Comments on: Have you a male or female brain?

Have you a male or female brain?

jamespake — Thu, 17 Apr 2003 03:22:21 -0800

How male or female is your brain? Psychologist Simon Baron-Cohen argues in today's Guardian that the male and female brains tend to be hard-wired for different kinds of thinking - empathising (more common in females) or systemising (more common in males). Take the test.

By: Richat

Richat — Thu, 17 Apr 2003 03:44:40 -0800

Well that was a lot of work to discover that I, a male, have a male brain...I was sooooo sure I had a female brain too, or perhaps some sort of advanced hybrid...oh well. Interesting link JS.

By: Pretty_Generic

Pretty_Generic — Thu, 17 Apr 2003 04:02:12 -0800

The test's author is the cousin of another great thinker of our times.

By: adrianhon

adrianhon — Thu, 17 Apr 2003 04:03:33 -0800

Interestingly, he's also suggesting that autism may be an extreme form of the male mind. I saw a talk given by him about this at my college; the article is a bit light on the experimental evidence for his assertion, but there's a lot behind it that he doesn't mention there. It'll be interesting to see how people react to this; he's well aware that this is a controversial topic; as, indeed, are all topics that suggest genetic differences can cause cognitive differences between individuals (and to a lesser extent, groups). Baron-Cohen was also one of the pioneering researchers into synaesthesia (as covered here yesterday)

By: adamgreenfield

adamgreenfield — Thu, 17 Apr 2003 04:10:54 -0800

Simon Baron-Cohen argues...that the male and female brains tend to be hard-wired for different kinds of thinking - empathising (more common in females) or systemising (more common in males). ...thus proving he's male.

By: adamgreenfield

adamgreenfield — Thu, 17 Apr 2003 04:26:53 -0800

OK, according to this I'm an extremely low empathizer (29) and a medium systematizer (33). I just checked in my pants, and guess what? It's right! Seriously, I hate these kinds of tests. They merely reinscribe the same boring essentialist myths, and anyway anything with questions whose intent is so transparent is easily gamed. My gut-level reality check tells me this is nonsense for other reasons. I'm an information architect, which if anything should be a field rife with systematizers. And it is - maybe half the people I know in the profession have a library science background or a specialty in classification. The theory breaks down here, because 50-60% of these heavy systematizers are female. Are they engaged in mimesis? Don't think so. NEXT!

By: Grangousier

Grangousier — Thu, 17 Apr 2003 04:35:38 -0800

However hard I find it to resist taking tests like this, I tend to find myself involuntarily squinting at the screen, the way I do when I'm trying to work out whether the person I'm talking to is completely insane or merely winding me up. That said, with an EQ of 16 and an SQ of 25, I'm either mentally subnormal or dead, and so obviously inclined to be wary.

By: jamespake

jamespake — Thu, 17 Apr 2003 04:39:19 -0800

...thus proving he's male. Nice one! OK, according to this I'm an extremely low empathizer (29) and a medium systematizer (33). My SQ was 35 and EQ was 31 - I expected an average EQ and a high SQ. I think I was too modest in my EQ ratings (I was judging myself against my standards rather than some population norm) and my SQ was brought down by the fact that, although my everyday work involves such thinking, I don't apply it to things like DIY and car maintenance. I'd have preferred a test that measured things more objectively - IQ-type questions for SQ and emotional judgements (such as identifying emotions in photographs) for EQ.

By: hilatron

hilatron — Thu, 17 Apr 2003 04:46:07 -0800

What adamgreenfield said. I got a lower than average score (33) for empathizing, and you know what? I'm damn empathetic. I think what threw me is the fact that I was balking at the obvious social bias of the questions. I hope his clinical experiment was designed a little better to a) account for socialization and b) obscure the "right" answers so that subjects are not reacting to what they think they should answer (or, as in my case, answering "wrong" acidentally-on-purpose).

By: iamck

iamck — Thu, 17 Apr 2003 04:49:53 -0800

So there's differences between gender. And what does this tell us about gender's link to the biological brain?

By: rudyfink

rudyfink — Thu, 17 Apr 2003 04:50:14 -0800

Interesting but tests like this always strike me as very off the wall subjective. It's fun, but how really useful is it that I have an EQ of 46 and an SQ of 49. The range differences in the averages stood out quite strongly on the tests.

