Did great minds tend to be socially inept?

[Humes fork]

I've read that brilliant minds often have been socially inept. For instance, Russell and Einstein were brilliant in their respective fields (in fact, revolutionizing them), but as persons, they were socially inept and not the kind of people who were pleasant to hang around with. Is this true?

[randman]

I've read that brilliant minds often have been socially inept. For instance, Russell and Einstein were brilliant in their respective fields (in fact, revolutionizing them), but as persons, they were socially inept and not the kind of people who were pleasant to hang around with. Is this true?

Sometimes and sometimes not. Not everyone has the same energy level and capacity. Some are consumed with mental thought and exploration and so have little left over to apply to social interactions.

Some seem blessed with an abundance of energy and can do both, and of course, there are all points in between.

[Father Dagon]

And then there's those who are socially inept and are therefore mistaken for being brilliant, or becomes at least greatly overrated. ;)

Or why not glasses? Glasses are still a symbol of learning, but everyone wearing glasses aren't learned.

[Pixel42]

It's been said (as an argument for not genetically engineering autism spectrum disorders out of the gene pool, should that prove possible) that if it weren't for those somewhere on the autism spectrum humanity would still be happily socialising in caves.

I suspect there may be some truth in that argument.

[quarky]

Because I am socially inept and stupid, I suspect that there's nothing to the hypothesis of the o.p.

[MatildaGage]

I think that's an incorrect conventional wisdom caused by confirmation bias and possibly other fallacies.

This reminds me of a similar fallacy I observed for years in a behavioral health facility. We had a poster showing accomplished people who had mental illnesses--scientists, etc. The intent of the poster was to show a mentally ill person can still accomplish a lot in life.

Yet what most people seemed to get from the poster is there is a correlation between high IQs and mental illness.

>Therefore, our patients were highly intelligent.

>Therefore if a patient's mental illness is successfully put into remission, we are potentially missing out on a major accomplishment for humanity from the next Winston Churchill among us.

I got so tired of pointing out the flawed logic, to staff and patients.:rolleyes:

[ShadowSot]

Richard Feynman, great counter example.

(C'mon, y'all know you were waiting for someone to say it.)

Brian Cox is another example that comes to mind, I thoroughly enjoy the infinite Monkey Cage.

[Dinwar]

Proof that not all great minds are socially inept. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5bueZoYhUlg) Warning, some not safe for work language. Takes a pretty easy-going guy to let something like this happen (and the world is better for it).

I think a lot of this comes from the fact that great minds tend towards specialization, which leads to jargon and in-jokes. A lot of people mistake this for social ineptness--they don't get what's so funny about that list of species names, they can't see the humor in an equation, and they certainly don't get what the one girl always blushes when they talk about telescopes, so they assume that those people simply aren't good with other people. In this aspect, it's no different from anything else, really. Check out the "Cheese-Eating Surrender Monkey" thread to see a parallel example, where instead of "great minds" vs "everyone else" the cultures involved are France and the USA.

Secondly, there's the problem of definitions. What IS a great mind? I know a farmer, who if I recall correctly never finished high school, that can build pretty much whatever you want him to, given the time and materials. Is he a great mind? By the same token, I've met a lot of scientists working in extremely obscure fields who I swear have to have "L" and "R" painted on the soles of their shoes. Are they great minds? How about people who know a huge number of facts, but can't draw a conclusion from them to save their lives--are they great minds? Until you define what is a great mind, this question is, fundamentally, meaningless.

[Father Dagon]

It's been said (as an argument for not genetically engineering autism spectrum disorders out of the gene pool, should that prove possible) that if it weren't for those somewhere on the autism spectrum humanity would still be happily socialising in caves.

I suspect there may be some truth in that argument.On the other hand, those with autism spectrum disorders tends often to be the "little professors" whose style is easily confused with intelligence. And just herding a bunch of "little professors" in a room and hope that they will deliver anything, just because the way they are and not because of any prior proof of knowledge, skills or achievements is not only wasteful, but detrimental to them.

EDIT: And wasn't there a book published some 10 years ago that claimed that without AS there wouldn't be any inventions? Well, the development of the lightbulb took over 100 years (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incandescent_light_bulb#Early_pre-commercial_research). And it takes a lot of self-denial to accept that you spend 30 years researching a dead end or that it turned obsolete overnight because of new theories. And if you are to rigid to accept that, AS or not, then you're probably not of the right stuff.

