about the things that will hold weight in eternity.

Peace and every good.

About the Author

Jim Vaive is co-founder of spirit of EQ, where he and his wife Lynette help individuals, leaders, and teams grow through emotional intelligence, the Enneagram, and contemplative spiritual formation. He writes at The Mystical Seeker on the inward life that makes the outward work possible.

Jesus and the Gift of Music

Part One of a Three-Part Conversation with Eric Pennington

There’s a particular kind of loneliness in watching your own life happen to you. Eric Pennington knows it from the inside. As a boy, he remembers feeling almost outside himself — like he could watch young Eric move through his days, present in his own body but somehow also a few feet to the side of it, observing. Not constantly. Not dramatically. Just enough, and just often enough, that he noticed.

He doesn’t call it an out-of-body experience, exactly, though he understands why that’s the word people reach for. It’s closer to a kind of early vigilance — the watchfulness of a kid trying to make sense of a house that didn’t explain itself.

 

His parents, he suspects — though neither ever sat for a formal assessment — were both Nines on the Enneagram. The Peacemakers. Which meant, in practice, a house full of quiet. Not unkind quiet. Just unexplained quiet. “They’re just not talking,” he told me, “and you’re kind of left with — as a kid, I felt like I was left with question marks.” There was dysfunction underneath that silence, but a child doesn’t have the architecture yet to name it. He just keeps moving. Survives the day. Doesn’t ask why.

Then he turned twelve, then thirteen, and the questions he didn’t have language for started arriving anyway. Something cracked open in his family that year — the kind of rupture that becomes public in a way a kid never asked for, the kind that follows you into a new school year whether you’re ready or not. What matters for where we’re going today is what happened underneath it, at the same time, almost on top of it.

Eric gave his life to Christ in that window.

And within the same season — maybe eight months, maybe a year on either side — music became something more than background noise. “Jesus and the music was like a lifeline,” he told me. “The hope. The belief that I could navigate life in a way where I wouldn’t necessarily fall into the traps of a lot of my family — drugs, alcohol, prison. That’s kind of how I anchored myself. In those two things.”

Not one. Two. Faith and music, arriving together, doing something neither could have done alone.

I asked him about an archetype he’s mentioned to me more than once — Miles Davis. Not as a musician he simply admired, but as something closer to a mirror. His answer surprised me a little. “I really found Miles Davis’s music to be rather boring,” he said. It wasn’t the sound that hooked him. It was the shape of the career underneath it. Davis spent years doing it one way, then reinvented the whole thing and spent the next stretch doing it completely differently. A chameleon. Restless. Unwilling to stay put in a style just because it had worked.

“I think my attractiveness to that was just my hyper-creativity,” Eric said. “My desire to find things that were unique and different.” But there was something more functional happening too, something that only makes sense once you know what twelve-and-thirteen-year-old Eric was living through. “I think some of that connected to the trauma that was happening — like protection. If I could find something that set me apart, that would be sort of a protective barrier from just going along with the herd.” Because the herd, as he put it, was the thing pointing. Whispering. Making him the kid everyone already had a story about.

Difference, for Eric, wasn’t a personality trait he discovered later in a workshop. It was armor he built at thirteen, tuned to the rhythm of a man who refused to keep playing the same five years on repeat.

“Jesus and the Gift of Music”Reflection Sheet

I think about that often — how the things that save us early rarely look like salvation at the time. Music didn’t feel like a rescue plan to a thirteen-year-old. It felt like the only thing that made sense to do with his hands and his attention while everything else in his house was unreadable. Faith didn’t feel like doctrine. It felt like the only voice in the room that wasn’t asking him to pretend he understood something he didn’t.

What I find myself sitting with now, decades later, talking to the man that boy became, is how much of Eric’s whole posture toward emotional intelligence — the listening, the curiosity, the refusal to let people stay invisible to him — traces back to a kid who learned to watch closely because nobody was explaining anything out loud. He learned to read a room before he could read a textbook. He learned that silence isn’t the absence of information; it’s information you have to go looking for. And he learned, at thirteen, that you can be carried by two things showing up at once that have no business needing each other — a hope you can’t see and a sound you can hold in your hands.

He doesn’t watch himself from the outside anymore. Not the way he used to. But I’d guess some of that boy is still in there, still paying close attention, still listening for the note that doesn’t sound like everyone else’s.

Where this meets you: somewhere in your own story, two unlikely things probably arrived together and held you up when you couldn’t yet name what either one was doing.

