Lemming-like, I post

[telophase]

Found this via a post on LanguageLog - two tests to see if you are more of an empathizing person or a systemizing person - the usual female/male or artist/engineer stereotype.

Here are your EQ SQ results:


EQ: 32

SQ: 57

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.

Take the EQ SQ tests

Need I point out that I am both an artist and a librarian, i.e., my paid job is to organize information systematically? Which is a big part of why I don't subscribe to the standrad Artist Brain/Engineer Brain dichotomy: they are at least in part learned patterns of thinking, and to say "I've got X brain" tells me that you're looking for an easy way not to have to try to think another way.

LanguageLog points out:

So Dilbert and Tina have a double dose of group difference: male vs. female, engineering vs. humanities. And the result, it seems to me, is a common situation: a stereotype with a basis in fact.

Remember, though, that those female-vs.-male distributions in EQ and SQ still overlap quite a bit.

And I'll bet that effects of similar size, on the same questionnaire results, can result from differences in cultural background and life experience -- or even from the short-term influence of interventions to shift perceived group norms and values. So we need to be careful in drawing conclusions from such results, whether about individuals or about groups.

Word

ETA: From the site:

Males Females
Average EQ: 39.0 48.0
Average SQ: 61.2 51.7
Your EQ Score: 32
Your SQ Score: 57

Comments

[anderson-t.livejournal.com]

I do think you do tend to systematically empathize, with most people.

[madame-manga.livejournal.com]

I just took the test for grins, and got SQ 84, EQ 21. Um...I figured I was going to go somewhat to the systematizing side, but THAT much? I'm not so sure about the accuracy of that test.

I majored in fine art and do portrait commissions. I'm also an avid fic writer. However, I'm the offspring of a Ph.D. in physics and an MS in mathematics. I'm well-organized only in spasms, but I admit I can go on at great length about the categories, properties and chemical makeups of different artist's pigments...which I'm beginning to realize is just a tad unusual. :D

[telophase.livejournal.com]

You'd do well as a conservator, then. You have to essentially ahve a double major in studio art and in chemistry to be able to to into a conservation program and then apprentice as a conservator.

I thought about it for a while when I was in museum studies because the field is fascinating, but when we noticed one of the conservators was working part-time as a cashier at CostPlus to make ends meet... eh, not so much. XD

My mother was a math teacher until she retired and Dad was a wildlife ecologist. But Mom, desptie claiming to not have an artistic bone in her body, weaves, and Dad made jewelry and did woodcarving and photography, so I get the artist-scientist thing from both sides of the family.

[madame-manga.livejournal.com]

You nailed it--I've been reading technical articles on art conservation for decades. However, all my chemistry that wasn't absorbed by osmosis (my dad studied under Linus Pauling for a while) is self-taught. I ended up doing computer game art for a long time, which probably fits the profile too (and undoubtedly pays better). But it's time for a second career!

Weaving is highly mathematical, just like music, so your mom's hobby makes sense. I'm sure that a lot of our skills and interests lie in heritable factors, though obviously growing up with exposure to them is an influence. My sister is a computer engineer, which you'd definitely predict by looking at our parents. By comparison, I'm the black sheep!

[taer-silveroak.livejournal.com]

Here are your EQ SQ results:


EQ: 52

SQ: 55

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.

Take the EQ SQ tests (http://eqsq.com)

[rayechu.livejournal.com]

Looks like we are only a point away from each other!

[taer-silveroak.livejournal.com]

Neat! *meanders over to take a peek at your LJ ^^*

[rayechu.livejournal.com]

Here are your EQ SQ results:


EQ: 51

SQ: 54

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.

Take the EQ SQ tests (http://eqsq.com)

[m00nface.livejournal.com]

My EQ: 49
My SQ: 15

I am truly pathetic when it comes to processing blocks of technical information; I physically can't understand it a lot of the time, and once ended up in tears trying to explain this to a maths. teacher who insisted I was just being lazy. I can't read maps very well, I get lost very easily even in the town I've lived in for fifteen years, and I am just as easily lost in articles on business, technology and politics, no matter how much they qualify as spoonfeeding. Even if I could comprehend them completely, I have a hard time taking the information from a number of different sources and balancing it into a single track of thought, so would find it difficult, as I always have, to develop a solid awareness of these sectors, let alone coherent personal opinions. For most of the SQ test I was ticking "Agree strongly" and "Disagree strongly" without needing any time to consider. I didn't realise my score would be quite that low, but I'm not surprised by it either.