By: dydecker

dydecker — Thu, 17 Apr 2003 04:57:06 -0800

I scored 58 on empathy and 19 on systematizing and I'm a man. Isn't that guy Ali G's dad?

By: adrianhon

adrianhon — Thu, 17 Apr 2003 05:01:37 -0800

The test is pretty crude - of course it is, all tests of these kinds are necessarily approximate. Ditto for IQ tests on the web - they really aren't very good compared to the standard diagnostic ones (e.g. WAIS). I imagine that he got pushed into developing a test for the Guardian because it seemed obvious. Baron-Cohen certainly didn't use stuff like this to create his theory - he did a lot of research with infants, babies, perceptual speed tests, pop-out; all very quantifiable stuff. So, again: do not judge the theory based on the dubious usefulness of the test. Please read the article before taking the test - it will probably make more sense. Or even better, don't bother with the test at all. iamck: Yes, there are differences between gender. So how did they come about? Is it through (crudely speaking) nature or nurture? It's easy to argue that men are systemisers and women are empathisers because of cultural conditioning, parental expectations, etc etc. But how does the research into the behaviour of babies and infants, which shows that there are significant differences in behaviour at a stage of development where you wouldn't expect any cultural conditioning to have taken place, fit with that? There does appear to be a biological component. dydecker: He's Ali G's uncle.

By: GhostintheMachine

GhostintheMachine — Thu, 17 Apr 2003 05:11:05 -0800

Right from the start, I have a problem with this test. EQ Question #1: "I can easily tell if someone else wants to enter a conversation." How should I know? I may *think* I can tell, but could be completely oblivious. Any answer I give would be meaningless. Someone else would have to observe me in conversations to answer with any assurance of reality. Otherwise it's just my self-inflated opinion of myself shining through. Wait... I'm sensing that someone else wants to comment on this thread, so I'll pass the conch.

By: Wong Fei-hung

Wong Fei-hung — Thu, 17 Apr 2003 05:32:36 -0800

e26 - s31

By: quonsar

quonsar — Thu, 17 Apr 2003 05:43:53 -0800

i have little empathy for systemics.

By: Caffine_Fiend

Caffine_Fiend — Thu, 17 Apr 2003 05:51:39 -0800

eq: 19 ?!?! sq: 28 I'm not sure this test is very accurate. An EQ of 19? According to the test, people with high levels of autism statistically score slightly higher than that... Don't bother trying to console me. According to the test, I won't realize what you're doing anyway...

By: ?!

?! — Thu, 17 Apr 2003 05:56:45 -0800

OK...where is the graph listing all MeFis by EQ and SQ? Who'll be the first to claim MeFi is a SystemicZone? How long before the low EQs claim the high EQs don't understand them? I'm off to read more about Asperger Syndrome. Taking the test I've found either I have a balanced brain or I'm a high functioning autistic. (eq-68, sq-43) Of course, maybe I simply can't take online tests? What do you think?

By: spazzm

spazzm — Thu, 17 Apr 2003 06:08:04 -0800

Time before this thread deteriorates to "here's my score!"-postings only: Zero. Oh, I gave up half way trough, btw. To twist the old adage: There's two kinds of minds - those who believe there's two kinds of minds, and those who don't.

By: Shane

Shane — Thu, 17 Apr 2003 06:10:29 -0800

EQ 55 / SQ 43 Not that I place much faith in these gross oversimplifications of the human psyche. Still, the results were what I expected. ?!, you kicked ass on the EQ! I think I would have done even better, but my results reflect my general disdain for empathizing with the human race...

By: dydecker

dydecker — Thu, 17 Apr 2003 06:13:51 -0800

I'd rather hear people's scores than an analysis the validity of the test. Metafilter is too male brain.

By: cx

cx — Thu, 17 Apr 2003 06:18:57 -0800

EQ: 51, SQ: 40 - Pretty average according to the test. I'm very sceptical about such tests which claim to show the brain is "hard wired" to do something or another, when the test is so obviously related to our culture. I mean, asking whether you understand the bookmaker's odds-system, or whether you are able to do the electric wiring in your house, doesn't seem to point that the brain is "hard wired" in any way. Sure, I won't argue the poin that men qva their upbringing often focusses on other skills than women, but that is hardly being hard wired.

