Your social intelligence

[Jeff the Green]

So I found this test, which is actually scientifically validated. I'm curious to see how other members of this forum do because we're all kind of geeks.

I got 31/36, which is something like 90th percentile. This is more than a little surprising because I have really, really bad social phobia.

[TuggyNE]

Huh. 28. That fits OK with a somewhat-higher-than-average Wis and a slightly-lower-than-normal Cha, I guess.

Does make me wonder why I don't feel like I have a better handle on the way people are thinking, though.

[Amidus Drexel]

32/36

Way better than I expected, given that I frequently encountered questions where the answer I would've given was not available.

Also, high score, I guess.

[Antonok]

29 of 36.

A lot better than I figured as I have a hard time reading people. But then I also tend not to be able to look into peoples eyes very long*.



*I tend to fixate on a random flaw on someones face that then sticks out and I can't concentrate on what they're saying so I miss 90% of it.

[Grinner]

Huh. 28. That fits OK with a somewhat-higher-than-average Wis and a slightly-lower-than-normal Cha, I guess.

Does make me wonder why I don't feel like I have a better handle on the way people are thinking, though.

I don't think this is a particularly good test. There's a big difference between being shown a photograph with no time limit and a multiple choice question, and actively trying to ascertain someone's state of mind whilst carrying on a conversation.

[Lord Raziere]

oh really? well I'm a high-functioning autistic, so I should probably get a low score in it, lets see if that is true.

huh, 29 out of 36. I guess its not bad for a lonely high-functioning autistic computer geek. and oh hey this test was originally developed with autistics in mind! cool! that means I'm fulfilling its original intended purpose.

[razorback]

29 of 36.

A lot better than I figured as I have a hard time reading people. But then I also tend not to be able to look into peoples eyes very long*.



*I tend to fixate on a random flaw on someones face that then sticks out and I can't concentrate on what they're saying so I miss 90% of it.

Scored the same but I tend to think I have an easy time reading people.

[Jeff the Green]

That is much, much higher than I expected. Another anti-socialite over here.

I wonder if social phobia might have a similar effect as domestic abuse, where the victim becomes hyperaware of their abuser's mental state so as to try to avoid triggering abuse. If we're extremely worried about negative reactions from other people we might become particularly sensitive to others' mental states.

Kind of makes me wish I were doing research in psychology. It'd be interesting to test whether that's true, and also to test whether sociophobes are significantly better at recognizing negative emotions than positive ones.

I don't think this is a particularly good test. There's a big difference between being shown a photograph with no time limit and a multiple choice question, and actively trying to ascertain someone's state of mind whilst carrying on a conversation.

Maybe, but I suspect that the skill-set's the same even if this is an easier task. The difficulty people with autism have with this test demonstrates that you can't reason your way through it.

[Cristo Meyers]

33 out of 36, which surprised the hell out of me.

Though I suppose it shouldn't, I've been pretty good at reading people in certain situations before.

I wonder if social phobia might have a similar effect as domestic abuse, where the victim becomes hyperaware of their abuser's mental state so as to try to avoid triggering abuse. If we're extremely worried about negative reactions from other people we might become particularly sensitive to others' mental states.

Kind of makes me wish I were doing research in psychology. It'd be interesting to test whether that's true, and also to test whether sociophobes are significantly better at recognizing negative emotions than positive ones.

That is an interesting question. I don't think it'd be the exact same, for obvious reasons, but the effect could definitely be similar.

[Anarion]

28, which apparently beats the average but somehow makes me feel inadequate compared to all the geniuses in this thread.

[Bulldog Psion]

27 out of 36. Which makes me the low man on the totem pole thus far.

I wish they told you which ones you got wrong, though. I'd be interested, for example, in seeing whether I was better at "reading" the men or the women, etc. etc.

(My gut feeling is that I did better with the men than the women. This feeling, of course, could be totally wrong.)

[golentan]

30/36...

I find it interesting that everyone here has scored higher than the average... Especially as there are many disorders or proclivities being mentioned which would stereotypically hinder reading others. Do you think that says something about geeks?

I think I did read something about extroverts being more in tune with their own feelings and less attuned to the people around them, with a comment that perhaps being able to be less inhibited in social settings is due in part to a willingness to override other people to fuel your own positive mood... Let me see if I can dig it up... No, just a bunch of obnoxious opinion pieces, no studies...

[Jeff the Green]

I wish they told you which ones you got wrong, though. I'd be interested, for example, in seeing whether I was better at "reading" the men or the women, etc. etc.

(My gut feeling is that I did better with the men than the women. This feeling, of course, could be totally wrong.)

I'd be interested too. There's a pretty well-known cognitive bias in heterosexual men that we overestimate women's interest in us. I wonder if extends to this, making us choose the "interested", "aroused" etc. options more than warranted.

[Bulldog Psion]

I'd be interested too. There's a pretty well-known cognitive bias in heterosexual men that we overestimate women's interest in us. I wonder if extends to this, making us choose the "interested", "aroused" etc. options more than warranted.

Yes, that could well be the case. Though, admittedly, I didn't pick "aroused" even once. Apparently, I'm not that confident in the effect of my suave and fascinating presence* on the ladies.


(*Note: There is a slight chance that there may be some self-mockery and irony hidden carefully somewhere in this sentence. )

[Lord Raziere]

30/36...

