Your Empathy Quotient (and your systemizing quotient)

  • Thread starter Thread starter Simfish
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    quotient
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the Empathy Quotient (EQ) and Systemizing Quotient (SQ) tests, exploring how these scores relate to participants' experiences and perceptions of themselves. Participants share their scores and reflect on the implications of these results in the context of their personal and professional lives, as well as their views on the tests' validity and relevance.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Debate/contested
  • Conceptual clarification

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants suggest that individuals with high SQs may gravitate towards science and engineering, while those with high EQs may prefer other fields.
  • Several participants express their EQ and SQ scores, with a range of values indicating varying degrees of empathy and systemizing tendencies.
  • One participant notes that having a low EQ but high SQ can lead to complementary relationships with those who have the opposite traits.
  • Concerns are raised about the validity of the tests, with participants questioning how accurately the questions reflect true emotional and systematic abilities.
  • Some participants argue that the tests may exaggerate gender differences and do not adequately measure empathy or systemizing tendencies.
  • There are reflections on how personal experiences and social skills may not align with test scores, leading to discrepancies in self-perception.
  • One participant mentions that empathy is largely genetic and difficult to modify, while social niceness can be forced.
  • Another participant discusses the impact of their work on their scores, suggesting that their profession influences their EQ and SQ.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express a variety of views on the relevance and accuracy of the EQ and SQ tests, indicating that there is no consensus on their validity or the implications of the scores. Multiple competing perspectives exist regarding the relationship between EQ, SQ, and personal traits.

Contextual Notes

Some participants highlight limitations in the tests, such as vague questions and potential biases in how the questions are framed, which may affect the interpretation of scores.

Simfish
Gold Member
Messages
811
Reaction score
2
http://www.guardian.co.uk/life/news/page/0,12983,937443,00.html

I wonder if people here tend to have lower EQs and higher SQs than that of the general population. High SQs are almost essential for science and engineering and ones with high EQs tend to gravitate towards other fields. High SQs and low EQs can be summarized by Marie Curie's famous quote "Be less curious about people and more curious about things."

------

Me:

Empathy Quotient: 11
Systemizing Quotient:65
Extreme S

You would think I would be exceptionally knowledgeable in the maths and the sciences judging by my stats here. But I really am not; Asperger's presents enough difficulties academically (with my very poor executive and study skills).

I actually think that people with a low EQ but a high SQ can get along best with those on the opposite ends of both spectra, where both can complement each other with their strengths (and where the person with high EQ is willing to understand the one with low EQ). Perhaps this explains why there are some scientists with wives completely unrelated to their profession.

-------

And while I'm at it, how about the Autism spectrum test?

http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/9.12/aqtest.html

I received 47 on that test. SOmeone once said that a dash of autism could even be required for science and the arts. While this may not be true, I still believe that scientists would be somewhat moe autistic than others on average.
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
I got 65 on the empathy test. 45 on the systemising test.

Which is B, balanced.

And that third test, the autism one, is very hard to mark.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
EQ of 45
SQ of 34

The Bob (2004 ©)
 
Empathy Quotient - 48. It probably would have been higher if my friends would talk to me more often so that I can give advice.

Systemizing Quotient - 56. I am often criticized by my friends for overanalyzing things :redface:

Overall I am Type S.
 
believe it or not i have an EQ of 3 and an SQ of 44

i am really not in touch with my emotions, and i don't want to be, when someone says my friend died, I'm like ohh gee that sucks while not knowing how or what to reply

i guess for me it's all sumed up in the quote " there is a disease in the hart of man, its symptom is hate, it's symptom is anger, it's symptom is rage, it's symptom is war. The disease is human emotion"
 
19 on EQ and 48 on SQ

33 on the third test.
 
EQ - 15

SQ - 56
Extreme S

I scored 41 on the AQ test. Even though I suffer problems at school, my parents have never referred me to a professional psychologist.

It's funny to think that I was once selected to be a Junior Ambassador for my country for an international gathering of students from Asian Pacific countries. I was chosen because I spoke and wrote better English than most students. I think they have changed the selection criteria, having realized that language and social skills do not correlate.
 
