Discussion in 'Controversial' started by ProDeo, Dec 30, 2017.
Not sure if the following is comforting but many of those with high EQ are softies
The first EQ test questions were much different than the second EQ test questions.
Having emotional boundaries does not mean one is not empathetic.
The feeling I got from the first test was one had to be dysfunctional in order to be highly empathetic.
I think it's time you broke free of that kind of thinking if you tend to think that way (and Europe generally of mental health as always a problem to be fixed). We've always known that visible differences in children can come down to nature, e.g. some ailment caused by a sickness that had devastating effects. We also know that nurture can go a long way in teaching a child how to live with their differences - all that stuff about having a good attitude or a positive outlook is, for the most part, true. While I don't want to equate autism or Aspergers with sickness, we also wouldn't blame parenting for some physical ailment that parenting had nothing to do with (the chicken pox, for example, or the mumps, or...). So why with Aspergers, or autism, or something along these lines? I grew up in a very loving home, so I view my Aspergers as simply another way of being-in-the-world, where deficits in one area are made up with proficiencies in others. Mind you, I write from a place of high functioning Aspergers, and know nothing of your daughter (I don't think I've ever met a girl with Aspergers?). I do know people who have it worse than me, and that can be a terribly hard thing.
Pretty much, but I wouldn't describe the difference in terms of function or dysfunction necessarily. No one wins because they scored really high on an EQ test, and no one loses because they scored really low. What these tests should tell us is something about ourselves, namely, that there is a vast group of people who share the same empathetic sensibilities, and there are people who share more or less of those sensibilities as we go towards the edges. If I happen to fall towards one of the edges (as I do), then if I'm clever enough, I should take that to mean that my responses-in-the-world need considering, otherwise I'll be misunderstood - as I am most of the time anyway. But that's also true of people who score too high and are probably anxiety-driven paranoid wrecks in day-to-day life.
Coming from someone who scored very high on the 2nd EQ (57) test, the first test asks if I can easily predict what another person will do or if I easily make decisions without being influenced by other peoples feelings.
These questions are strange to me-- I scored a 37.
Your AQ Test Score is: 31
The official criteria for Asperger’s Syndrome is an AQ score greater than 32.
Your Empathy Quotient score was 31 out of a possible 80.
Scores above 30 are generally not indicitive of an Autism Spectrum disorder.
1. I don't believe anyone can predict what anyone else will do--
2. I am not responsible for other peoples feelings...I can take notice of them, but I cannot make anyone feel anything. I am not that powerful.
I am not going to change a decision to vote for someone for office because it makes some other person mad or sad.
If I answer strongly agree to that question, (to me) that would mean I do not have any emotional boundaries.
Here is one question: Seeing people cry doesn’t really upset me.
Being "upset" (me becoming unhappy, disappointed or worried) when someone else is crying seems (to me) to denote that having empathy (understanding/compassion for how they feel) is negative, weak or "dysfunctional".
Having feelings of compassion for another person, does not mean their feelings are my feelings.
There are times when I can allow myself to experience another persons grief if I choose to-- in some cases I can go to the depths because of my love for THEM and desire to be with them in it. That is an exception rather than a rule?
I can function normally when others are in emotional excitement or distress and still empathize with how THEY feel.
I do not lose that ability to function unless I choose to do so.
It wouldn't be an exact science, but it's perfectly possible. An easy example would be to consider two chess players where one is of considerably greater skill than the other. As the game progresses, the greater player could not only anticipate the moves of his lesser opponent but move his pieces in such a way as to manipulate his opponent into the position he wants (a historical example would be Paul Morphy's game against Louis Paulsen). While life is significantly more complicated in chess, the circumstances in a person's life that might produce one result or another are less so. This is why manipulation is possible, or close family and friends can know what the other might do in a given circumstance, and so on. Anyone here, for example, could have predicted this kind of response out of me (if they predicted that I would reply).
In fact, you are. Most people are readily manipulated, and an easy example here are the emotional attachments a person might form with characters in a movie or a book. Or you could write a song that might move someone to tears or a book that gives rise to anger. That is, you have the potential. Whether that's actualized or not is another question entirely, and most won't knowingly engage in the manipulation of others.
