|WikiProject Psychology||(Rated C-class, Mid-importance)|
|WikiProject Autism||(Rated Mid-importance)|
I think this theory is over-generalizing. That said, I think women in general are definitely more emotional than men. While men are more objective, and practical. I believe this is due to the apparent gender roles of men and women, regarding their roles in relationships, in the family, and in society.
- I'd like to see this article labeled "Cult / Propaganda". It's being cited as "science". /*zounds!*/ --BenTremblay (talk) 03:04, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
It is interesting to note that much of the information in the media seems to attempt to suggest that it is men who are in fact more emotional than women today, as opposed to the reverse being the case.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.8.131.52 (talk • contribs) 19:00, 24 June 2008
as a point of order, the theory speaks to empathy, not emotion. how emotional a person is, or how a given person experiences emotion, is not directly relevant to how well they empathize.pauli133 (talk) 20:35, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
- I agree with you. I think of systemizing and empathy as perceiving two types of data from the world (the reality and others' thoughts respectively), while I think of subjectivity and objectivity as whether or not we modify/reprocess the data that we already have stored in our brain with our biasness. The analogy to the difference that I would propose would be the difference between a movie producer filming a movie and editing it respectively. However, I see how we can mistakenly think of them as being the same in this case because women are (as many suppose) more emotional and perceive others thoughts better than men, while men are less emotional (and are consequently less bias) and take in data from the real world better than women. I'm not a pschologist, so I might not know what I'm talking about!:) But that's how I see it.Senantiasa (talk) 16:11, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
Hate to not concur, gentlemen, but this is a professor who's devoted his life to these subjects. Who are you? More importantly: what does this cozy little fireside chitchat have to do with managing the article in question? This isn't Facebook. This is Wikipedia and this talk page is supposed to be about conferring on ways to improve the article - not about how you know more than the professor himself with no ostensible credentials. For we all know that if you really did have the credentials to discuss this, you'd hardly be here on a Wikipedia talk page to do it. So try to get back on track. Oh gee thanks.
One-dimensional or Two-dimensional ?
The existence of two separate tests for EQ and SQ would imply that they are independent, orthogonal factors, so each person could be represented by a point on a 2-D cartesian plane with perpendicular EQ and SQ axes.
However the analysis into 5 groups lumps together three groups as 'balanced' : normal-E+normal-S ; low-E+low-S ; high-E+high-S !
So really the analysis is just one-dimensional, from Extreme-high-E to Extreme-high-S. Are there very few people towards the high-both and low-both extremes ? Or are they not of interest ? Or already adequately classified by High or Low IQ ?
Enough sytematizing - the reason I ask is that I suspect I am high-both, yet 'I suck at life' !
I read the cited article at the end of this paragraph but could find no reference to a study of day-old infants. If the study exists could we please link to it directly? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.108.40.206 (talk) 03:50, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
'Extreme' could be high or low !
The nomenclature is confusing
... extreme S-type brain, with intact or strong systemizing alongside below-average empathy ...
So someone with normal systematizing could be be classified as Extreme-S, because they have extremely low Empathizing !
... if you see what I mean !
Correction - Fig 3 of http://eqsq.com/wp-content/pdfs/Goldenfeld.pdf shows the Wikipedia article should include 40% S-type as well as 47% Extreme-S in the Autism/Aspergers group. Article amended. --220.127.116.11 (talk) 02:41, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
Is the E-S axis similar to the thinking-feeling axis of the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator?
Table in Cognitive versus affective empathy
There is a table in the section "Cognitive versus affective empathy" that has no source. The text above the table is about Baron-Cohen's theory on the difference between autistic persons and psychopaths. The table however, compares autistic persons with Personality disorders Cluster B (dramatic). A very big one of these is Borderline personality disorder. In the whole article on Borderline, there is no mention of lack of affective empathy. So I would like to be really sure that this table is properly sourced. And unless a source comes up, I would like to remove this table. Lova Falk talk 08:38, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
- Hey,thank you for the note, I extracted the information from a powerpoint Cohen made. It's ok you remove it as there's no source to copy from. --RexRowanTalk 09:09, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
- By the way, this is the video I got the information from:  --RexRowanTalk 10:07, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
The extreme male brain theory of autism
This section is tagged with a template saying that "This section may stray from the topic of the article". I don't agree. It is all about empathizing and systemizing, and in that context, the engineer discussion is relevant. Could you User:Humorideas please explain what you think is straying too much and why? Others are of course also welcome to butt in. Thank you! Lova Falk talk 15:13, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
- The engineer discussion seems relevant. Leadwind (talk) 19:56, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
The one referenced criticism comes from the Journal of Interdisciplinary Feminist Thought, and it's written by two psychologists. Not the best source for a medical theory, but it will do. Leadwind (talk) 17:03, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
Article deterioration, revert needed
Glancing through history, this article has significantly deteriorated since this version at the end of 2011; I suggest a revert to that version, and then an examination from that point of what new text (that is, text added since that version) can be retained. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:52, 22 October 2013 (UTC)