The Satisfaction of Identification: Quotients and Mystery Plants

We are driven (some of us more than others) to identify, classify, and organize. According to Baron-Cohen, individuals on the spectrum are extreme systemizers (with deficits in empathizing). He explains this theory for the layperson in his 2008 book Autism and Asperger Syndrome (which I reviewed here), known as the empathizing-systemizing theory. This theory is a blend of both his earlier theory of mind and later extreme male brain theory. Baron-Cohen posits that this theory explains more the of the symptoms, behaviors, and differences than do the other modern psychological theories that have been proposed as explanations for autism spectrum conditions (Baron-Cohen prefers conditions to disorder).

Females tend to score better on empathizing, while males tend to score better on systemizing. Individuals on the spectrum tend to score even higher on systemizing, and usually very low on empathizing. It is that extreme difference that accounts for the social and communication deficits as well as the narrow, restricted interests.

It's possible, though, to score extremely high on systemizing (as I did when took it 14 months ago--112) and above average on the empathizing (65). Because my empathizing abilities are intact, there is no social or communicative deficit. According to the website EQSQ, the average scores for SQ for men is 61.2 and 51.7 for females. My score of 112 puts me on the extreme  systemizing end, even though my score of 65 for EQ is well above average for both males (39.0) and females (48.0).

If readers haven't run across the tests, they can be found at EQSQ. Also available on this website are four research articles on this theory. 

Did my results surprise me a year ago? No, not really, nor was I surprised tonight, when I retook it and had essentially the same score (with both coming in just slightly higher than a year ago). There is a broader autism phenotype (BAP), where the traits that are seen in the autism spectrum conditions are seen in family members to a lesser degree. In other words, to follow up on my post from yesterday, I'm BAPpy, which I've known for years, and so is my husband and my other family members. For several reasons, I'm sure having to do with difficult pregnancies and births and with genetics (in other words, a mix of genetics and environment), my three children are on the spectrum. My oldest is much more significantly impaired and has accompanying ID (from stroke damage). He'll always need assistance and a sheltered environment. My youngest is closer on the spectrum to him, but has no ID. My middle child has Asperger's and at times appears merely BAPpy, until a meltdown or the over-literal thinking, or any of a number of traits show they go beyond quirks to areas that need real assistance and accommodation. These become more obvious as she gets older, and her need for assistance will grow as she becomes more obviously different. Bright only gets you so far; she's bright enough to work on work-arounds, but the demands of school and the social skills involved will become harder for her to navigate. I've been there, though, in lesser BAPpy glory, and will help her to navigate the social worlds she finds herself in, just as I have helped her brother and will help her sister. That's my job. Organizing what I know and don't know about my children and about autism helps me do that job better. Because I try to be open, those categories are not permanent categories, but act as placeholders. People cannot, for all that we like to pidgeonhole them, be contained into neat boxes. Okay, if you're Dexter you could probably do that, but in all seriousness, people are complex and do not fit into neat DSM categories (and I hope we never do).

There's immense satisfaction in classification. I'm organized. Highly, obviously. I like to know where things are, where they belong, why they work the way they do. And when I am provided a mystery, as my garden often does, I want to classify. Sometimes I must wait months, until I've accumulated enough data, or a plant has given me enough to work with to find what I need. Today, I am satisfied. I have identified several mystery plants that were obviously intentional (in that I have lots of them, so they must have come from wildflower mixes -- or overzealous birds' droppings in clusters).

The first is one that I only have in the back garden. Before I'd thinned them, I must have had over a 100 of them, and considering many are now taller and wider than me (not hard on the tall part, but a bit of a stretch on the growth side), it's probably a good thing that I did thin the saw leaf daisies. It's a beauty, though, and worth the several months wait. I do believe I like it near as well as I do my sunflowers. I love yellow. So pretty, so energetic.

I can't wait for them all to bloom. :-)

This spider's id alludes me still, but it may have more to do with my business than with not having found its name yet. Still, it's taken up residence here.

Hah, this one's been discovered, as well: Illinois bundleflower (Desmanthus illinoensis).

As has this wild rhubarb. (far left of the hollyhocks)

And last, the partridge pea! 

See, immensely satisfying. :-)


Clay said...

My EQ - 47, my SQ - 68.

To me, these tests are crap, because they often have "hypothetical" questions, such as, "People often tell me that - " People don't say these things to me, so I don't know how to answer these questions.

Nightstorm said...

AQ tests but the crap out of me. They are rather stereotypical.

KWombles said...

The EQ has four questions out of 50 that has the "people tell me"; they're not really hypothetical; if no one's ever said that to you, then strongly disagree with it.

I agree that forced choice tests are frustrating when you don't know how to answer a question or none of the choices really fits, but because these tests are standardized against large numbers, even where it leaves an individual feeling it's crap doesn't make it so, if the test itself has been shown to have good reliability (consistent scoring over time) and good validity (it's measuring what it says it is). It appears, based on the research done to date, that the EQ and SQ do this fairly well.

The AQ test may be stereotypical, but it has to be; the clinical profile of autism/asperger's is based on clear stereotypes that no one individual will match on all points. Where would the value be if it didn't point the way to individuals who might need further screening? The AQ (not actually discussed in this post) is not meant to diagnose an autism spectrum condition but to indicate who might need further testing.

Certainly, I find it irritating to be asked if I'd prefer a theater or a museum. It depends. What movie, what time of day, what day? What museum, what exhibit, how busy will it be?

It isn't meant to clearly delineate each person but to answer a preliminary question. :-)

Lyn said...

Dexter as in the show?
I like that show. It's interesting. I saw the first season of it. I don't like serial killers, but it's still fascinating in a sociological way and the fact that I don't understand people, but I have no desire to kill them even when they flip me off in their cars for no reason.
That's just rude.

I love that spider. I didn't know spiders could make these YMVNYVMVYVMYVM patterns in their webs until recently. I must find a large one and bring it into my apartment to kill all of these stupid flies.

Also, the last time I took an autism test, I was rather autistic, but, I have so much trouble with questions that have 2 answers at the same time. I hate crowds, but I'm going to see Dir en grey and that's crowded

Lyn said...


Yellow and black garden spider.

KWombles said...


Thanks for the picture. Hee. Now I have a name for it. I found some other cool pictures at http://www.fcps.edu/islandcreekes/ecology/black_and_yellow_argiope.htm.

I don't think I'd want it in the house, though. It's massive, as big as my palm in terms of its leg spread. I have little spiders in the house, though, that if I can I gently help out of the house (or if I can't reach pretend I didn't see it!).