[Pup]

Secondly, there's the problem of definitions. What IS a great mind? I know a farmer, who if I recall correctly never finished high school, that can build pretty much whatever you want him to, given the time and materials. Is he a great mind? By the same token, I've met a lot of scientists working in extremely obscure fields who I swear have to have "L" and "R" painted on the soles of their shoes. Are they great minds? How about people who know a huge number of facts, but can't draw a conclusion from them to save their lives--are they great minds? Until you define what is a great mind, this question is, fundamentally, meaningless.

Not to mention, there may be confirmation bias in defining great minds as only those whose achievements aren't in people-oriented fields, such as leadership, negotiation, public speaking, etc.

[Humes fork]

And then there's those who are socially inept and are therefore mistaken for being brilliant, or becomes at least greatly overrated. ;)

Well I guess so.

As for autism, I don't know much about it so I'm not sure it is relevant here, but I know that certain famous historical personalities, such as Jeremy Bentham, Thomas Jefferson and Einstein are suspected to have had it.

[Father Dagon]

Well I guess so.

As for autism, I don't know much about it so I'm not sure it is relevant here, It is relevant, as it's social ineptness on steroids.

And then there's the social ineptness where the socially inept has no kind of syndrome or whatever but is just not interested in the same thing as the schoolmates. One of the many things that gets better with age is that you can choose your peers.but I know that certain famous historical personalities, such as Jeremy Bentham, Thomas Jefferson and Einstein are suspected to have had it.And Hitler, Himmler and Dahmer.

[TjW]

Richard Feynman, great counter example.

(C'mon, y'all know you were waiting for someone to say it.)

Brian Cox is another example that comes to mind, I thoroughly enjoy the infinite Monkey Cage.

If we're making a list, I think you could include Benjamin Franklin. You don't become a successful entrepreneur, scientist, diplomat and noted wit by being asocial.

[Cuddles]

Not to mention, there may be confirmation bias in defining great minds as only those whose achievements aren't in people-oriented fields, such as leadership, negotiation, public speaking, etc.

In addition to the problem of defining what constitutes a "great mind", there's also the problem of defining what is meant by "socially inept". See this article (http://www.escapistmagazine.com/videos/view/the-big-picture/2522-A-Nerd-By-Any-Other-Name) for example. People who like comics, computer games, roleplaying, and so on, are often seen as socially inept nerds, while sports jocks tend to be seen as the height of social eptness (I'm sure that's a real word). But as that video points out, the actual behaviour is actually very similar. It's not the social interaction that differs, merely the subject that interaction is based around.


Of course, there's also a point I haven't seen mentioned that tends to lend some truth to the stereotype - as the saying goes, genius is 1% inspiration, 99% perspiration. That 99% perspiration basically means spending a lot of time doing work, and that time is not available for socialising. Of course, that's true anywhere a lot of work is required, and the idea of office workers and the like working 12 hour days and not having time to do anything else is not exactly unheard of, and even a popular stereotype on TV. But what is generally unheard of is their names. You might work dawn 'til dusk with no time for play and socialising and become a rich and successful lawyer, but very few people will ever care. Spend the same time curing cancer or discovering perpetual motion, and everyone will look back on your life and say "Wow, Cuddles sure was a great mind, isn't it amazing how socially inept they were?".

[Father Dagon]

In addition to the problem of defining what constitutes a "great mind", there's also the problem of defining what is meant by "socially inept". See this article (http://www.escapistmagazine.com/videos/view/the-big-picture/2522-A-Nerd-By-Any-Other-Name) for example. People who like comics, computer games, roleplaying, and so on, are often seen as socially inept nerds, while sports jocks tend to be seen as the height of social eptness (I'm sure that's a real word). But as that video points out, the actual behaviour is actually very similar. It's not the social interaction that differs, merely the subject that interaction is based around.Starting to sound like a Cracked.com-article, yes? ;) And then there's the Halo-series. The games that made it acceptable for jocks to play video games. ;) Enter more confusion with that Halo-book written by Greg Bear.Of course, there's also a point I haven't seen mentioned that tends to lend some truth to the stereotype - as the saying goes, genius is 1% inspiration, 99% perspiration. That 99% perspiration basically means spending a lot of time doing work, and that time is not available for socialising. Of course, that's true anywhere a lot of work is required, and the idea of office workers and the like working 12 hour days and not having time to do anything else is not exactly unheard of, and even a popular stereotype on TV. But what is generally unheard of is their names. You might work dawn 'til dusk with no time for play and socialising and become a rich and successful lawyer, but very few people will ever care. Spend the same time curing cancer or discovering perpetual motion, and everyone will look back on your life and say "Wow, Cuddles sure was a great mind, isn't it amazing how socially inept they were?".A lot of hard work, yes. But what's more important than the hard work is to downplay your efforts. A classic mistake is to say that you're right because of the effort you put into it, not because you're right because of 1+2=3, sorta. Browbeating with facts and effort is the hallmark of the "little professors".

