EQ: 15
SQ: 41
Type: Extreme S

This is not a surprise.

It is, however, fairly easy to see more subtle things that this crude test misses when it reduces the questions to two numbers, and even the questions themselves don't lend themselves all that well to a simple 4 point linear scale.

I don't "not empathize". There are differences between consciously picking up on someone's feelings, actually being affected by someone's feelings, and understanding someone's feelings. Similarly, there are holes, gaps, and strengths in "systematizing". All this sort of stuff would start showing up by doing fine grained statistical analysis of the individual answers of larger sets of these sorts of questions,

but that would be too complicated for the "executive summary" types who barely can handle having two numbers and a simple grid chart on a presentation slide.

I begin to think that the people who intuitively feel that they "get" touchy-feely stuff, are the least qualified to research the basis and nature of the touchy-feely elements of human psychology.

The observation that it took someone with Asperger's to feel the need to invent and deploy human elements to the industry of turning cows into meat is illustrative.