Baren-Cohen Systemising Empathising Test

Post Reply New Topic

http://www.guardian.co.uk/life/news/pag ... 43,00.html

Just wondering after reading the Wired AQ Test results what you all got on this one...

My EQ Score was 9

My SQ Score was 45

Therefore, I am an Extreme S-Type brain type.

Humz? And you?

I think my empathizing quotient was 31, and my systemizing quotient was 13. I was at the depths of a major depressive episode when I took the tests, though, so maybe that affected my results. Also, the systemizing test doesn't measure the things I'm interested in: geography, politics, computers, etc. I've never been very interested in engines and mechanical systems or botany.

Sophist, I was really looking forward to your input about Eugene Bleuler? [do you remember? You suggested that perhaps Kanner, and Asperger got their initial definition from thar source]... I guess it was too much to hope for?

I don't pretend that B-C is the last word, (and in fact, like so many "experts", he seems particularly resistent to inputs from amateurs like me, and is a somewhat prickly individual) but even so, your poll, is, perhaps, just a little bit biased?

My EQ score was 6
My SQ score was 44

I don't know why I did so badly on the EQ scale. I didn't think I was that extreme. I think I have better empathy skills than the test allows for.

EQ=6, SQ=58

It's difficult with the questions as I had to end up viewing some of them either as metaphores or from an alien context.

The general premise of the test is reasonable but it is too generalized and yet too stereotyped in certain areas to provide a definitive result. NeantHumain is spot on in my opinion.

I can understand the reasoning, I believe it can provide a general guideline regarding cognitive styles, akin to the Myers-Briggs personality test, but nothing more.

Deleted

Last edited by Ante on 09 Nov 2005, 4:58 pm, edited 1 time in total.

7 on EQ and 69 on SQ.

EQ - 11 ...hahaha...I can sypmpathize better than you all...

SQ - 35 ...in my defense, those questions sucked...

Extreme Type S Brain ... no...really... SQ questions are sooooooo random and over specific...

I hate tests like that.

EQ - 14
SQ - 44

EQ 8
SQ 65

I have similar beefs about the AQ test (which is really quite crude, and underdeveloped) and agree about the cultural aspect. At fifty years of age, after a lifetime in a minority of one, I've had to adapt to accommodate others to some extent, and after such a long duration it becomes second nature; the AQ test takes no account of experience (and if I set my mind back, and try to answer as I would have as a child, I get a higher score).

It's also the case that many of the questions are set with NT expectations in mind e.g., "how hard is it for you to remember telephone numbers?", which, to anyone with an autistic mind set, is likely to prompt the question "why would I want to remember phone numbers?", unless of course one happens to have an occupation which makes such recall advantageous {culture/experience} but then, in such circumstances, wouldn't one adopt technology to deal with this? Either way, any answer from an autistic point of view is bound to have different nuances to those assumed by {largely NT, and, moreso, predominantly "people" oriented, as this is the kind usually attracted to such professions} researchers.

Similarly, questions like "how hard is it for you to make (or maintain) eye contact?" start with the unconscious assumption that eye contact is desirable! It does nothing for me, once I've ascertained who's being addressed.

AntiEverything, I'm puzzled by the us of the word "mild" in this context (as if AS is some kind of rash?). The degree of influence by the autistic portion of ones personality varies from person to person (as seen from published results from the Chandler and Macleod test; very few got a plain "A" rating as I did, which may explain what some people regard as my "extreme" views on autism, as well as the ease with which I note inconsistancies in some posters' claims) but it either is a major influence or it isn't. To describe it as "mild" is like saying someone has "mildly" brown hair, or a "mild" number of ears!

This should give you a clue as to just how "autistic" you are:

http://chandlermacleod.com/cmbestfit/content/btw.cfm

[but don't take it too seriously (just relax, and go with the feel...) nor expect it to have the awsome accuracy of the full professional version.]

EQ-10
SQ-51


I think this was better than the wired test b/c of the more specific questions presented.

It fit me 110%.

'NAE' style
NAE style people have many of the attributes of successful research scientists, capable of producing original ideas, committed to their projects and creative in their thinking. Essentially they are "experts" who do not relate readily and easily to others and they strive to achieve their personal goals, using their own capabilities rather than utilising team synergy. They thoroughly enjoy working on their creative projects and, at times, can become so immersed in the process that the actual goal becomes clouded.

They will strive for idealistic perfection and, when another person (in authority) seeks to impose pragmatic limitations on them, they do not willingly or easily accept the constraints. They possess a degree of self-management that helps to damp down automatic reactions to pressure, so they don't immediately reject the suggestion, especially if it is put in a rational and factual manner. However, it will be apparent that they do not invite critical contributions, and, in fact, open and easy communication with others is difficult. They are by no means rigid in their own thinking and, where they have free rein, they can readily visualise new approaches. It is only when they feel these changes are being externally imposed that stubborn, passive resistance will result.

It will be apparent from the above comment that their preferred work situation is one where they have a completely unambiguous project in front of them, where their freedom and/or constraints have been clearly identified, where methods have been agreed upon, and they now feel free to go on ahead in search of their results. They don't "need" other people around them for social contact or support and will, in fact, have difficulty in delegating activities. Ideally, therefore, they should have the opportunity to achieve their goals utilising personal resources rather than having to control or co-ordinate the activities of others.

Their particular style sees them self-contained, happy to work in isolation, not rejecting social contact out of hand but, "putting up with it" rather than enjoying it. They will communicate with competent people who know what they are doing, but explaining matters to the uninitiated is a chore. They will generally fulfil social obligations, but out of a sense of duty, rather than expected pleasure. It is typical that, having successfully completed their project, they would prefer to generate an academic submission or a detailed documentation of the results than communicate their findings in face-to-face situations and they would particularly dislike having to be the public presenter.

'NAE' style for me.

It fits me perfectly

It's like they've known me my entire life. I voted %100 accurate and put "Wow!" as my comment. Some NAE fits me, but not much.



That's one of maybe two NAE descriptions that fits me. HDA seems to perfectly suit me though. This test seems very accurate, it gave me something to reflect upon too.