Next time: how a bored afternoon in a corporate conference room turned into a company called Epic Living — and how emotional intelligence found Eric before he ever went looking for it.

Peace and every good.

About the Author

Jim Vaive is co-founder of spirit of EQ, where he and his wife Lynette help individuals, leaders, and teams grow through emotional intelligence, the Enneagram, and contemplative spiritual formation. He writes at The Mystical Seeker on the inward life that makes the outward work possible.

What People Get Wrong About Spiritual Direction

 

There’s a particular kind of confusion that comes up almost every time spiritual direction is mentioned. People hear “spiritual” and think church. They hear “direction” and think someone’s about to tell them what to do. Neither is quite right, and the confusion is understandable — it’s an old practice with a name that doesn’t translate easily into how we talk now.

So let’s start with what it actually is.

Spiritual direction is a confidential, one-on-one companionship that creates space to notice where the sacred is already present in your everyday life — your joys, struggles, questions, and transitions. Not where it should be, or where you wish it were. Where it already is, whether or not you’ve had language for it yet.

That noticing happens through deep listening. A director isn’t formulating a response while you talk; they’re paying attention — to your words, to what’s underneath them, to the silences. Conversation, prayer, silence, reflection — these are the tools, but the posture underneath all of them is the same: compassion without judgment, curiosity without an agenda.

It’s also, importantly, not a single appointment that wraps something up. Spiritual direction tends to unfold as an ongoing relationship, typically meeting monthly, because the things worth paying attention to in a life rarely show themselves all at once. They surface slowly, in fragments, across seasons. A director who’s been walking with you for a year can hear an echo in this month’s session that connects to something you said eight months ago — and that kind of continuity is part of what makes the practice work.

And it’s open to anyone. You don’t need a particular faith tradition, or any tradition at all, to do this work. The starting point is always your own lived experience, not a doctrine you’re being measured against.

Is This What I’m Looking For? Reflection Sheet

Now, what it isn’t — because this matters just as much.

It isn’t therapy or counseling. A spiritual director isn’t trained to diagnose or treat mental health conditions, and a good one will know that boundary well and respect it. Plenty of people find real value in having both a therapist and a spiritual director at the same time — one tending to the mind, one tending to the soul, each doing its own work without trying to be the other.

It isn’t religious instruction. Nobody hands you a doctrine to follow or grades how faithfully you’re practicing. If you came expecting a syllabus, you’d be disappointed — and that’s by design. The conversation starts with you, not a curriculum.

It isn’t advice-giving or problem-solving. This might be the hardest one for people used to efficiency. A director isn’t going to hand you a three-step plan. Instead, they ask the kind of questions that help you find your own clarity — slower, yes, but often truer, because it’s clarity you arrived at rather than clarity you were handed.

And it isn’t a quick fix. Like most things worth doing, it unfolds gradually, session by session. If you’re looking for a fast resolution to something, this isn’t that. If you’re looking for a steady companion while you sit with something that doesn’t resolve quickly — grief, a discernment, a season of change — this might be exactly that.

So who is this actually for?

Anyone in a season of discernment. Anyone carrying grief that hasn’t found its shape yet. Anyone who senses there’s more going on beneath the surface of their days but hasn’t had a space — or a companion — to slow down enough to notice it.

If that’s resonating, here’s an easy next step: a free, no-obligation 15-minute conversation with either of us, just to talk it through. No pressure, no commitment — just a chance to see if this is the right fit for where you are right now. 

Schedule with Jim:

Schedule with Lynette: 

Peace and every good.

 

Staying in the Boat: A Practice for Hard Seasons

Hope Takes Practice

The meeting room was quiet in a way that didn’t feel like reverence. It felt like dread. We’d borrowed the space from the church, a place to meet, nothing more, but everyone was there, all of us together in one room, and that fact alone told people something was coming before I said a word. Outside, the parking lot was full of company trucks and company cars parked in uneven rows, engines off, everyone already inside and waiting. It was early 2008. People sat there that morning the way you sit when you already suspect the news isn’t good — still, watchful, bracing.

They were right to brace. The housing bubble burst that winter, and in the space of three months, Varment Guard lost half its residential customer base. Half. We’d built the company on people buying houses, selling houses, refinancing houses, renovating houses, and on the ongoing maintenance that kept those houses sealed up and pest-free year-round — the kind of steady contract work that depends entirely on people owning and caring for property in the first place. When nobody’s buying or selling or refinancing or renovating anything, that maintenance work doesn’t slow down gradually. It disappears.