By: ashbury

ashbury — Thu, 17 Apr 2003 06:29:38 -0800

Interesting tests. Dumb tests. The above is an example of my female side and my male side disagreeing. 29/27

By: yhbc

yhbc — Thu, 17 Apr 2003 06:30:01 -0800

25/37 I'm a very good driver, but it's time for Wapner now. I'm a very good driver. BAmmmmmmmm.........

By: notsnot

notsnot — Thu, 17 Apr 2003 06:30:55 -0800

Wong: e26 - s31 Bingo!

By: tommyspoon

tommyspoon — Thu, 17 Apr 2003 06:34:53 -0800

EQ = 59 SQ = 40 According to this, I have a balanced mind. Better tell that to my wife...

By: biffa

biffa — Thu, 17 Apr 2003 06:37:25 -0800

Can all the losers with a low EQ give me one good reason why I should care?

By: meep

meep — Thu, 17 Apr 2003 06:40:10 -0800

I don't disagree that there may be biological differences in men & women's brains, but I'm not sure the categories used in these quizzes are particularly useful or helpful. There have been studies in differences in tasks of manual agility/dexterity, spatial reasoning (rotating figures in one's head), pathfinding, etc. which I've found to be very interesting and quantifiable, but most of the stuff on those tests seem to be very culturally-based. I scored EQ 37, SQ 54 on these tests, but that's hardly surprising -- I've always had an academic/analytic mode of thinking, and now I work as an actuary, thinking about probabilities and expected values all the time. And I'm female -- and one 8 months pregnant, at that. According to their little chart, I would be considered in the "extreme S" range, in the "autistic-ish" portion of the graph.... though I think they made that little E/S graph with its regions look nice on purpose... there's no reason that the boundaries should be straight lines. Still, I'm not lacking in feminine qualities, in that I can reproduce and wear a dress convincingly. I would think that many females who have degrees in math or physics, as I do, would score similar on the SQ range.

By: leotrotsky

leotrotsky — Thu, 17 Apr 2003 06:53:40 -0800

I scored 50 EQ, 60 SQ. I'm a woman and a former English major. I've never believed in a so-called "male" or "female" brain and these tests are culturally biased, to say the least. They were fun, anyway.

By: Lafe

Lafe — Thu, 17 Apr 2003 06:56:04 -0800

EQ 50, SQ 54. Apparently I'm only barely more male than female. Bah.

By: trharlan

trharlan — Thu, 17 Apr 2003 07:07:12 -0800

EQ 19, SQ 73. Time to see a shrink?

By: bwg

bwg — Thu, 17 Apr 2003 07:20:25 -0800

Wong: e26 - s31 ~~Bingo!~~ You sank my battleship!

By: widdershins

widdershins — Thu, 17 Apr 2003 07:24:37 -0800

EQ 43, SQ 47. Which makes a lot of sense to me. I am quite empathetic, but not very sympathetic (which it seems to me that this test is actually trying to measure).

By: TimeFactor

TimeFactor — Thu, 17 Apr 2003 07:26:07 -0800

e25/s59 Why am I posting this when I clearly don't care what any of you think?

By: CrunchyFrog

CrunchyFrog — Thu, 17 Apr 2003 07:30:24 -0800

EQ 21 SQ 35 I have an average ability for analysing and exploring a system. I also have a Master's Degree in mathematics, and am researching my Ph. D. I suppose it didn't help that I only answered "Slightly agree" to "In maths, I am intrigued by the rules and patterns governing numbers." If they had said "I am intrigued by the rules and patterns governing abstract algebraic structures" or even "I am intrigued by the rules and patterns governing discrete vector spaces" I would have answered "Definitely agree."

By: willnot

willnot — Thu, 17 Apr 2003 07:37:54 -0800

Sort of on a similar tip is This Article from New Scientist that suggests females do better orienting themselves in 3D, virtual environments when they can see a larger portion of the represented world. They also do better when the animation scrolls smoothly rather than in a stuttering, jerky manner. The article suggests that it's evolutionary going back to the hunter/gather split which always makes me suspicious. I thought that entire concept had been largely discarded at this point, but it sure seems to hold on in pop-culture science. I do believe that males tend to model their orientation more so that things like North and South have meaning to them. Where as females seem to use landmarks for navigation so things like turn left when you see the Chicken and Waffles place has more meaning for them. I'm not sure why that is, but suspect that being able to see more of the virtual world makes landmark style navigation a bunch easier.

