Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

How well does your brain fit?

  1. E: 00-32

    36.4%
  2. E: 33-52

    39.4%
  3. E: 53-63

    6.1%
  4. E: 64-80

    3.0%
  5. S: 00-19

    6.1%
  6. S: 20-39

    33.3%
  7. S: 40-50

    30.3%
  8. S: 51-80

    9.1%
  9. Check this box if you were born a male.

    39.4%
Multiple votes are allowed.
  1. Jun 2, 2007 #1

    honestrosewater

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    ...into this type system? Take the tests before you read the article, please. :smile:

    The E-S Theory

    My scores: E = 49; S = 48
    My type: S




    (Okay, the test is a little repetitive, so my mind was wandering while I was taking it, and I wonder how the different brain types make use of the 4-option scale. Does one type make more use of the two extremes, one type the two middle options, etc.? My answers were all over the place for the E-test, but mostly clear-cut extremes for the S-test. Haha, I think the E-test was more confusing, the answers harder to pinpoint.)

    (Also, if they think that language is girly, imprecise, non-systematic stuff, I think that they are very wrong, and I better not have lost S-points for appreciating how systematic natural language is.)
     
    Last edited: Jun 2, 2007
  2. jcsd
  3. Jun 2, 2007 #2

    hypnagogue

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    I'm not familiar with Cohen's research but I have to say I'm skeptical of the way it's being framed here. Even if on average there is a significant correlation between the degree to which one spontaneously has thoughts about the classification or creation (etc.) of everyday things and the degree to which one has ability for exploring a system (whatever that means exactly), it doesn't mean that such thoughts can be used to predict such ability at the level of an individual.
     
  4. Jun 2, 2007 #3

    honestrosewater

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    I only read the first few paragraphs of the article before taking the test. It's just for fun. :biggrin:

    I'm not sure I even understand the difference between E and S. It sounds like just a difference in the types of systems that people are more naturally interested in, E-types being more interested in personal identities, experiences, and social relationships, and S-types being more interested in, um, all the other stuff. They didn't even seem to make a distinction in the approach that people take, which is what I was initially searching for.

    Another thread just made me think about some possible different ways that people think, and reflecting for a few minutes on casual observations, it struck me that some people tend more often to ask what the next step is, while others, including myself, more often ask how two or more things compare (are similar, different, connected).

    Perhaps each approach is better suited to analyzing certain types of systems. Anyway, it's just some casual reflection.
     
    Last edited: Jun 2, 2007
  5. Jun 2, 2007 #4
    I got (E,S) = (30,40) which looks like type S.
     
  6. Jun 2, 2007 #5
    e: 42
    s: 56
    male: yes
    "51-80 = You have a very high ability for analysing and exploring a system. Three times as many people with Asperger Syndrome score in this range, compared to typical men, and almost no women score this high"

    I'm not sure what that means. Does that mean if someone's got a job involving a lot of analyzing it would be a tremendous asset to have asperger's syndrome? Why would it be called a mental illness then? :confused:

    re: the result i'm not really surprised. i've been told before that i "over-analyze" things, when in fact thinking of possibilities & brainstorming takes no effort whatsoever. it must be my strong n (myers-briggs) preference.
     
    Last edited: Jun 2, 2007
  7. Jun 2, 2007 #6

    honestrosewater

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    Oh, haha. I didn't even pay attention to the graph. I just read the caption, which said "Type B (E = s)".

    I'm an S-type then, not a B-type.

    I don't know what they mean, but issues with social functioning are among the diagnostic criteria for Asperger's Disorder.
     
  8. Jun 2, 2007 #7

    Moonbear

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    I was wondering this too. When you have to rate things as strongly or somewhat agree or disagree, and there's no option at all for "meh, couldn't care less one way or the other," I'm not always sure what option to select. I had a harder time choosing answers on the EQ test than the SQ test too. There are a lot of times that I don't think I can tell certain things about people that apparently they think I can since they always seem to land in my office to pour out their life stories. Maybe I fake it well. :rolleyes:

    I ended up with an EQ of 32 and an SQ of 28, which put me just slightly into the Type S (S>E) category (one point lower on SQ and I'd have been in the B category).
     
  9. Jun 2, 2007 #8

    Evo

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    I can't read the questions, they are too light, did anyone else have that problem or am I looking at the wrong thing?
     
  10. Jun 2, 2007 #9

    Moonbear

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    They're written in a gray font, which does make it a bit annoying to read, but it didn't seem so bad I couldn't read them at all. Can you adjust the brightness on your monitor to see it more clearly?
     
  11. Jun 2, 2007 #10

    honestrosewater

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    You can also try highlight the text (e.g., by typing Ctrl+A). It should give you a decent foreground-background contrast (mine uses white on blue). It might be a bit ugly or annoying, but you should be able to at least read it then.
     