[Zelenius]

I'm both dumb and socially inept so I have no idea where this stereotype came from.

[Mr. Purple]

Just my thoughts sans data.

I think there is something to the stereotype, in a way. I do not think that the two (being very intelligent and very socially skilled) are mutually exclusive. On the contrary, I look at social skill as a type of intelligence.

There are many forms of intelligence, yet the general public only views the nerdier varieties as "intelligence".

So, to fit the mold of what people would consider a socially skilled and highly intelligent (in a "traditional" area), one would have to have high levels of intelligence in two fields.

This happens, but obviously not as often as those with one key area. Likewise, some surely have aptitudes in three, four, or more areas; nonetheless, there are far fewer of them than those with one area of aptitude.

[Zelenius]

Personally, I think a good amount of "sour grapes" fuels this stereotype of genius being associated with social ineptness or mental illness. A lot of people of average intelligence will claim they are glad they are not super smart since being super smart also means being "disturbed" or "socially inept", in their mind. These same "average" people will often focus on rich people who are miserable or addicted to drugs to "prove" how having a lot of money either has a neutral or negative effect on a person's well-being. They can then feel better about themselves even with their bad job or lack of money.

Also, as said before, confirmation bias plays a role in this too. One could easily make a list of brilliant people who were the opposite of socially inept.

[TX50]

I've read that brilliant minds often have been socially inept. For instance, Russell...

What makes you think Bertrand Russell was "socially inept"!? :confused:

[Dinwar]

On the application for the Rhodes Scholarship they require evidence of extra-curricular activities, preferably sports, the idea being the Greek notion that a well-rounded person was mentally and physically skilled. Athletes are viewed as the opposite of socially inept. Thus, in at least one case, the stereotypes are contradicting one another--one must necessarily be false.

These same "average" people will often focus on rich people who are miserable or addicted to drugs to "prove" how having a lot of money either has a neutral or negative effect on a person's well-being. I've always found this notion that money corrupts people odd. I've known a lot of poor drunks. The only thing being rich would do for these people is give them more money for better alcohol and other drugs. What makes people think that the celebrities wouldn't be drunks if they were poor?

[Mr. Purple]

Athletes are viewed as the opposite of socially inept.

I agree with the bulk of your post except one minor quibble. I don't think Athletes are necessarily socially adept, though they are often held in high regard in a society.

So while they are often socially successful, this does not necessarily imply that they are socially skilled.

Again, many kinds of "intelligence" (whatever that word means).

[HansMustermann]

A lot of hard work, yes. But what's more important than the hard work is to downplay your efforts. A classic mistake is to say that you're right because of the effort you put into it, not because you're right because of 1+2=3, sorta.

I think you misunderstand what he's trying to say.

The idea is that being good at talking to people is a skill too, just like maths or running the marathon or playing the violin. If you don't practice it often and lots, you lose it, or never get it. Ultimately there is no substitute for practice. So if someone prefers to spend more time in a lab than talking to people and overdoes it, well, you can see where that is going.

And I don't think it's one of the skills one can just claim to have. Well, one can, but it would be pretty comical to tell someone, basically, "I'm the great socializer but nobody notices it" :p

Browbeating with facts and effort is the hallmark of the "little professors".

Err... And railing against someone actually being right and having the facts to back it up... I'm pretty sure it's a lot more insulting a trait than being a "little professor".

There are plenty of things to complain about wannabe "little professors", and most of them boil down to a combination of Dunning-Kruger and an attitude where admitting being wrong is the ultimate loss of face. I.e., revolve around their being more wrong than they think.

But if someone actually has the facts to support their position, and doubly so if it boils down to stuff the caliber of 1+2=3, then it's not a case of browbeating, it's a case of simply being right. The very definition of browbeating (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/browbeating) involves basically bullying or intimidation into submission. It's ultimately a variant of the appeal to emotion class of fallacies.