By: soyjoy

soyjoy — Thu, 17 Apr 2003 07:39:01 -0800

33/23. "Balanced," but in a low-scoring way. Damn, I knew I should've said I liked animals better than people. And I would've scored higher on the systematizing one, but I got lost trying to go from question 37 to 38. Not only is the test too Bditish for my taste, but the article is kind of confusing, saying the E/S theory is not that brain types are determined by sex, yet that, basically, they are. In other words, the "universal" assumptions made by the culturally specific test (I know DIY as an adjective, but what does it mean as a noun?) and the inarticulateness about the basic precepts make me wonder about similar attitudes that might be at work in the more supposedly rigorous science behind all this.

By: advil

advil — Thu, 17 Apr 2003 07:54:50 -0800

ok. some of the querstions on the empathy test are...um... "You think the best thing one can teach a child to have is manners" (or something like that) "You would be too scared to go on the big roller coaster." they're calling _this_ modern psychology? And using this test to make cognitive claims about humans??

By: konolia

konolia — Thu, 17 Apr 2003 08:01:14 -0800

What I want to know is how low is the average empathetic score for the average contributor to Metatalk.

By: walrus

walrus — Thu, 17 Apr 2003 08:08:57 -0800

54EQ, 55SQ, so I'm schizophrenic.

By: jacquilynne

jacquilynne — Thu, 17 Apr 2003 08:11:49 -0800

Well, apparently I have a male brain. Now if only I could pee standing up.

By: bwg

bwg — Thu, 17 Apr 2003 08:21:17 -0800

No problem, jacquilynne...

By: Shane

Shane — Thu, 17 Apr 2003 08:22:15 -0800

If they had said "I am intrigued by the rules and patterns governing abstract algebraic... Are you in Pure Maths, CrunchyFrog? 'Cuz I know your type, if so. You're the nuts who take math to the point where it's music or philosophy, heh. I used to hang with a crowd of Pure Math PhD candidates from different countries, and they're one eccentric, fun crowd. It's loads-o-fun to watch someone break off in mid-sentence, stare off in the distance, scribble equations on a napkin and then say, "What was I saying?"

By: SweetIceT

SweetIceT — Thu, 17 Apr 2003 08:23:50 -0800

Female here and I am an anomaly too I guess.... SQ 48 EQ 35 I think I do notice a pattern here. I think that people expect me to be more on the Empathetic range than I am, because I am female and though my very best friends like my up front honesty (don't ask me does this look good on me if you do not want the truth), I am alienated from most women because I do not think and act the way a woman is expected to act. I had a former teacher describe it as having "brass". I do however , have fewer female friends, but the ones I do have, I believe would tend to score higher on the EQ than average. From my experience these women friends, admire my systematic and decisive abilities while I admire thier empathetic skills. Do any of you other gals with a high SQ notice this?

By: Mars Saxman

Mars Saxman — Thu, 17 Apr 2003 08:33:46 -0800

wonder what happens to your "EQ" if you take the test while on ecstasy?

By: daver

daver — Thu, 17 Apr 2003 08:43:46 -0800

What crappy questions: When purchasing a new car, I want to know the specifications of the engine. Gender bias? Oh wait, is that just me empathizing?

By: walrus

walrus — Thu, 17 Apr 2003 08:46:05 -0800

wonder what happens to your "EQ" if you take the test while on ecstasy? Think I'm going to hang around to take a stupid test if I've got some ecstasy?

By: headspace

headspace — Thu, 17 Apr 2003 08:49:28 -0800

I got an EQ of 35 and an SQ of 35, which according to the little descriptions, makes me a man. If I had known that, I would have made my husband give birth to the children.

By: astrogirl

astrogirl — Thu, 17 Apr 2003 09:30:40 -0800

I don't think it's gender bias, daver. I would always want to know that, and I got an EQ of 51 (SQ40). It is possible to care about the engine capacity of a car you might purchase and at the same time not give a shit how wireless technology works. It's possible to be curious about species differences between trees and at the same time not care what makes a plane fly. I'm sure these differences lowered my SQ. :) I'm *selectively* fascinated with systems and mechanics, so if they asked slightly different questions, I would have come in more firmly in the Asperger's range...though I think there's about a zero chance that I have Asperger's. I'm so empathetic that it's a total pain in the ass for me, and yet I only scored a 51. I did not find the questions terribly relevant on either side. I'm sure it's oversimplified for the sake of the Guardian.