I find it interesting that everyone here has scored higher than the average... Especially as there are many disorders or proclivities being mentioned which would stereotypically hinder reading others. Do you think that says something about geeks?

well, from my own classes aimed at autistic people like me, they basically said that "neurotypical" people have social skills as sort of like a natural talent, they don't have to work at it. and that high functioning autistics don't have it as a talent, so they have to build it up like an ordinary skill.

thing is, hard work and focused skill beats out natural talent that is never utilized. so it could just be geeks having to work so much for our social skills that we become better at them in some ways? might be possible. I'm not saying anything for certain though. we don't seem to have anyone who are actually socialites taking the test- they're probably off busy actually being social- so not enough info to really draw any conclusions.

[Grinner]

thing is, hard work and focused skill beats out natural talent that is never utilized. so it could just be geeks having to work so much for our social skills that we become better at them in some ways? might be possible. I'm not saying anything for certain though. we don't seem to have anyone who are actually socialites taking the test- they're probably off busy actually being social- so not enough info to really draw any conclusions.

I think you're playing into the geek archetype too much.

[Starwulf]

30/36...

I find it interesting that everyone here has scored higher than the average... Especially as there are many disorders or proclivities being mentioned which would stereotypically hinder reading others. Do you think that says something about geeks?

I think it says(at least if you were like me growing up) that we had to learn to read bullies expressions very, very quickly in highschool to avoid getting beat on regularly. I know that was certainly my case when I was younger. Because I'm as anti-social as a person can get(I live on top of a mountain, and rarely come down, I'm virtually a hermit), and I scored 31/36 on the test, and I'm pretty sure I know the ones I got wrong because I second-guessed myself on them.

[Flickerdart]

30/36. I think my answers were very skewed towards "emotions that would appear in film noir" because of the black and white photos and the cropping making it impossible to tell that the people weren't wearing fedoras and trench coats.

[AdmiralCheez]

30/36, which is a bit lower than I thought, considering I've recently been studying emotional states to better my drawing ability, particularly focusing on the eyes. Oh well, that's still better than average. I guess I should go back to practicing.

[Knaight]

22 (though it might be interesting to see how I did when I wasn't particularly tired). I suspect the high scores seen are a statistical artifact of people who did well being more likely to report - though a British cultural standard was explicitly stated, an age standard alluded to (assuming the absence of a really sharp break at 18) and similar, so it could just be that the demographics of the test takers favor this particular set-up.

EDIT: Incidentally, I'm actually very much an extroverted people person type.

[The_Snark]

21 for me. Not really a surprise, I'm somewhat introverted and I've been told I avoid making eye contact. Although given the trend in this thread, maybe I ought to be surprised.

[SiuiS]

25, with the caveat that after the first question I stopped trying. Some I'm confident on (the ones I bothered to mimic) but some I actively chose the least likely choice of the two it could be to see if I was really bad at this.

...

That was a terrible decision in hindsight because the test doesn't tell you much about which ones are what. I would like the data though. See if there are trends, like more men look aghast or more women look flirty.

[factotum]

23 here. As long as I beat the 9 that I would have got if I'd been picking entirely at random I count that as a win, frankly!

[ranagrande]

I got a 31. That's better than I thought I would get while taking it, but I have always been pretty good at reading people.

[Eldan]

30/36. Tried to do it quickly without thinking too much.

Honestly, I tend to be terrible at reading people in real life. Or I thought I was. This test confuses me. In most cases, I was thinking that two might be appropriate and chose rather randomly. I avoid eye contact, I don't like meeting or being with people and I am suspected to be on the autistic spectrum and most certainly have social anxieties.

[Brother Oni]

29 here, which is about right - I tend to be quite good at reading aggressive body language, but I dislike making eye contact.

[Castaras]

26, the average. Although some of them I chose randomly because the eyes looked nothing like any of the options given.

[Cespenar]

33/36, though some of the choices could have been arranged better, I think. There was one with "confident" and "joking", for example, but those two expressions could be the same in many instances, i.e. you have to be confident to sell jokes. Eh. I'm probably nitpicking.

[Jay R]

This is an experiment. It's a question, not an answer.

They might be calibrating. I suspect that they are trying to find differences in interpretation by age and by sex. (I noticed that I was picking a positive interpretation for all women's eyes. Is this simply because I'm an older male?)

In any event, the ability to read eyes may or may not matter. The best people persons read tone of voice, word choice, body position, etc.

[Closet_Skeleton]

which is actually scientifically validated.

Your faith in science in this area is, unsettling.

well, from my own classes aimed at autistic people like me, they basically said that "neurotypical" people have social skills as sort of like a natural talent, they don't have to work at it. and that high functioning autistics don't have it as a talent, so they have to build it up like an ordinary skill.

Its essentially unknowable if that's an actual natural talent or not. It might be something they learn in the first few years of life and having to try harder to develop that skill might be more like over-coming a learning disability. The main recent trend in social sciences has been to avoid nature vs nurture arguments as unhelpful and simplistic.

Plenty of high functioning autistic people shouldn't have any impairment to social intelligence, its the Aspergers variant that's associated with being unable to read social situations, not autism in general.

Its called an autistic Spectrum because its a diverse range of traits, two autistic people may have nothing in common. I'm perfectly normal according to some tests and autistic according to others. Any generalised claim about such a group must be taken with a grain of salt.

How good I am at reading emotions isn't that relevant when usually I'm too shy and exhausted to want to try. Being useless in practice doesn't stop me passing lots of theory tests.