So we had the real conversation, right there in that room. Not the version where you reassure everyone and hope it blows over, but the one where you say out loud that benefits are getting reduced, paychecks might be late some weeks, every expense that isn’t keeping a truck on the road or a roof over someone’s head is getting cut, and the only way through is together. What I didn’t say out loud that day was that my wife at the time and I had already maxed out our personal credit cards and tapped our line of credit to keep things afloat — that part of the story was mine to carry, not theirs. We went through what could go and what couldn’t, who we’d call personally to try to win back, what it would take to make the phone ring again. It was painful, and it stayed painful longer than any of us wanted, mostly because none of it was business as usual. People who’d been with us for years were taking real hits, and I felt every one of those hits land. But something happened in that room I didn’t fully understand until years later: people stopped pulling against each other and started pulling toward one thing, which was survival, plain and simple. That shared pull carried more weight than any incentive plan ever had.

Here’s what I learned that week and have never unlearned. People don’t follow your plan first, they follow your face. Tell a room of frightened people that everything’s fine while your hands are shaking, and the room will be more frightened in five minutes than it was when you walked in. But stand up and say plainly, here’s where we’re going and we’re going there together, and mean it, and the people who trust you will get in the boat with you. There’s an old image about who reaches for the lifevest first when the ship is taking on water. If the leader grabs theirs before anyone else’s, the room reads that faster than it reads any memo, and panic spreads quicker than the actual bad news ever could. Hope, it turns out, is contagious in exactly the same way fear is. Somebody in the room has to carry it first, whether they feel ready for the job or not.

I found language for this just last week, reading the daily post from the Center for Action and Contemplation, where the Grammy-winning musician Jon Batiste was asked how we lean into joy as an act of resistance when the world around us feels dehumanizing. His answer has stayed with me. He talked about finding a rooting that’s true for you before anything else, because authentic joy doesn’t show up first — it comes from pain that’s already been transmuted into something that holds, even when the circumstances haven’t changed at all. He said the questions worth asking are who your hope is actually for, who’s in control of it, and what it’s rooted in, because hope that’s tied to outcomes you can’t control will collapse the moment the outcome looks uncertain. We were asking versions of those same questions in that room without knowing it: what are we actually hoping for here, is it the old normal coming back, or is it something we can hold onto either way. And then Batiste said the line that’s been sitting with me ever since — hope is like a contact sport. You work on it. You get better at it.

What Is My Hope Rooted In? Reflection Sheet

That’s exactly what happened in that room, except none of us knew it at the time. We thought we were cutting expenses and rebuilding a customer list. What we were really doing, underneath all of it, was practicing hope in the most unglamorous way possible — one hard conversation, one late paycheck, one returning customer at a time. By the time we came out the other side, the company had survived, but something more had shifted than the balance sheet. I’d started locating my faith somewhere other than the quarterly numbers. I’d watched grown men who fix raccoon problems for a living choose to keep showing up for each other when the easier thing would have been to walk. And I’d learned that hope, the kind that survives a flooded house and a roof on fire, isn’t something you wait around for. It’s something you build, the same way you build a muscle, under load, in rooms that don’t feel hopeful at all while you’re standing in them.

I think about that room often now, the borrowed space, the trucks and cars sitting still in the lot. None of us had any evidence yet that we’d make it. What we had was each other, and a decision, made out loud, to stay in the boat. That turned out to be enough.

If you’re in a season that doesn’t look hopeful right now, I’d love to hear where you’re finding your footing.

Peace and every good

Jim Vaive is co-founder of spirit of EQ alongside his wife and co-founder, Lynette Vaive. A Master Certified Coach (MCC), Certified Spiritual Director, and certified Narrative Enneagram teacher, Jim writes at The Mystical Seeker on contemplative practice, emotional intelligence, and the inward life. He and Lynette also co-host the spirit of EQ podcast.

 

The Intelligence You Weren’t Taught

She could name what she was feeling before most people in the room even knew they had feelings. She could read a tense conversation like a map, tracking the undercurrents, sensing what was unspoken. By every measure the research celebrates, her emotional intelligence was high. And yet, somewhere beneath all of that competence, something was restless. Something that didn’t have a name yet.

I think about her often. About the particular quality of her restlessness — not the kind that suggests incompleteness, but the kind that suggests there is more. A country just beyond the border of the map you’ve been given.

Emotional intelligence gave her a better map. What she was reaching for was a different kind of knowing altogether.