"I'm right because only a conspiracy theorist would doubt that X existed, and such people give skeptics a bad name" (to quote the gist of a recent thread) is brow-beating. It's trying to intimidate someone into agreeing with something by verbal bullying. Sprinkle a little argument from authority on it, a little appeal to motive about the opponents, and just a dash of speculation about what mental dysfunctions would make one doubt the conclusion (i.e., bulverism), and you have a good brow-beating. That is brow-beating.

"I'm right because 1+2=3" is not brow-beating, it's actually having an argument. (Assuming that the conclusion does follow from 1+2=3.)

[HansMustermann]

I agree with the bulk of your post except one minor quibble. I don't think Athletes are necessarily socially adept, though they are often held in high regard in a society.

So while they are often socially successful, this does not necessarily imply that they are socially skilled.

Again, many kinds of "intelligence" (whatever that word means).

I wouldn't even ascribe it to any kind of "intelligence", necessarily.

A lot of things are desired for other stuff than their quality. E.g., see why a brand Rolex is more desirable than a watch every bit as good, and Coke sells better than drinks people actually preferred in blind tests. People want it because of the associations created by marketing and PR, rather than any objective being better than another brand.

Same for people, really. Being famous and rich makes people want to talk to you regardless of whether you're any good at talking or not.

Sure, some will end up good at talking anyway, just because the above also means they don't lack an opportunity to practice whenever they wish. But really it's a non-factor. If you asked someone if they'd spend the evening with some basketball superstar, chances are the answer wouldn't be "well, only if he's not talking about boring stuff".

Probably the best example of how being successful has nothing to do with skill is Phil Spector. The stories about just about any social setting he's been in, are appalling. Not only that, but he was routinely pulling guns on people, and held at least one band hostage at gun point to hear him sing. Tried pulling that stunt if you're not rich and famous. But there was no shortage of people willing to talk to him or come to his parties anyway.

[Molinaro]

If you are very smart then consequently the majority of people you interact with will not be on an equal footing. You will find yourself thinking of the people around you as not smart. If you find yourself thinking that way of close friends, relatives, loved ones, then it could lead to guilt.

That guilt could then lead you to avoid social interactions so as to avoid situations that will lead to guilt. That avoidance could then be seen as social ineptitude.

[Ivor the Engineer]

Introversion and extraversion are probably more strongly correlated with social aptitude than IQ.

[SezMe]

As for autism, I don't know much about it so I'm not sure it is relevant here, but I know that certain famous historical personalities, such as Jeremy Bentham, Thomas Jefferson and Einstein are suspected to have had it.
For the bolded person, who suspects this?

[quarky]

I'm both dumb and socially inept so I have no idea where this stereotype came from.

I hear an echo.

[Dinwar]

So while they are often socially successful, this does not necessarily imply that they are socially skilled.
Fair enough, though the next logical quesiton is how we measure skill if not by success.

If you are very smart then consequently the majority of people you interact with will not be on an equal footing. Doubt that. I'm a pretty smart guy, and I tend to associate with people just as smart, or smarter than, me. I value intelligence in friends, so I seek out intelligent people. Most of the extremely smart people I know do that, just as the sports fans I know tend to associate with sports fans and the drinker I know tend to associate with drinkers. I'd say it's a safe bet that the trend is more for like to associate with like than for really smart people to feel guilty about being smarter than less intelligent people. Plus, put a really smart scientists in a room with a much less smart back-woods redneck and the scientist and the redneck will spend the weekend building contraptions out of leather and wood that make Girl Genius look normal (for reference, the Foxfire Experiment). A smart person can learn from anything, after all. ;)

[ElMondoHummus]

Same for people, really. Being famous and rich makes people want to talk to you regardless of whether you're any good at talking or not.

Sure, some will end up good at talking anyway, just because the above also means they don't lack an opportunity to practice whenever they wish. But really it's a non-factor. If you asked someone if they'd spend the evening with some basketball superstar, chances are the answer wouldn't be "well, only if he's not talking about boring stuff".
Heh... that reminds me of a joke, perhaps apocryphal, of a celebrity being asked what the benefits of having newly become famous are. His response was that, when he's boring at parties now, the hosts think it's their fault. :D

The point here is that some of the measure of whether a person is or is not socially inept is in the eye of the beholder, and that it's a subjective measurement. The other point is that I think it's a pretty good joke. ;)

[Roboramma]

and Coke sells better than drinks people actually preferred in blind tests. People want it because of the associations created by marketing and PR, rather than any objective being better than another brand. Citation?