By: Red58

Red58 — Thu, 17 Apr 2003 09:41:08 -0800

EQ 53 SQ 63 Why do we give genders to behaviors? I'm a Mechanical Engineer. I am always surprised at those who feel that my ovaries preclude my ability to do math. Or that being an engineer precludes my ability to socialize and make friends.

By: poorhouse

poorhouse — Thu, 17 Apr 2003 09:48:43 -0800

EQ of 46 and SQ of 35 -- just your average, balanced brain. How much more boring can you get? And, to SweetIceT who wrote this: From my experience these women friends, admire my systematic and decisive abilities while I admire thier empathetic skills. Do any of you other gals with a high SQ notice this? Yup, I am well aware of this pattern. I also noticed that when people read my writing and don't know my gender, they assume I am male. And I think that astrogirl's comments about the simplified and and somewhat irrelevant questions for both tests are to be kept in mind. When I first took the EQ test (in a hurry) I ended up in the Asperger's zone ... then, when I retook it, with a different set of reading glasses (favoring the systematic as I do), some of those questions became a bit clearer, if not more sensible....

By: kirkaracha

kirkaracha — Thu, 17 Apr 2003 10:05:14 -0800

SQ 18 EQ 38 Looks like I'm a woman. And I would've commented earlier but I couldn't work out how to post.

By: serafinapekkala

serafinapekkala — Thu, 17 Apr 2003 10:38:23 -0800

i love taking these tests, *because* the questions are so absurd. only a humorless sociologist or brain researcher would come up with stuff like "When I look at a mountain, I would like to know exactly how it was formed." riiight. my favorite is the MMPI, a True/False test that uses bizarre statements like "I often have disturbing thoughts" and "Sometimes I feel that nothing around me is real" to test how antisocial you are. as for this EQ/SQ thing, i scored 53/38, so i have a "balanced brain." best line in the article: "The extreme female brain has not yet been discovered by the researchers." maybe they should spend some time watching Oprah...just a suggestion. on a semi-related coincidental note, i helped found this SQ, hee hee.

By: wobh

wobh — Thu, 17 Apr 2003 10:44:31 -0800

EQ 36 SQ 30 Dude.

By: eilatan

eilatan — Thu, 17 Apr 2003 10:56:14 -0800

EQ 25 SQ 42 I am apparently borderline autistic. Riiiiiiiiiiiight.

By: t r a c y

t r a c y — Thu, 17 Apr 2003 11:42:12 -0800

i scored EQ 61, SQ 44 - i'm a female with degrees in sociology, social work, and broadcast journalism, however i make my living as an actor/singer. i don't take tests like these too seriously, but i think they're good food for thought, a vehicle for examining your strengths and weaknesses.

By: rhapsodie

rhapsodie — Thu, 17 Apr 2003 11:44:35 -0800

EQ 26 SQ 33 The test claims I'm a man; my mother and husband would say different.

By: jessamyn

jessamyn — Thu, 17 Apr 2003 12:04:58 -0800

EQ 28 SQ 48 and yeah, I'm a woman in real life; who cares about freaking rivers? No real surprises here. My EQ ia all about people saying I'm rude. And my SQ is all about being sort of OCD and picking patterns out of everything. I think this test proves I'm empathetic to pets and hostile to tests.

By: WolfDaddy

WolfDaddy — Thu, 17 Apr 2003 12:10:55 -0800

EQ 62 SQ 50 I am the giver and the taker! Let the sleeper awake!

By: gyc

gyc — Thu, 17 Apr 2003 12:21:39 -0800

EQ 20 SQ 34 I use to joke with my other geeky friends that we all had Asperger's syndrome. It turns out I might have been right after all.

By: vorfeed

vorfeed — Thu, 17 Apr 2003 12:23:04 -0800

EQ 17(!) SQ 55 And I'm female, but according to the test I'm really an autistic male. -_-;; I found both parts of the test to be horrendously biased. A lot of the EQ questions seem more concerned with learned social behaviors than with actual empathy. The SQ questions are also very socially biased, and don't take into account individual areas of interest. I'd have preferred to take a simplified version of the sort of tests they used in the original research. These multiple-choice question tests are mostly useless.