  12. Jun 2, 2007 #11
    That's part of the test :biggrin:


    :confused: Must be that new math I have been hearing about :tongue2:
     
    Last edited: Jun 2, 2007
  13. Jun 2, 2007 #12

    hypnagogue

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    That sounds sort of in the same spirit of research that has been done on analytic and holistic thought and perception. A linear, process-oriented style would be more analytic and a contextual, comparative style would be more holistic. There has been some work showing that cultural influences can affect the degree to which one thinks and perceives analytically or holistically. Some links here.
     
  14. Jun 2, 2007 #13

    Evo

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    Well, I'm not going to go blind squinting at the screen. What the hell were they thinking?
     
  15. Jun 2, 2007 #14
    E=42, S=44 Not really a big surprise.
     
  16. Jun 2, 2007 #15

    honestrosewater

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    Hm, I'm pretty sure that I have something definite in mind. I mean, I think I know quite well at least how I think, and I often notice when it differs from how others seem to think. But the key differences are rather hard to pin down.

    I was going to say that the next-step thinking is more concerned with processes, but that doesn't actually fit with what I have in mind. I think it's that the next-step thinker uses itself as a constant reference, i.e., the second object in the contextual thinker's comparison. So the two types are really concerned with the same thing: a relation (haha, of course, I suspect that all "thoughts" can be reduced to relations, so maybe that's why I want to see it that way). The comparative, contextual thinker doesn't include itself in the relation; it looks for relations among other objects. The next-step thinker relates everything to itself, so it only needs one other object at a time. Do you know what I mean? Does that make any sense?

    That seems to perhaps fit with the different cultures' focus on the importance of the individual vs. the society, no? Hm, anyway. In my experience (which is mostly with Western, English speakers), the step-thinkers are usually male and the contextual thinkers female.

    Thanks for the links.

    Oh, and while I'm sort of on the subject, does anyone know if they ever include a reference point on those spatial rotation tasks? I've seen one once, and it was just one object at a time, all by itself. Immediately, when I attempt to rotate them, my first thought is "relative to what?", and I start mentally grasping for something to act as a reference for the rotation. I wonder if this might be why males do better on those things. Does anyone do the same thing? Do you guys use yourselves as a reference or imagine axes through the objects or what? I've always been curious about that.
     
    Last edited: Jun 2, 2007
  17. Jun 2, 2007 #16

    Astronuc

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    E=41, S=45

    I find that some of the questions are two part conditional, such that I might agree with one part, but not the other.

    With questions beginning with "People often tell me . . .", the use of often would negate the statement. Same with a statement beginning with "I often . . . ".

    I answered most questions with a slightly agree or disagree. I suppose higher scores come with the more stronly agree or disagree responses.

    If there is a wheel on the mouse, roll it backward to increase the font size, while depressing the ctrl button.

    I voted without noticing the last selection at the bottom.

    Interesting comment "Check this box if you were born a male."
     
    Last edited: Jun 2, 2007
  18. Jun 2, 2007 #17
    view --> text size works also
     
  19. Jun 2, 2007 #18

    hypnagogue

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    I think that kind of makes sense. I have to admit I'm not 100% clear though. What does it mean to use oneself as a reference? Is this something that needs to be explicit or can it be implicit? I would imagine that in normal cognition there is always some kind of processing going on relating the self to the current context though it may be more diaphanous in some situations than in others.

    Maybe, depending on what you mean by using oneself as a reference and depending on the mechanisms underlying cultural differences in analytic vs holistic thinking. Cohen's notion of EQ also seems like it may be relevant.

    I haven't studied mental rotation a whole lot but I haven't come across anything involving a mental reference point. In one version of the task you are shown two 3D tetris block-esque shapes and are asked whether one can be rotated such that it matches the other. I suppose this sort of task implicitly prescribes a reference point somewhere near the shape's 'center of gravity' so to speak.
     
  20. Jun 2, 2007 #19

    Moonbear

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Yeah, I thought the same thing at first. :rofl: Then I noticed they have two different scales for each measure. You can actually get a negative SQ score! :bugeye: Or at least there are negative values on the chart.


    On the other topic of spatial rotation, um, the point is to figure out what axis to rotate on, and envision the other side. Sometimes they're really obvious, just rotated 90 degrees or some such, but sometimes they are rotated diagonally (or flipped horizontally, then flipped again vertically), or on some other angle so it's harder to match. Y'know, I've never seen any of those try to put different colors on different sides. I wonder if that would change outcomes at all? For example, if all the surfaces you see on the original image are blue, and then after it's rotated or flipped, the surfaces you couldn't see are now red or yellow, would that make it easier or harder? I wonder if some people would assume all surfaces are the same color if they initially see a solid color, and would be thrown off if shown a matching shape with different colors, and then mismatched ones that are all solid colors?
     
  21. Jun 2, 2007 #20

    Mk

    User Avatar

    I got (61, 47). It seems like the Systemizing it was mostly based on "noticing things" and "wondering how," while Empathizing was based on, well, empathy. My situation with empathy, understanding, sympathizing, feeling, and emoting is a bit weird, so I think it would be more right to either give me a high score with that or an N/A.
     
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Have something to add?



Similar Discussions: How well does your brain fit?
  1. Brain Fitness (Replies: 4)

  2. How old is your brain? (Replies: 7)

Loading...