You may be referring to Pepsi doing better than Coke in blind taste tests, but there is evidence that while people prefer Pepsi in sip tests, they prefer Coke when then can drink the full can.

[Humes fork]

For the bolded person, who suspects this?

http://sv.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aspergers_syndrom#cite_note-93

[SezMe]

Thanks, Humes fork. I was unaware of that possibility. Here (http://www.amazon.com/Diagnosing-Jefferson-Evidence-Condition-Associations/dp/1885477600) is the book on Amazon. The lead review says the book is about the assertion that Jefferson had Asperger's Syndrome, not autism - although I recognize that they are just different locations on the spectrum of that affliction.

[Humes fork]

Thanks, Humes fork. I was unaware of that possibility. Here (http://www.amazon.com/Diagnosing-Jefferson-Evidence-Condition-Associations/dp/1885477600) is the book on Amazon. The lead review says the book is about the assertion that Jefferson had Asperger's Syndrome, not autism - although I recognize that they are just different locations on the spectrum of that affliction.

You are welcome. And yeah, I confused them. From what I know (and I could be wrong), Asperger's is autism without deficit intelligence.

[Beerina]

while sports jocks tend to be seen as the height of social eptness (I'm sure that's a real word).

Apt. The "ept" in inept is the same root word as apt.

[quarky]

Do aspi's reproduce as often as non-aspi's?
I wonder what it would be like to be raised by an Asberger's parents?
Funny how many pop movies and tv shows depict the stereotypical social climber types as complet a-holes.
The revenge of the nerds isn't completely bogus as long as they are reproducing a bit.

[Complexity]

I've recently concluded (after wondering for years) that I've got Asperger's. I've taken several tests and evaluate quite strongly as Aspergeric.

While there are several on-line communities for people with some form of autism, the one that I've adopted is www.wrongplanet.net (http://www.wrongplanet.net). It is like coming home.

The site's name is recognition that many aspies and auties feel as though they are on the wrong planet, surrounded by people who think and act differently, and not at all sure what the local customs are or mean.

One of my favorite threads in the general discussion forum is "You might be an Aspie" (http://www.wrongplanet.net/postt2614.html). I can't tell you how many of the traits that people offer up fit me like a glove.

I've posted more on my personal explorations of autism and Asperger's in the Aspergers thread in the members forum.

[quarky]

I long for a syndrome to explain why I'm hiding out in the woods.
it used to be 'love of the woods'.

But now I'm mostly too crippled to enjoy the forest.
yet i still don't like people a whole lot.

So far cyber people are my favorites.

I can make you all go away so easily; with no social awkwardness.

[Complexity]

I long for a syndrome to explain why I'm hiding out in the woods.
it used to be 'love of the woods'.

But now I'm mostly too crippled to enjoy the forest.
yet i still don't like people a whole lot.

So far cyber people are my favorites.

I can make you all go away so easily; with no social awkwardness.


I have dreamt of doing what you are doing.

I've done a lot of reading about hermits and solitaries over the years. Not ready for such a move yet, but I can taste it some days.

Take the Aspie Quiz: http://www.rdos.net/eng/Aspie-quiz.php

[JudeBrando]

I have dreamt of doing what you are doing.

I've done a lot of reading about hermits and solitaries over the years. Not ready for such a move yet, but I can taste it some days.
Likewise.

[Cainkane1]

I've read that brilliant minds often have been socially inept. For instance, Russell and Einstein were brilliant in their respective fields (in fact, revolutionizing them), but as persons, they were socially inept and not the kind of people who were pleasant to hang around with. Is this true?
My cousin teachess english in spanish and she got her teaching credentials when she was 20. She is unreliable and can't hold a teaching position. I used to babysit with her when she was little and I knew from age three she was very different. I an her for unable to count on for anything and she doesn't keep her word. Shes married with a son and she seems to be a good mother. Only time will tell.

[quarky]

I have dreamt of doing what you are doing.

I've done a lot of reading about hermits and solitaries over the years. Not ready for such a move yet, but I can taste it some days.

