The empathizing–systemizing (E-S) theory seeks to classify people on the basis of their skills in two factors of empathizing and systemizing. It measures skills using as Empathy Quotient (EQ) and Systemizing Quotient (SQ), and attempts to explain the social and communication symptoms in autism spectrum disorders as deficits and delays in empathy combined with intact or superior systemizing.This theory seems to explain observations from studies of empathy scores etc., and posits that women are more often E-type, while men are more often S-type. To me, this seems counterintuitive. Intuition tells me that the skills required to empathize, see something from another person's point of view (EQ) are the same as those required to systematize, build a model of something, identify regularities in something (SQ).
[Note that I am not fundamentally opposed to geneder differences in cognition and behavior, I just have a nagging feeling about this theory].
graphical representation of the E-S space:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.guardian.co.uk/life/feature/image/0,130130,938137,00.html
take the test yourself!
http://www.guardian.co.uk/life/table/0,,937441,00.html
very uncool but thought provoking..i dont knw why, but I dont like the idea of proposing theories about the human 'thought processes' even if it is only for the harmless purpose of distinguishing genders..(genitalia??). These kind of studies seem to be heading down the road for which a non-linear analogy would be- requesting a weighing machine to weigh itself. Perhaps my opinion is too strong for such a harmless study. But looking at the way Maoists are increasing their influence in my democratic India. I believe it is a good policy to point the ills in infancy. Before you conclude, I dont have apolitical bias, politics was also an analogy.
ReplyDeleteHowever, I feel the theory is not counter-intuitive.
"requesting a weighing machine to weigh itself". this is a neat summary of the bootstrapping objection to the possibility of reverse-engineering the mind, discussed in Douglas Hofstadter's 'Godel Escher Bach'. It goes something like this: During our quest for the neural correlate of consciousness, if we come across the correlate, we must also come across the neural correlate of stumbling upon the correlate, ad infinitum!
ReplyDelete"i dont knw why, but I dont like the idea of proposing theories about the human 'thought processes' even if it is only for the harmless purpose of distinguishing genders..(genitalia??)"
ReplyDeletethe 'noble' goal of brain/mind research seems to be, to (1) diagnose and treat brain/mind disorders, and (2) build brain/mind-inspired artificial systems to advance human life.
btw, according to some now classic schools of thought, gender is much more than genitalia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender
let me explain why i feel it is counter-intuitive with an example. consider a question on the survey: i prefer to read non-fiction than fiction: strongly agree, slightly agree, slightly disagree, strongly disagree.
ReplyDeleteif you choose the first two, you score 2 or 1 point on the S scale, and if you choose the latter two, you score 1 or 2 points on the E scale.
however, intuitively, i feel that reading a really good piece of fiction, emphathizing with the characters involved, understanding the complexity of their replationships, the history of their lives, etc. requires the same kind of 'mentalizing/perspective taking' as getting stuck into a hard problem in business, engineering, or diplomacy, evaluating the parameters or the parties concerned, and brainstorming a solution.