By: ehintz

ehintz — Thu, 17 Apr 2003 12:23:45 -0800

EQ 13 SQ 47 Yup. That's me. Autistics are more empathetic than I am. Of course, there is the point that I'm not particularly interested in being empathetic. I'm generally in the "you made your bed, now lay in it" camp. Got no time for a bunch of bitching and moaning about how bad the world is. You don't like it, get your butt out there and do something about it, don't waste my time bitching... 'Nuff said.

By: jamespake

jamespake — Thu, 17 Apr 2003 12:25:17 -0800

There seems to be a majority view that this test sucks and, yet, everyone wants to post their scores. The idea that the test is watered down for the general public is tempting, but a lot of standard psychological tests use very similar self ratings (See this for example) and I believe this is a test that is actually used in the form presented. Of course, that doesn't mean it's right in any sense.

By: jamespake

jamespake — Thu, 17 Apr 2003 12:32:04 -0800

I just noticed this: Already have Flash? Having problems? If you already have Flash and you are experiencing problems (such as strangely low scores or crashes) you should check which version you have. We have been experiencing strangely low scores... hmmm.

By: Jughead

Jughead — Thu, 17 Apr 2003 12:35:25 -0800

EQ 47 SQ 74 Empathetic autistic?

By: soyjoy

soyjoy — Thu, 17 Apr 2003 12:39:30 -0800

wow, guess jamespake was really embarrassed by his scores...

By: jamespake

jamespake — Thu, 17 Apr 2003 12:43:15 -0800

wow, guess jamespake was really embarrassed by his scores... Yes - but I could have got high ones if I wanted to. Dammit!

By: Smooth

Smooth — Thu, 17 Apr 2003 12:45:06 -0800

EQ44 SQ53 – apparently women don't score in this range?! Well, I did, and I'm a woman. Albeit, I am an analytical sort (PhD candidate in geochemistry). Still, I am slightly offended at the assumption that women are not analytical. Very 1950s.

By: son_of_minya

son_of_minya — Thu, 17 Apr 2003 13:17:47 -0800

EQ24 SQ31 While I don't mind being called a "high-functioning autistic," I am offended by this test's blurring of fact and opinion. Just because I don't like mountains does not mean I'm no good at analyzing or exploring systems. This thread is a good resource, though. Can search for "username" and "eq" for references to back up any accusation of "bleeding-heart" or "insensitive bastard." Someone already mentioned that the test makes little distinction between one-on-one interaction and group settings. I am definitely one who hates "people," yet I am okay with "persons."

By: prototype_octavius

prototype_octavius — Thu, 17 Apr 2003 13:19:12 -0800

I always come out when it's time for a trendy little test. Something like E54, S43. Whaddaya know? I'm pretty balanced on this one. It's the same for me every time I take one of these things. The idea that males and females have set predispositions is definitely not new stuff, but then we can into issues like CAH girls and argh it's crazy!

By: amberglow

amberglow — Thu, 17 Apr 2003 15:32:06 -0800

EQ 45 SQ 17 um...so i'm a better friend than a mechanic or something? and i can't buy the hard-wiring thing: from birth, girl babies are treated differently from boy babies, and unless the tests spoken of earlier were done at birth (even a few weeks or months would make a huge difference), the infants were already well on their way to being conditioned and socialized as boys or girls...

By: NorthernLite

NorthernLite — Thu, 17 Apr 2003 15:32:27 -0800

I am a "balanced brain," which sounded appropriate for my personality. But my scores were lower than lots of MeFites (39 E/25 S). I don't even care what a high score signifies - I just want one! And, I don't mean to sound sexist here, but it bothered me that my EQ is said to be a few points lower than the AVERAGE MAN'S! Actually, the most interesting thing I got out of this thread is the How to Pee Standing Up link. That will come in handy when I go out hiking in an attempt to get away from damn people. (OK, maybe I am a little low on my people/empathy skills.)

By: jokeefe

jokeefe — Thu, 17 Apr 2003 16:27:28 -0800

I scored 60 on both tests, making me both a high empathy type and a high sytemizing type. So who knows what these tests mean. I liked the empathy question about cutting up worms. I mean, in an abstract, stystematic way.

By: CrunchyFrog

CrunchyFrog — Thu, 17 Apr 2003 16:28:51 -0800

Shane: I originally set out to study some very abstract mathematics (Abstract Algebra), but now that I've started research for my thesis, I've discovered that what I'm interested in is used in computer communications. So, the topic of my thesis will be coding theory, and my advisor is a coding theorist, but I don't let that bother me. I still see my work as studying discrete vector spaces, rather than messages. I've decided to use an algebraic structure that is needlessly complex (only quantum physicists have found much use for it), and it probably would take too much processor power to be practical.