Take the Aspie Quiz: http://www.rdos.net/eng/Aspie-quiz.php

I started taking the quiz but quickly got bored with it.
150 questions was too many.
I wonder if that indicates anything?

[Zelenius]

I have dreamt of doing what you are doing.

I've done a lot of reading about hermits and solitaries over the years. Not ready for such a move yet, but I can taste it some days.

Take the Aspie Quiz: http://www.rdos.net/eng/Aspie-quiz.php

It says I am "very likely an Aspie" with an Aspie score of 157 of 200. I can't say I'm surprised since I've gotten similar scores on other Aspie tests online and have suspected it for a long time. I've never "fit in" anywhere, even among people with very similar interests(as a skeptic and admirer of James Randi, I love the idea of the TAM, but I am terrified of the idea of going to one). This doesn't mean I have Asperger's, but I sure do meet a lot of the criteria.

[Craig4]

Neil Degrass Tyson is brilliant and not in the least bit socially inept. Based on what we know about Galileo's sexual exploits when the Medici were his patrons we can probably assume that he was not socially inept. To figure this out you'd probably have to define a cutoff for brilliant, identify people who met that criteria and compare what we know about them to diagnostic criteria in the DSM. There's too much anecdotal evidence either way to be meaningful.

[Complexity]

I started taking the quiz but quickly got bored with it.
150 questions was too many.
I wonder if that indicates anything?


Don't know. I was fascinated by it and went through the questions quickly.

[Complexity]

It says I am "very likely an Aspie" with an Aspie score of 157 of 200. I can't say I'm surprised since I've gotten similar scores on other Aspie tests online and have suspected it for a long time. I've never "fit in" anywhere, even among people with very similar interests(as a skeptic and admirer of James Randi, I love the idea of the TAM, but I am terrified of the idea of going to one). This doesn't mean I have Asperger's, but I sure do meet a lot of the criteria.


From what I understand, 157 is a fairly high score. I understand about the not-fitting-in feeling. I also would have gone to a TAM years ago but I can't handle crowds.

The quiz isn't meant to be conclusive but rather suggestive. Keep looking into it if you are interested in doing so, especially if you find some aspects of your life debilitating.

[quarky]

I had the feeling; while taking the test that I knew what they were looking for. So I had to consider lying. I hate filling out forms. Even when the authority figure at the other end is imaginary.

Is there a syndrome that is sort-of the opposite of aspie's?

[Complexity]

I had the feeling; while taking the test that I knew what they were looking for. So I had to consider lying. I hate filling out forms. Even when the authority figure at the other end is imaginary.

Is there a syndrome that is sort-of the opposite of aspie's?


I know what you mean about answering the questions when you are not naive.

I've learned a lot about autism over the past few years (research for a character in a novel), so I had to be very honest with myself about why I was taking the test and about how I was answering each question. I think is was able to answer honestly even knowing what I know. I ended up with a score of 176 / 200 on Asperger's traits. I have scored similarly on several other evaluation tests.

I don't know what the opposite of Asperger's would be (except some form of 'neurotypical').

My suggestion - read several pages of the thread entitled You Might be an Aspie If that I provided with the link to the Aspie Quiz. That thread floored me - there were so many traits people listed that were resonant with me.

[quarky]

I know what you mean about answering the questions when you are not naive.

I've learned a lot about autism over the past few years (research for a character in a novel), so I had to be very honest with myself about why I was taking the test and about how I was answering each question. I think is was able to answer honestly even knowing what I know. I ended up with a score of 176 / 200 on Asperger's traits. I have scored similarly on several other evaluation tests.

I don't know what the opposite of Asperger's would be (except some form of 'neurotypical').

My suggestion - read several pages of the thread entitled You Might be an Aspie If that I provided with the link to the Aspie Quiz. That thread floored me - there were so many traits people listed that were resonant with me.

Ah...the corruption from the tree of knowledge!
Next time I take the test I'll be wanting to score high for aspie's.
Shucks; most of my favorite people are there.

(I wonder if i could get a govt. check for this; if I scored at the top of my class?)

otoh;

My girlfriend doesn't want an aspie's stud-muffin.
For her; I would answer the questions in the proper way to ensure the lowest of aspie scores. What could be easier?

Is it a 'symptom' to notice this sort of thing?

Complexity? You're a math freak. Help?

