Systemising Quotient

I'm familiar with the integrated eq/sq test (Baron Cohen).

It asks leading questions, along the lines of psychometric testing. These questions are supposed to be able to gauge your personality in certain specific respects, from which deductions can be made. This type of testing is also used by employers to screen candidates for a job. It needs to be used carefully. Unfortunately analysts tend to take their deductions ridiculously far.

All these tests do is qualitatively assess usually three personality vectors and then draw something from the interplay of these vectors. As soon as you've assigned the scores it becomes a game of numbers, not an understanding of real people.

If you look at some of the questions it ought to make you stop and think - does any of this make sense in relation to autism? What it tests is aspects of the Triad, but it is qualitative and inferential and impersonal. The test warns people not to place any reliance upon it without professional guidance (that'll cost you!) - it should really warn you that the whole exercise is very approximal and hard to verify scientifically.

The Social/Empathy ones are particularly fraught. What do these questions mean:

"When I talk to people I tend to talk about their experiences rather than my own"

"In a conversation I tend to focus on my own thoughts rather than on what my listener might be thinking"

"I find it hard to know what to do in a social situation"

"I prefer to read non fiction rather than fiction"

I can see what they are trying to deduce from the answers, but is there enough in these questions to really describe autism?   The first one is the opposite of the autism stereotype of going on and on without giving others a way in, but I know lots of people who do that who are not otherwise autistic. The second one really is tautological - it refers of course to being self absorbed and unaware of other people, but the phrasing has to be meaningful, and I think they way it is written is too ambiguous. The third one could be describing shyness or social anxiety. The fourth covers two angles, but is so black & white as to be ambiguous.

This brings me to all those knowledge questions - like reading non-fiction.

"When I hear the weather forecast I am not very interested in the meterological patterns"

 "When I am on a plane I do not think about the aerodynamics"

"When I'm walking in the country I am curious about how the various stands of trees differ"

"I am interested in knowing the path a river takes from its source to the sea"

I know what this is trying to guage - an in-depth interest in something no-one else would be interested in. Trouble is I'm not seeing car number plates, or battery designs, or indeed anything that obsessive. The answers to these just indicate an interest in meteorology, aerospace engineering, ecology or fluvial dynamics. Believe it or not these are all university degree related specialisms. None of this sheds any light on obsessive interests! And the wording is so ambiguous. If you HEAR the weather forecast are you seeing patterns? If you are walking in the country are there any trees around? 

A lot of them are just downright weird. I can guess what they are trying to measure, but I can see so many other ways of reading them.

"I prefer practical jokes to verbal humour"

"When I am in a restaurant I often have a hard time deciding what to order"

"I often make resolutions but find it hard to stick to them"

"If there was a problem with the electrical witring in my house I'd be able to fix it myself"

"I do not read legal documents very carefully"

"I really enjoy caring for other people"

The first is about autistic humour or else abiout visual versus verbal but I'm puzzled as to whether it gives any insight to either. The second is about food routines and fads - supposedly someone with autism would just ask for beans and sausages (not touching)....? The third is always the first questiion on these things, and should warn everyone in advance that this is what the whole silly exercise is like. The others likewise, what do they really mean?

The tests are only as good as the questions asked. I seriously doubt enough thought has been given to formulating these questions. In my view the EQand SQ tests are a load of nonsense.

I'm familiar with the integrated eq/sq test (Baron Cohen).

It asks leading questions, along the lines of psychometric testing. These questions are supposed to be able to gauge your personality in certain specific respects, from which deductions can be made. This type of testing is also used by employers to screen candidates for a job. It needs to be used carefully. Unfortunately analysts tend to take their deductions ridiculously far.

All these tests do is qualitatively assess usually three personality vectors and then draw something from the interplay of these vectors. As soon as you've assigned the scores it becomes a game of numbers, not an understanding of real people.

If you look at some of the questions it ought to make you stop and think - does any of this make sense in relation to autism? What it tests is aspects of the Triad, but it is qualitative and inferential and impersonal. The test warns people not to place any reliance upon it without professional guidance (that'll cost you!) - it should really warn you that the whole exercise is very approximal and hard to verify scientifically.

The Social/Empathy ones are particularly fraught. What do these questions mean:

"When I talk to people I tend to talk about their experiences rather than my own"

"In a conversation I tend to focus on my own thoughts rather than on what my listener might be thinking"

"I find it hard to know what to do in a social situation"

"I prefer to read non fiction rather than fiction"

I can see what they are trying to deduce from the answers, but is there enough in these questions to really describe autism?   The first one is the opposite of the autism stereotype of going on and on without giving others a way in, but I know lots of people who do that who are not otherwise autistic. The second one really is tautological - it refers of course to being self absorbed and unaware of other people, but the phrasing has to be meaningful, and I think they way it is written is too ambiguous. The third one could be describing shyness or social anxiety. The fourth covers two angles, but is so black & white as to be ambiguous.

This brings me to all those knowledge questions - like reading non-fiction.

"When I hear the weather forecast I am not very interested in the meterological patterns"

 "When I am on a plane I do not think about the aerodynamics"

"When I'm walking in the country I am curious about how the various stands of trees differ"

"I am interested in knowing the path a river takes from its source to the sea"

I know what this is trying to guage - an in-depth interest in something no-one else would be interested in. Trouble is I'm not seeing car number plates, or battery designs, or indeed anything that obsessive. The answers to these just indicate an interest in meteorology, aerospace engineering, ecology or fluvial dynamics. Believe it or not these are all university degree related specialisms. None of this sheds any light on obsessive interests! And the wording is so ambiguous. If you HEAR the weather forecast are you seeing patterns? If you are walking in the country are there any trees around? 

A lot of them are just downright weird. I can guess what they are trying to measure, but I can see so many other ways of reading them.

"I prefer practical jokes to verbal humour"

"When I am in a restaurant I often have a hard time deciding what to order"

"I often make resolutions but find it hard to stick to them"

"If there was a problem with the electrical witring in my house I'd be able to fix it myself"

"I do not read legal documents very carefully"

"I really enjoy caring for other people"

The first is about autistic humour or else abiout visual versus verbal but I'm puzzled as to whether it gives any insight to either. The second is about food routines and fads - supposedly someone with autism would just ask for beans and sausages (not touching)....? The third is always the first questiion on these things, and should warn everyone in advance that this is what the whole silly exercise is like. The others likewise, what do they really mean?

The tests are only as good as the questions asked. I seriously doubt enough thought has been given to formulating these questions. In my view the EQand SQ tests are a load of nonsense.