Empathizers, Systemizers, and Autism….

In yesterday’s session of Behavior Disorders in Childhood, we were discussing Simon Baron-Cohen (not to be mistaken for his cousin Sasha) and his theory of Assortative Mating. Briefly, what Baron-Cohen is suggesting is that two systemizers who marry are more likely to produce a child with autism. Given the entrance of women to the workforce, the theory suggests that it is now easier for systemizers to find one another, particularly in tech fields, leading to an increase in children with autism.

Baron-Cohen is British, and his theories do not seem to trod on British sensibilities of gender differences as much as they cross American sensitivities. Baron-Cohen’s contention that women are “hard-wired” to be empathic and men to be systematic makes Harvard’s Larry Summers seem quite tame. Whether you buy into his theory or not, it is an interesting concept to explore.

If you feel brave, try the SQ (Systemizing Quotient) and EQ (Empathising Quotient) here. I’m not really sure how to interpret my scores–I’m apparently above average compared to other women on BOTH scales, but much more extremely so on the systemizing test. My EQ was 51, which was just slightly above the female average, but my SQ was 97, which is far above both male and female averages. I guess that might explain my interests in neuroscience, football, videogames, and science fiction (I confess to being a big StarGate fan). In high school, my counselor was completely baffled by my 99th percentile in spatial relations and my 99th percentile in mechanical reasoning. He suggested I marry quickly, as I would be “unable to support myself” as a secretary due to my abysmal 15th percentile score in clerical speed and accuracy.

I’m not too sure if this chart is helpful, either. My combined scores, I think, put me way off in the upper right corner, all by myself. I found this image on Kate Gregory’s blog–she’s got a PhD in Engineering, and she got lower scores on both EQ and SQ than I did.

The SQ/EQ site is interesting, even though they try to use the test to funnel you into online university programs. I suppose knowing where you are on these scales would be helpful for career planning, but by themselves, I’m not sure how useful they would be.

Just out of curiosity, I took another test from Baron-Cohen and his colleagues. This one actually provides an “Autism-Spectrum Quotient.”  My score of 24 was somewhat above the average for the control group (16.4). The site stresses that the test is not a diagnostic tool for autism, but provides rather vague guidance: “Eighty percent of those diagnosed with autism or a related disorder scored 32 or higher.” So we’re assuming that 20% scored below a 32, but we don’t know where the distribution is. I find this result interesting, as other literature suggests that those of us who have relatives with autism, but not autism ourselves, show little “quirks” or bits and pieces of various symptoms.

The two tests seem to be fair in my case, although you may not find the same results for yourselves. I do have my “geeky” qualities, but I generally get along quite well in the social world. Now where does my Myers-Briggs INTJ fit in all of this? According to this description, we are seeing more of the same features: “INTJ’s tremendous value and need for systems and organization, combined with their natural insightfulness, makes them excellent scientists.” I do have some distinguished company, but Wikipedia suggests that Osama bin Laden is also an INTJ. On that note, I think I’ll quit personality psychology for now, and get back to the neurosciences….