Have you a male or female brain?
April 17, 2003 3:22 AM   Subscribe

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.
posted by jamespake (85 comments total) 2 users marked this as a favorite
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.
posted by Richat at 3:44 AM on April 17, 2003

The test's author is the cousin of another great thinker of our times.
posted by Pretty_Generic at 4:02 AM on April 17, 2003

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)
posted by adrianhon at 4:03 AM on April 17, 2003

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.
posted by adamgreenfield at 4:10 AM on April 17, 2003

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.

posted by adamgreenfield at 4:26 AM on April 17, 2003

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.
posted by Grangousier at 4:35 AM on April 17, 2003

...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.
posted by jamespake at 4:39 AM on April 17, 2003

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).
posted by hilatron at 4:46 AM on April 17, 2003

So there's differences between gender. And what does this tell us about gender's link to the biological brain?
posted by iamck at 4:49 AM on April 17, 2003

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.
posted by rudyfink at 4:50 AM on April 17, 2003

I scored 58 on empathy and 19 on systematizing and I'm a man.

Isn't that guy Ali G's dad?
posted by dydecker at 4:57 AM on April 17, 2003

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.
posted by adrianhon at 5:01 AM on April 17, 2003

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.
posted by GhostintheMachine at 5:11 AM on April 17, 2003

e26 - s31
posted by Wong Fei-hung at 5:32 AM on April 17, 2003

i have little empathy for systemics.
posted by quonsar at 5:43 AM on April 17, 2003

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...
posted by Caffine_Fiend at 5:51 AM on April 17, 2003

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?
posted by ?! at 5:56 AM on April 17, 2003

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.
posted by spazzm at 6:08 AM on April 17, 2003

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...
posted by Shane at 6:10 AM on April 17, 2003

I'd rather hear people's scores than an analysis the validity of the test. Metafilter is too male brain.
posted by dydecker at 6:13 AM on April 17, 2003

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.
posted by cx at 6:18 AM on April 17, 2003

Interesting tests.
Dumb tests.

The above is an example of my female side and my male side disagreeing.

posted by ashbury at 6:29 AM on April 17, 2003


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

posted by yhbc at 6:30 AM on April 17, 2003

e26 - s31

posted by notsnot at 6:30 AM on April 17, 2003

EQ = 59

SQ = 40

According to this, I have a balanced mind. Better tell that to my wife...
posted by tommyspoon at 6:34 AM on April 17, 2003

Can all the losers with a low EQ give me one good reason why I should care?
posted by biffa at 6:37 AM on April 17, 2003

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.
posted by meep at 6:40 AM on April 17, 2003

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.
posted by leotrotsky at 6:53 AM on April 17, 2003

EQ 50, SQ 54. Apparently I'm only barely more male than female. Bah.
posted by Lafe at 6:56 AM on April 17, 2003

e26 - s31


You sank my battleship!
posted by bwg at 7:20 AM on April 17, 2003

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).
posted by widdershins at 7:24 AM on April 17, 2003

Why am I posting this when I clearly don't care what any of you think?
posted by TimeFactor at 7:26 AM on April 17, 2003

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."
posted by CrunchyFrog at 7:30 AM on April 17, 2003

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.
posted by willnot at 7:37 AM on April 17, 2003

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.
posted by soyjoy at 7:39 AM on April 17, 2003

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??
posted by advil at 7:54 AM on April 17, 2003

What I want to know is how low is the average empathetic score for the average contributor to Metatalk.
posted by konolia at 8:01 AM on April 17, 2003

54EQ, 55SQ, so I'm schizophrenic.
posted by walrus at 8:08 AM on April 17, 2003

Well, apparently I have a male brain. Now if only I could pee standing up.
posted by jacquilynne at 8:11 AM on April 17, 2003

No problem, jacquilynne...
posted by bwg at 8:21 AM on April 17, 2003

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?"
posted by Shane at 8:22 AM on April 17, 2003

