The Brain Type System: How Well Does Your Brain Fit?

[honestrosewater]

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

http://f0rked.com/articles/estheory"

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

On average, most women score about 47 and most men about 42. Most people with Asperger Syndrome or high-functioning autism score about 20.

0-32 = You have a lower than average ability for understanding how other people feel and responding appropriately.
33-52 = You have an average ability for understanding how other people feel and responding appropriately. You know how to treat people with care and sensitivity.
53-63 = You have an above average ability for understanding how other people feel and responding appropriately. You know how to treat people with care and sensitivity.
64-80 = You have a very high ability for understanding how other people feel and responding appropriately. You know how to treat people with care and sensitivity.

On average women score about 24 and men score about 30.

0-19 = You have a lower than average ability for analysing and exploring a system.
20-39 = You have an average ability for analysing and exploring a system.
40-50 = You have an above average ability for analysing and exploring a system.
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.

(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.)

 

[hypnagogue]

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.

 

[honestrosewater]

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

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.

 

[mattmns]

I got (E,S) = (30,40) which looks like type S.

 

[fourier jr]

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?

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.

 

[honestrosewater]

Oh, haha. I didn't even pay attention to http://f0rked.com/articles/estheory/esgraph.gif" . I just read the caption, which said "Type B (E = s)".

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

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?

I don't know what they mean, but issues with social functioning are among http://www.behavenet.com/capsules/disorders/asperger.htm" .

 

[Moonbear]

Does one type make more use of the two extremes, one type the two middle options, etc.?

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.

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).

 

[Evo]

I can't read the questions, they are too light, did anyone else have that problem or am I looking at the wrong thing?

 

[Moonbear]

I can't read the questions, they are too light, did anyone else have that problem or am I looking at the wrong thing?

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?

 

[honestrosewater]

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.

 

[mattmns]

I can't read the questions, they are too light, did anyone else have that problem or am I looking at the wrong thing?

That's part of the test

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).

Must be that new math I have been hearing about :tongue2:

 

[hypnagogue]

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).

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 http://psp.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/33/5/691.

 

[Evo]

That's part of the test

Well, I'm not going to go blind squinting at the screen. What the hell were they thinking?

 

[Stevedye56]

E=42, S=44 Not really a big surprise.

 

[honestrosewater]

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 http://psp.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/33/5/691.

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.

 

[Astronuc]

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.

Well, I'm not going to go blind squinting at the screen.

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."

 

[fourier jr]

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

view --> text size works also

 

[hypnagogue]

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?

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.

That seems to perhaps fit with the different cultures' focus on the importance of the individual vs. the society, no?

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.

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.

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.

 

[Moonbear]

Must be that new math I have been hearing about :tongue2:

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! 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?

 

[Mk]

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.

 

[mattmns]

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! Or at least there are negative values on the chart.

Ahh, I should know better than to try and correct someone here at PF as they always end up showing me that I am the one that is incorrect :rofl:OK, so I guess I am an "Extreme Type S", sweet

 

[Chi Meson]

33-28






I hate being "average"![slams computer against table]

 

[Moridin]

EQ: 23
SQ: 46

Extreme Type S.

 

[hypnagogue]

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?

I think the main importance of the mental rotation work was to show that the brain supports mental imagery; there was once a debate over whether the brain really uses imagery as such or whether it ultimately decomposes things into language-like propositions. The mental rotation literature demonstrates that the reaction time for deciding whether one shape can be rotated to match another shape is a linear function of the 'rotational distance,' so to speak, between the two shapes. This implies that in the mental rotation task the brain is actually rotating a mental image in the same way as one might rotate a physical block to see if it were the same shape as another block. (The propositional hypothesis does not predict a linear relationship between reaction time and angle of rotation.)

 

[hypnagogue]

Regarding the format of the questions on this survey, I think it's OK to not have a neutral option. Some folks have a tendency to be quite conservative on questionnaires like this, which could compromise the efficacy of the survey in categorizing individuals. Even if you don't feel strongly about a given question it's likely that the side of the scale you wind up selecting reflects some kind of non-conscious preference.

What I don't like is that the scale only offers two levels of degree of agreement or disagreement for each statement. I think at the coarsest grain there should be 3 such options on each side of the scale corresponding to something like "strongly (dis)agree," "mostly (dis)agree," and "sort of (dis)agree." I think there's clearly often a middle ground where you don't feel very strongly about something but you don't feel very weakly about it either. In these cases where one is forced to categorize a mid-level feeling as either strong or weak, I would not be surprised if some individuals have a tendency to bias their mid-level responses towards the lower end of the scale and others toward the higher end, in which case the results would be contaminated with this kind of response bias.

 

[hypatia]

E66
S45
Type B ..I found this interesting.

 

[hypnagogue]

I got an E of 33 and an S of 27, which categorizes me as an S. But apparently I forgot that I was born a male. oops.

 

[turbo]

E=29, S=51
Hmmm...I have had tons of hobbies, often set aside or done infrequently after I have gained a certain level of competence, and I remember being pretty obsessive about some things when I was a kid. I had never really known what Asperger's Syndrom is, but after reading about it, there is a good possibility that I would fit. BTW, I tested at 140-150 IQ at various times during my life, so that kind of fits, too.

 

[Evo]

I'm an E 47, S 29, so B type.

 

[turbo]

I'm an E 47, S 29, so B type.

Where is the key to types? In the article linked to the site, it said that B is "balanced" and that people who scored high on E had female brains and people who scored high on S had male brains. I am at the very low end of the E scale and at the very high end of the S scale, so that fits.

 

[Nesag]

Well, it did actually confirm the fact that I have AS.

 

[Smurf]

my E was 27, then I got bored. So I only checked the "I am male" box

 

[wildman]

oops. I was born male so change my answer.

 

[mathwonk]

i do not have the patience to answer all those stupid repetitive questions, which pretty much tells you my score.

and i thought the thread title meant does it fit in my skull.

 

[BobG]

I scored a 21-44, extreme S.

I think it's somewhat of a good sign that none of the individuals with extremely high S forgot to specify their sex. On the other hand, a few of the individuals supposedly good at analyzing and exploring a system overlooked some significant details of the poll. (Oh, please, please, please don't tell me Astronuc is really the bearded lady.)