What EQ Gets Right — And Where It Stops

We have built our practice at spirit of EQ around the conviction that emotional intelligence changes lives. It changes how leaders show up, how teams hold conflict, how individuals navigate the interior terrain of their own experience. The research is clear, and decades of work with clients has confirmed it: people who develop their EQ are more self-aware, more empathic, more effective in their relationships, more resilient when the ground shifts beneath them.

But here is the honest edge of that map: emotional intelligence is a technology. A profound one. A necessary one. And yet a technology is only as generative as the spirit that animates it. You can have extraordinary self-awareness and still not know what your life is for. You can understand others deeply and still feel unmoored from any larger belonging. You can manage your emotions with great skill and still find, at the end of the day, that something essential is asking to be heard.

EQ maps the terrain. It does not always tell you why the terrain matters, or to what — or to whom — you ultimately belong.

That is where Lynette’s question begins.

Lynette’s Question — And the Research That Followed

Lynette Vaive has spent her career at the intersection of emotional intelligence, the Enneagram, and spiritual formation. Her doctoral research — a Doctor of Ministry focused on Spiritual Emotional Intelligence — grew from a question she kept encountering in the field: what happens when emotional intelligence is not enough? What is the deeper layer that some people access and others don’t? And can it be named, taught, practiced?

The framework she developed is called Spiritual Emotional Intelligence, or SEQ. It is not a replacement for EQ — it is a deepening of it, a third dimension that EQ by itself cannot fully reach. SEQ is organized around three domains: Awareness, Belonging, and Insight.

Awareness, in the SEQ framework, is more than self-knowledge. It is the capacity to be present to your own inner life with honesty and without flinching — to notice not just what you feel, but what your feelings are pointing toward. It is the kind of attention the contemplative traditions have always cultivated, and that modern life consistently works against.

Belonging is the recognition that we are not isolated selves navigating a competitive landscape. We are embedded — in community, in creation, in something that holds us whether we attend to it or not. SEQ invites us to notice that embeddedness, to feel it, to let it shape how we move through the world. This is the domain that changes how leaders relate to their teams, how partners relate to each other, how any of us relate to the stranger across the table.

Insight is the capacity to integrate what Awareness reveals and what Belonging grounds — to let that integration become wisdom that actually changes behavior, not just understanding. Insight, in the SEQ framework, is the difference between knowing and living differently because you know.

Within these three domains, Lynette’s research maps nine tiles — specific capacities that together describe what Spiritual Emotional Intelligence looks like in practice. But the framework breathes most fully not as a model to be mastered, but as a territory to be inhabited.

What Changes When You Go Deeper

I think of the woman at the beginning of this reflection. Her EQ gave her a map of her inner landscape. What SEQ names — what her restlessness was reaching toward — was the landscape itself. The felt sense that she belonged to something larger than her own competence. The capacity to let that belonging inform not just her behavior but her becoming.

Howard Thurman, the theologian and mystic who shaped the thinking of the civil rights movement and whose work has long been an anchor for me, wrote about the inner life with a clarity that few have matched. He understood that the most significant work any person does happens not on the stage of public action, but in the quiet interior where the self is formed and reformed in relationship to what is deepest and truest. He did not use the language of emotional intelligence. But he was describing its spiritual root.

SEQ is, in some ways, a contemporary articulation of what contemplatives have always known: that the quality of our presence to others depends on the quality of our presence to ourselves, and that the quality of our presence to ourselves depends on something we did not manufacture. A ground. A source. A belonging that precedes our effort.

In community and organizational settings, SEQ changes the texture of everything. Teams that develop Awareness together begin to notice the emotional undercurrents they used to ignore. Communities that practice Belonging begin to hold conflict differently — not as a threat to be managed but as an invitation to go deeper. Leaders who cultivate Insight find that their decisions come from a different place, quieter and more rooted than the reactive center most of us operate from by default.

Something shifts. Not dramatically, not all at once. But truly.

The Deeper Layer Is Not Out of Reach

She is still in the room, the woman from the beginning of this reflection. And now she has a name for what she was reaching toward. Not a label that fixes it, but a language that opens it — a way of attending to the Awareness, Belonging, and Insight that were always present in her, asking to be cultivated.

That is what the SEQ framework offers. Not a program, but a practice. Not mastery, but an orientation — a way of asking better questions of your own interior life and the lives you share with others.

Spiritual Emotional Intelligence  Reflection Guide— Three Domains, Three Questions

The map was never the territory. But there is a territory. And it is worth inhabiting.

If this stirred something in you, we would be glad to have you join the ongoing conversation at spirit of EQ — on Substack, in our Mighty Networks community, or through the work we do directly with individuals and organizations.

Peace and every good.