posted by ![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
purplecthulhu at 01:11pm on 18/04/2003
purplecthulhu at 01:11pm on 18/04/2003OK, someone is bound to do it, so it might as well be me...
The Guardian has a personality test that looks at your empathy and systematizing tendencies. The developers of the test claim some systematic differences between men and women. They also say that extreme values are correlated with aspberger's syndrome and autism.
I get a pretty low ranking on the empathy test, 14 out of 60, which places me below aspbereger's values, but come out as a completely average male on systematisation, at 30/60.
So what are you scores?
The test is at:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/life/news/page/0,12983,937443,00.html
The Guardian has a personality test that looks at your empathy and systematizing tendencies. The developers of the test claim some systematic differences between men and women. They also say that extreme values are correlated with aspberger's syndrome and autism.
I get a pretty low ranking on the empathy test, 14 out of 60, which places me below aspbereger's values, but come out as a completely average male on systematisation, at 30/60.
So what are you scores?
The test is at:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/life/news/page/0,12983,937443,00.html
(no subject)
pjt
(no subject)
No surprises I'm afraid, although I often wished the gradient was finer for the EQ or that the questions were better laid out.
This is a common problem with 'net tests of this kind (same with Myers-Briggs, for example). A full test would contain more like 10 times the number of questions with more detailed scenarios and a wider variety of them. On the systemizing test for example, there was a question about whether I was drawn to tables of data in the newspaper like sports scores or stock indexes. Well, I'm never drawn to either of those, but if there's a table of data regarding a topic I am interested in, then yes. In fact, I'll probably look at it first.
I had to change my answer to that one because the examples led me to answer 'Strongly Disagree' at first when in fact it should be 'Strongly Agree'. A better test would have corrected for that by including additional questions of this type with different examples.
(no subject)
I have issues with some of the questions, as I always do with these things. "If I see a stranger in a group, I think it is up to them to make an effort to join in." Well, *yeah*, I *think* that. It *is* up to them. But that doesn't mean I don't feel an obligation to take over that responsibility from them. I just think it's pathological, on my part. And I was *all over the place* on the SQ. I couldn't care less how a washing machine is put together, but when it comes to election returns, I want to know every number and think in depth about the implications. And thinking about grammatical rules is my JOB!
Also, why would anybody make a test like this into a flash graphic? That's just a very strange programming choice.
-J
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
SQ 37
Yep, looks like I've got Asperger's! Well, all sf fans have a touch of it.
(no subject)
I thought the most interesting questions were whether your friends said you were sympathetic. As so many of my friends have aspergers, they are too hopeless to notice!