I Am An Unempathetic Sociopath...

[darthfar]

Or so saith the Empathising Quotient/Systemising Quotient (EQSQ) test. Okay, so they didn't *quite* put it like that. (The test actually implies that I'm not even human...).

Found a link to it from some other site, had nothing to do, thought I'd take it. (Force knows, I've tried everything from the Nerd Purity Quiz, to determining my LOTR Orkish name. Which happens to be Ishluk the Choker, in case anyone's asking). This is what my scores said:

Your Systemizing (SQ) and Empathizing (EQ) Quotient Test Results

May 07, 2010

 

Respondent	Average EQ	Average SQ	Brain Type
Males	39.0	61.2	Systemizing
Females	48.0	51.7	Empathizing
Your Score	11 (???!!!)	101 (?!)	Extreme Systemizing

What does your score mean?

Generally, the higher the score the greater your natural ability for that trait. However, the EQ test has 40 questions compared to 75 in the SQ test. As a result, although the unprocessed quotients may be used for comparing each trait ability between individuals, the absolute scores do not tell an individual if he or she has a greater tendency to empathize or systemize. A calculation taking into account the quantity of questions in each test is used to determine a person's brain type along the following continuum:

• Extreme Empathizing (Extreme E)
• Empathizing (E)
• Balanced (B)
• Systemizing (S)
• Extreme Systemizing (Extreme S)

	Brain Types of Experimental Control Groups
Respondent	Extreme E	E	Balanced	S	Extreme S
Males	0%	17%	31%	46%	6%
Females	7%	47%	32%	14%	0%

The important factor to consider is not your absolute score, but the difference between the two. This indicates whether you have more natural ability as an Empathizer or a Systemizer. If your scores are about the same for your EQ and SQ, then you have well balanced empathizing-systemizing capabilities.

Eleven??? OMGROFLMAO.How is it even possible to score *that* low on an empathy test, assuming the person taking it is neither, oh, Jeffrey Dahmer or a brain-dead oyster? [facepalm] I may be socially dense at times, and know exactly where each and every book I own is in my library, but scores like that also imply that I routinely vivisect my neighbours' pets (and maybe even my neighbours) in the basement, and obsessively count the number of peas in each can I open (and probably sort them out by size)? I'd love to set my friends loose on that site. If their scores come out equally odd, it can be assumed that the quiz is broken. If their scores *don't* come out equally odd... the quiz is broken anyhow! (The alternative would be that I'm actually a robot placed on earth to imitate humans while studying their behaviour and culture so that I can report to Chief Green Guy when I get back).

In the meantime, if anyone wants me, I'll be upstairs in my room. Cutting worms in half.

Comments

[10littlebullets.livejournal.com]

I got 9/87. Nine. If you're up there cutting worms in half, I must spend my free time doing horrific nuclear-radiation experiments on fluffy kittens locked in a box with decaying radium hooked up to a vial of prussic acid or something.

And now, back to my database project I go before I fail all my classes. All right, maybe the stupid test was right about something.

[skepticalboffin.livejournal.com]

That would have been "perfectly justifiable" had you been a medical student at my university, and lived at the 6th residential hall. ;) Cats regularly disappear around there - and reappear in the cardiology lab.

[Nice to know that, the way the scoring's rigged, you get *four* free points on the EQ test if you're male with a technical job, think you're systemising *and* own your home. Ah, stereotypes and deviations from 'em...]

[kittycallum.livejournal.com]

Huh. It said I was balanced. That's the first time anyone/thing has told me I was balanced!

[coloneldespard.livejournal.com]

Snort. I took the first part. Haven't got around to the second. The problem is with these tests is I hate the limited answers...I always go all grey on them. "But it *depends*"..."I need more information on this scenario" etc etc.

Rest assured, if anyone asked me to rank you in terms of EQ and SQ, I think you'd be pretty damn balanced. You certainly have a high level of empathy, judging from how you interact with people online - you read emotions through the words on the screen.

I'd say you've got an intelligence quota that's probably throwing their results off. Same with Marianne.

[skepticalboffin.livejournal.com]

Thanks, lol. The results amused the hell out of me, but it is reassuring to know human friends do not think I actually have the emotional density of mercury, haha!

I agree: the test kinda forces you to commit on an answer regardless of situation, doesn't it? Thing is, I went back and read the page source this morning, and guess what: the moment you choose an answer that is the opposite from what they expect, you get a big fat zero, regardless of whether you agree/disagree a little/strongly. (There should've been a "sometimes" option). Not to mention some of the "right" answers for some of the questions are positively dumb: Of course I don't *enjoy* caring for other people. What the hell kind of person is one who gets a righteous kick out of it? It's just something you *do*, if people need it, and you can provide it.

[The SQ test is, likewise, similarly biased: A person who agrees with the statement, "When I look at a painting, I think about the technique used to produce it" *may* be obsessively curious - *or* they could be an art student, in which case, scrutinising a picture's technique/colour choice/etc would be a perfectly normal thing to do, haha.]