I got an EQ = 40 and SQ = 32

But, then I thought some of those questions were pretty odd. For example, on the EQ test, one of the statements is:
"I can easily tell if someone wants to enter a conversation."
So, without asking anyone else, how would they know if my answer reflected anything about how I actually perform in a social situation? If I was completely, socially inept, I might think of course I can tell, when everyone else around me would say, "NO WAY! She never has a clue about these things!"

And then there were a lot of questions formatted like this one on the SQ test:
"I often make resolutions, but find it hard to stick to them."

There are two statements to respond to here: "I often make resolutions" and "I find it hard to stick to them." What do I answer if I don't often make resolutions, but when I do, I stick to them? Would that be scored the same as someone who does often make resolutions but doesn't stick to them?
 
Eq: 12
Sq: 74
 
  • #10
Chaotic42 said:
Eq: 12
Sq: 74

Wow... extreme S, right?

Andy
AMW Bonfire
 
  • #11
amwbonfire said:
Wow... extreme S, right?

Andy
AMW Bonfire

I don't buy it. That test makes it seem like I'd be antisocial and unable to have friendships. I don't really have any problems with making friends.
 
  • #12
EQ 57
SQ 32
Between Types B & E

AQ 19
 
  • #13
EQ 47
SQ 58

A huge problem with these quizzes is that we often answer not how we are but how we see ourselves, and those two things are not always the same.
 
  • #14
EQ 34 I found that draining... phew.

SQ...maybe later
 
  • #15
EQ 44
SQ 24
AQ 11

All the things these tests don't ask?
 
  • #16
Empathy is mostly genetic and cannot necessarily be odified.

It's hard to force oneself to feel empathy. Much easier to force oneself to be social and nice.

I don't have much empathy at all. But I still force myself to be nice to others. It's just difficult for me to understand the viewpoints of others.
 
  • #17
Eq 11
Sq 48
 
  • #18
EQ 15
SQ 55
AQ 41

Hmm. It's odd, because I generally considered myself a compassionate person. Analytical too, but... Wow. I even retook it to try to improve my score and got the exact same thing.
 
  • #19
EQ 42
SQ 37

These tests were obviously "cooked" to exaggerate the difference between genders. For example, I noticed many questions on the SQ test that actually belonged on the EQ test, and vice versa, such as #13 on the EQ test ("I would never break a law, not matter how minor") and #16 on the SQ test ("I am bad about keeping in touch with old friends").

Also many of the questions on the EQ test do not measure actual empathy, but instead unrelated traits that are sometimes associated with empathy, and the same on the SQ test. For example, whether I like to watch a movie alone or with friends, whether I "dream most nights," or whether I try to solve problems alone or discuss them are irrelevant to emotional ability, and whether I enjoy participating in sport or am curious about life on other planets is irrelevant to systematizing tendency.
 
  • #20
EQ=54
SQ=68

I didn't take the last one yet.
 
  • #21
EQ: 16
SQ: 35

Those tests, in my opinion, weren't crafted very well. The questions were too vague, and the SQ test assumes all systematic thinkers like everything associated with systems. I don't like furniture so I'm not a spatial thinker - whaah?
 
  • #22
73 Eq
63 SQ

I think my scores have to relate to the work I do. With every antique I buy, there comes a story, a bit of someones life. I half to listen very carefully, it helps me discover if its real or a reproduction.
I also half to have great systems to stay organised. I read all the manuals that come with stuff, cause odds are I will fix it myself. I even keep them filed by product.
My personal collections are inventoried museum style, everything is numbered and cataloged.
 
  • #23
Item 29 on the SQ test really got me:

"When I read the newspapers, I am drawn to tables of information, such as football league scores or stock market indices."

I probably spend three or four hours a day reviewing current performance stats and historical trends in all manner of professional sports. I win every fantasy league I get involved in. Heck, I have another tab open with stats all over it right now. I always do.

Anyway, I scored:

EQ - 10
SQ - 75

Looks like I have some of that ass burgers stuff, too.
 

Similar threads

  • Poll Poll
The Brain Type System: How Well Does Your Brain Fit?
  • · Replies 38 ·
2
Replies
38
Views
6K
Schools Struggling with physics as a life choice, depression, etc....
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
7K
Schools Remarks on AP courses in high school
  • · Replies 110 ·
4
Replies
110
Views
25K