(Untitled)

[gregtitus]

flamingnerd was telling me a few days ago that she doesn't think she knows any other smart guys who are non-Asperger-esque, so when I saw schizokitty post this earlier today, I had to go take the tests to actually see

Comments

[flamingnerd]

interesting tests, but I think I actually said that I don't know many programmers and/or men I find attractive that aren't Asperger-esque. :P

[gregtitus]

Aha. Sorry for mischaracterizing your comment. :-)

The compatibility seeking does make sense, since you have such a high systemizing quotient. I felt like the systemizing test had a bunch of are-you-forced-to-systemize-random-stuff-in-life type questions, and while I think I have a very systematic bent when I indulge in it, I usually keep it fairly focused on work stuff or troubleshooting or places where it actually seems useful, rather than being a way of life. So I don't know whether my score was artificially low because of that, or maybe the test is accurate and my brain is not naturally super-systemizing but I can force myself into it? (Or perhaps I'm just mistaken about being all that systemizing in the first place.)

[jinian]

Sys: 40 (High-average, no surprise there.)
Emp: 32 (Low-average, ditto. I keep shields up, and none of the questions mentioned trying to fool them.)
Asp: 32 (On the low end of diagnosable; interesting in light of the fact that I'm still learning a lot about coping with humans and that changed my answers.)
Eyes: 32 (High. But I was thinking about the questions analytically! I couldn't not.)

I really want to know where these photos came from. I certainly hope it wasn't a research project, considering the inherent bias -- the women are "fantasizing" twice (plus "desire" once) and their most negative emotion is "doubtful" or "nervous" compared to the masculine "despondent" and "hostile". But I'd probably damage the library's copy of the book if I tried to read it.

[gregtitus]

Yes, I wondered where those photos came from too, and noticed the gender bias. I think it's interesting how I thought my score on that one was miraculously high, and it's the lowest of any I've seen. :-) Perhaps just because I felt I _wasn't_ able to think all that analytically about it, because I don't consciously know the "rules" for what eyes mean.

[beaq]

I don't consciously know the "rules" for what eyes mean

That! I *do*, or at least I do to the point where I could pick a word out of a selection of words. I attribute my reasonably high score to that. I did not *react* to the eye expressions. I interpreted them analytically.

So: test probably not testing what it purports to be testing.

[jinian]

Yeah, exactly.

[beaq]

I couldn't be bothered to redo the Asperger's one after I accidentally cleared the results. I know it's fairly low, with the exception of sensitivity to small external stimuli

[gregtitus]

Oh fine, say the test where I have a nice high score is bullshit. I know what's going on. I have a superior grasp of people's feelings, and clearly you are just trying to cut me down here. ;-)

So your response to the eye test is basically that it is culture-centric and also that many of the pictures may be acting and not represent actual emotions at all? I think those are both as intended - clearly by your score you can interpret the indicators, which I think is what is being tested, not that those indicators are necessarily authentic or universally applicable.

And finally for systemizing - I felt exactly the same way - that the test was more about systematization for its own sake. The urge to systematize random phenomena. And that I only like to systematize things that I'm interested in and delve deeply into. (But again, I suppose that might have been the purpose, to measure inadvertent or habitual systemizing rather than capability per se.)

[beaq]

I dispute that the test can determine a person's ability to read facial expressions through focus on the eye area. I don't believe it could be reasonably asserted that someone who got a very low score on that test -- that is, someone whose interpretation of eye expressions did not correspond with the "correct" option -- is unable to accurately read eye gestures, with slightly more facial (or appropriate cultural) context. I doubt it's even very suggestive of their preferred focus when looking at the face

[beaq]

I don't believe that "unempathetic" answers to many of those questions necessarily indicate a lack of *ability* to empathize

Or, um. I mean, I think some of those questions don't account for things besides empathy that might affect answers.

Wow, I feel so mostly average.

[rubricity]

Your score: 39

Re: Wow, I feel so mostly average.

[beaq]

Perhaps precision and order aren't quite the same thing?

Re: Wow, I feel so mostly average.

[gregtitus]

Yeah. Think of a data plot graph. Precision is placing each data point in the correct place. Order is determining the equation of the curve that best fits the data.

If you systematize really strongly, you drop the data points entirely and reality, to you, is the equation of the curve and not the individual data points.

Re: Wow, I feel so mostly average.

[flamingnerd]

yeah, that's what I thought. I don't usually remember details, answered questions reflecting that and got a pretty high systematizing score. I can usually reconstruct details though :)