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?
posted by SweetIceT at 8:23 AM on April 17, 2003

wonder what happens to your "EQ" if you take the test while on ecstasy?
posted by Mars Saxman at 8:33 AM on April 17, 2003

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?

posted by daver at 8:43 AM on April 17, 2003

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?
posted by walrus at 8:46 AM on April 17, 2003

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.
posted by headspace at 8:49 AM on April 17, 2003

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.
posted by astrogirl at 9:30 AM on April 17, 2003

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.
posted by Red58 at 9:41 AM on April 17, 2003

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....
posted by poorhouse at 9:48 AM on April 17, 2003

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.
posted by kirkaracha at 10:05 AM on April 17, 2003

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.
posted by serafinapekkala at 10:38 AM on April 17, 2003

EQ 36
SQ 30
posted by wobh at 10:44 AM on April 17, 2003

EQ 25
SQ 42

I am apparently borderline autistic.

posted by eilatan at 10:56 AM on April 17, 2003

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.
posted by t r a c y at 11:42 AM on April 17, 2003

EQ 26
SQ 33

The test claims I'm a man; my mother and husband would say different.
posted by rhapsodie at 11:44 AM on April 17, 2003

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.
posted by jessamyn at 12:04 PM on April 17, 2003

EQ 62
SQ 50

I am the giver and the taker! Let the sleeper awake!
posted by WolfDaddy at 12:10 PM on April 17, 2003

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.
posted by gyc at 12:21 PM on April 17, 2003

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.
posted by vorfeed at 12:23 PM on April 17, 2003

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.
posted by ehintz at 12:23 PM on April 17, 2003

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.
posted by jamespake at 12:25 PM on April 17, 2003

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.

posted by jamespake at 12:32 PM on April 17, 2003

EQ 47
SQ 74

Empathetic autistic?
posted by Jughead at 12:35 PM on April 17, 2003

wow, guess jamespake was really embarrassed by his scores...
posted by soyjoy at 12:39 PM on April 17, 2003

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

Yes - but I could have got high ones if I wanted to. Dammit!
posted by jamespake at 12:43 PM on April 17, 2003

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.
posted by Smooth at 12:45 PM on April 17, 2003


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."
posted by son_of_minya at 1:17 PM on April 17, 2003

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!
posted by prototype_octavius at 1:19 PM on April 17, 2003

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...
posted by amberglow at 3:32 PM on April 17, 2003

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.)
posted by NorthernLite at 3:32 PM on April 17, 2003

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.
posted by jokeefe at 4:27 PM on April 17, 2003


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.
posted by CrunchyFrog at 4:28 PM on April 17, 2003

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.
posted by jokeefe at 4:32 PM on April 17, 2003

eq = 57
sq = 52

fairly balanced, no surprise there. but what in Hades is Asperger Syndrome?!

hellooooo, Google: OASIS
posted by deborah at 4:42 PM on April 17, 2003

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!!
posted by WolfDaddy at 5:12 PM on April 17, 2003

EQ of 10, SQ of 66.

I guess it's time to make a donation to the Asperger's Institute... :-)
posted by shepd at 5:37 PM on April 17, 2003

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.
posted by Space Coyote at 6:27 PM on April 17, 2003

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.
posted by aeschenkarnos at 6:27 PM on April 17, 2003

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.
posted by dness2 at 6:47 PM on April 17, 2003

But no-one is surprised by the existence of a short man or a tall woman.

What! There are tall women???
posted by soyjoy at 8:59 PM on April 17, 2003

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.
posted by norm at 9:07 AM on April 18, 2003

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?
posted by hellinskira at 10:02 AM on April 18, 2003

Was it empathetic porn or systematic?
posted by soyjoy at 10:48 AM on April 18, 2003

hellinskira: It means you missed the special porn reward at the end of the test.
posted by ?! at 12:11 PM on April 18, 2003

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.
posted by jokeefe at 12:35 PM on April 18, 2003

« Older Jesus Cares   |   Roy Orbison in cling film. Newer »

This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments