andrewducker (![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
andrewducker) wrote2003-04-18 09:35 am
andrewducker) wrote2003-04-18 09:35 am
Testing Testing
Further to the piece yesterday on Men and Women and their juicy brains, the Guardian has a test for both Emotional Quotience and Sytemising Quotience.
People will be completely unsurprised that my Systemic Quotience is in the 'average' band (although it's 38 compared to 30 for the average man and 24 for the average woman).
Nor will they be vastly surprised to discover that emotionally I register an 18 (42 for men, 47 for women) placing me into the Aspergers range of understanding.
I do think I underplayed both of them slightly, a danger of self-reporting tests as Heron pointed out. My main problem so far was that when answering questions like "It is hard for me to see why some things upset people so much", my answer is "Well, it used to be nigh impossible, until I read lots of books that explain to me how people work and now it's a lot easier because people really aren't that complicated." If the statement was "I instinctively know why people become upset at certain things" I could give a clear-cut answer of "No, not even slightly."
People will be completely unsurprised that my Systemic Quotience is in the 'average' band (although it's 38 compared to 30 for the average man and 24 for the average woman).
Nor will they be vastly surprised to discover that emotionally I register an 18 (42 for men, 47 for women) placing me into the Aspergers range of understanding.
I do think I underplayed both of them slightly, a danger of self-reporting tests as Heron pointed out. My main problem so far was that when answering questions like "It is hard for me to see why some things upset people so much", my answer is "Well, it used to be nigh impossible, until I read lots of books that explain to me how people work and now it's a lot easier because people really aren't that complicated." If the statement was "I instinctively know why people become upset at certain things" I could give a clear-cut answer of "No, not even slightly."
Quotience
no subject
I also got a 16 for SQ, which is way below average. But I don't know if that's really fair, since my interest in the system depends a lot on how pertinant it is to me. For example, I would definitely want to know the details of a computer I was buying, but I don't really care about a stereo. Because if the music quality is slightly higher or lower, I probably wouldn't notice, whereas if my computer is slower or won't run the newest games, I definitely will.
(no subject)
Re:
no subject
no subject
(no subject)
no subject
SQ 50
No surprise, really.
I do perform very poorly on text based tests of 'empathy'. Isn't it a daft way to administer such a test anway? Shouldn't it be live and face to face? Actual people do not find me quite as bad as the result sounds....