[Complexity]

Ah...the corruption from the tree of knowledge!
Next time I take the test I'll be wanting to score high for aspie's.
Shucks; most of my favorite people are there.

(I wonder if i could get a govt. check for this; if I scored at the top of my class?)

otoh;

My girlfriend doesn't want an aspie's stud-muffin.
For her; I would answer the questions in the proper way to ensure the lowest of aspie scores. What could be easier?

Is it a 'symptom' to notice this sort of thing?

Complexity? You're a math freak. Help?


I would suggest taking the test as honestly as you can. Nothing says that you need to share the scores with anyone.

Some people are so severely incapacitated by various forms of autism (including some that have Asperger's) that some governments provide some support, but I'm quite sure that that would come only after extensive diagnosis (which many can't afford).

I certainly wouldn't qualify for that, nor do I think would you, my reclusive friend.

[quarky]

I want to be as honest as I can be.

And honestly I can't trust myself not to demonstrate that which will appease someone or get me cookies after dinner.

Isn't this an Aspie thingy in itself?
Social awkwardness; overly analytical?

Honest to the point of illuminating the innate dishonesty implied by the obvious choice (in the test) of telling them (me; in this case) exactly what they (or me) want to hear?

My awesome math-geek friend:

May I ask you to re-take the test; as if you were trying to second-guess the non-aspies score? You could obviously do that; right?

Flip-side; you could likely get a higher score for aspies if you had any incentive.

hence...

its too late for honest.

(P.S. There's an on-line test that measures one's honesty. I scored in the 'rock and roll' category. Sort of proud of that.)

[Complexity]

I want to be as honest as I can be.

And honestly I can't trust myself not to demonstrate that which will appease someone or get me cookies after dinner.

Isn't this an Aspie thingy in itself?
Social awkwardness; overly analytical?

Honest to the point of illuminating the innate dishonesty implied by the obvious choice (in the test) of telling them (me; in this case) exactly what they (or me) want to hear?

My awesome math-geek friend:

May I ask you to re-take the test; as if you were trying to second-guess the non-aspies score? You could obviously do that; right?

Flip-side; you could likely get a higher score for aspies if you had any incentive.

hence...

its too late for honest.

(P.S. There's an on-line test that measures one's honesty. I scored in the 'rock and roll' category. Sort of proud of that.)


I've retaken the Aspie Quiz with extra attention being paid to honesty.

When I took it the first time, I felt some discomfort at how I answered a handful out of 150 questions. Each question has four options (Don't Know, No/Never, A Little, Yes/Often). One such question is "Are you bothered by clothes tags or a light touch?". On those few questions, I found myself uncomfortable with my choice between two adjacent options.

When I scored the test, I saw that I had forgotten to answer two of the questions (leaving them at Don't Know), so I went back and reviewed all of my answers. I answered those that I had missed and spent time on each of those that had previously left me uneasy. I think I adjusted three downwards and two upwards, each by one notch. I went through the exam again to see if I was comfortable with everything. I was.

When I rescored the test, my Aspie score had gone up a few points, to 176/200.

I think that the only way you can approach such a test is with an honest mind, aware of which way you'd like the test to come out (and why), and really considering each question, noting which answer you think is the most Aspie and which is the most neurotypical, and then trying on the answers until you find the one that honestly fits best.

You can't remove your bias from the testing process, but you can realize that the test is only as useful as you are honest. Finally, you have to allow for the effects of bias in trying to understand the results.

[quarky]

I sense that you (Complexity) are correct.

[Complexity]

I sense that you (Complexity) are correct.


You're just afraid that I'll write something long in response... :)

[quarky]

Not at all!

I'm competitive in long-winded-ness with anyone.
And your long wind is easy on my ears.

Yet I fear a drift; off-topic.

Unless we qualify as great minds; acting out the o.p. for the anecdotal hell of it.

[Bob Blaylock]

It seems that concept of “socially-inept” is rather subjective.

I think that nearly anyone who knows me would agree that I am “socially inept”. This is, in large part, due to differences between the way I see and interact with the world, and the way most other people do. If most people were like me, and few people were like “normal” people, then I think the “normal” people would be found to be socially-inept, and I would not.

[quarky]

Has 'normal' ever been cool?

[ApolloGnomon]

I started taking the quiz but quickly got bored with it.
150 questions was too many.
I wonder if that indicates anything?

Low level ADHD, often associated with higher intelligence. Or so I keep telling myself. :D