By: jokeefe

jokeefe — Thu, 17 Apr 2003 16:32:11 -0800

Oh, and that systematic test? What can you possibly infer from an agreement with a statement like "When I buy a computer, I want to know exactly what its features/processor speed/whatever are". You may be the most empathetic person in the world, but does that necessarily mean that you would waltz into a store and say, breathlessly, "I'll take the blue one!" Okay, okay, no cracks about my Imac.

By: deborah

deborah — Thu, 17 Apr 2003 16:42:08 -0800

eq = 57 sq = 52 fairly balanced, no surprise there. but what in Hades is Asperger Syndrome?! hellooooo, Google: OASIS

By: WolfDaddy

WolfDaddy — Thu, 17 Apr 2003 17:12:50 -0800

does that necessarily mean that you would waltz into a store and say, breathlessly, "I'll take the blue one!" There are blue computers? I'd say it if there were blue computers!!

By: shepd

shepd — Thu, 17 Apr 2003 17:37:20 -0800

EQ of 10, SQ of 66. I guess it's time to make a donation to the Asperger's Institute... :-)

By: Space Coyote

Space Coyote — Thu, 17 Apr 2003 18:27:12 -0800

EQ 33 SQ 69. Just squeeked out of the 'unempathetic bastard male borderline autistic' EQ score. But then again I really smoked the SQ score.. And I was actually trying not to make myself out to be a smartie pants either, just answered them with my gut reaction.. Oh well, back to my qubits and toffoli gates.. stupid logic synthesis makes me feel so.. so.. something.

By: aeschenkarnos

aeschenkarnos — Thu, 17 Apr 2003 18:27:45 -0800

EQ=33, SQ=44. I have a theory (snicker) that a sufficiently high SQ can, and sometimes will, divert into EQ. Human interaction is a system, and it can be mastered to a large extent by intellectual understanding of the rules. I think of it as kind of like paint-by-numbers, in that the final picture produced is acceptable, but was produced without an overall artistic vision. Generally though, I don't care for the 'male/female' labelling system as it, as others have shown in this thread, tends to get the idea lost in snippy remarks. EQ and SQ, noting that males tend to have higher SQ and females higher EQ is sufficient. Men are taller on the average than women, this is a known fact. But no-one is surprised by the existence of a short man or a tall woman.

By: dness2

dness2 — Thu, 17 Apr 2003 18:47:05 -0800

EQ=30, SQ=42 What about functioning best in the morning is related to empathy? What about participating in sports is related to systemization? I think I have become autistic through training (Phd, mathematics background) that forces me to be systematic and antisocial. It's not my fault, dammit, that my cat is the only person I can understand.

By: soyjoy

soyjoy — Thu, 17 Apr 2003 20:59:56 -0800

But no-one is surprised by the existence of a short man or a tall woman. What! There are tall women???

By: norm

norm — Fri, 18 Apr 2003 09:07:41 -0800

EQ 32, SQ 62. Anyone else notice the way that the question ranks were labeled? In the SQ version the top category was "definitely agree," (and the reverse for the bottom category) which I found it easier to click than "strongly agree" in the EQ version. Acting on that difference, I suspect, helps to point towards my manly nature. If Man = reading boxscores, checking the weather, and reading maps. I plead guilty. (one year left in law school) I am not at all surprised that the self-selected female sample at MeFi scores surprisingly high on the SQ scale.

By: hellinskira

hellinskira — Fri, 18 Apr 2003 10:02:05 -0800

What does it mean if I started taking the test, saw how long it was, and then remembered that I don't really care what the results are and instead looked at porn?

By: soyjoy

soyjoy — Fri, 18 Apr 2003 10:48:40 -0800

Was it empathetic porn or systematic?

By: ?!

?! — Fri, 18 Apr 2003 12:11:39 -0800

hellinskira: It means you missed the special porn reward at the end of the test.

By: jokeefe

jokeefe — Fri, 18 Apr 2003 12:35:21 -0800

There are blue computers? I'd say it if there were blue computers!! I'm looking at one right now. I really wanted the purple one, but it was more expensive.