You might not, but others would, and not necessarily for 'mad or sad'. For example, peer pressure within a family is a powerful motivator. So too are the thoughts of losing friends, or being ostracised, or considered a pariah.
I'm not sure that's what the question is asking. It's a stereotype that in a group of women if one starts crying, the others will likely join in. In doing so, the emotional state of those other women has been upset. It doesn't mean that those women's feelings are now the same as the woman who first cried, only that an empathetic response has affected their emotional state.
That's the rule, not the exception.
That would be someone who scores exceptionally high on the test (or a proper test). Like, 80 out of 80 high.
I really do enjoy interchange where I am challenged to see other points of view, my own views, and learn!
I also answered #4 on the first EQ test Strongly agree--
I will mull over what you have said sir and hopefully respond to it soon.
To a large extent I think that these days there's an ever-increasing tendency to diagnose something, anything, to explain things that aren't considered normal but in years gone by were just regarded as the unique foibles of an individual. I think of the guy who went through his teenage years living next door to my wife and I - his mother was convinced he was hyperactive and that he needed to be on Ritalin. The truth of the matter was that he was a teenage boy and wanted to be a teenage boy, while his mother was a very left-leaning, right-on feminist type who didn't like the idea that he wanted to be a teenage boy. I shudder to think what would have happened had she had her way and essentially had him drugged into submission.
Another aspect that seems depressingly common these days is that, as soon as a diagnosis of Some Condition is made, it immediately opens doors for special treatment. While it's good to make sure people with disabilities aren't excluded from everything for no reason other than that they can't climb stairs or similar it does create all sorts of perverse incentives in a society where it is almost an advantage to be disabled. If you get into a situation where you can't keep up with work but your boss can't take any action (even actions that could ultimately help) because you have a diagnosis of ADHD, it can do little other than breed resentment among the people who would get fired for far less than the special case gets away with, and then also have to pick up the slack because the one person isn't pulling their weight.
Some years ago a friend of mine hired a young man who was dyslexic. This guy's father was the kind of helicopter parent who was very quick to quote the rule book about how his son couldn't be asked to do this, couldn't be expected to do that etc. Basically what he was saying was that his son was no use to anybody but couldn't be fired because he was dyslexic so firing him would be an act of discrimination. Not surprisingly the son's confidence was more or less shot to pieces before he even started work. What my friend did was give this young guy real problems from their office to solve, and expected him to work through the manuals to come up with a solution. The problems weren't time critical so he could take his time, and my friend made sure there was someone on hand to provide any help he needed with the technical manuals. Before long this guy was solving problems unaided, his confidence hugely improved. As with the teenager, one has to ask what would happen to this young man's career prospects if his father had succeeded in defining him as little more than a dead weight that everybody else was expected to carry but who couldn't be fired because of antidiscrimination laws.
Victim culture and identity politics, what a terrible thing.
I am grateful to know that those who do have Asperger Syndrome can come to faith and believe in Jesus.
(because I have loved ones who do not believe, for what seem to be roadblocks in the way) He is greater than any roadblock.
Jesus wept once in scripture. He felt deeply for those who are afflicted in any way.
Afflictions become strengths in His power.
For the most part He was matter of fact, (as THE authority) wise and even though moved by others pain with compassion, it was in a way that could be understood by all-- IMO.
God is among all other things logical and created us in his image.
And why not? I've been told that I'm a wasted intellect for having faith in Jesus, and while Aspies are extremely logically consistent (usually), they are still subject to the same biases, prejudices, and errors in presuppositional reasoning that inform their outlook on life. The historical deflection has been that if you don't connect with the emotional aspect of religion, don't see the purpose in community, and think the arguments through to their logical conclusions, then atheism is the inevitable conclusion. Pure and utter stupidity.
Of course, make the religious subject anything other than Christianity and I'll readily join in the 'religion is stupid' chorus.
I know you long enough to understand you care and that you process feelings | emotions in a different way and as you put in the third paragraph - Alternatively, there are suggestions out there that people with Aspergers actually feel too much empathy, but it's such an intense feeling that it's eventually shut down, cornered off, disconnected from, etc. - makes perfect sense to me. OTOH, it wouldn't surprise me if some (uneducated) people would label you as a narcist.
In my youth my mother once said to me, "I can't get through to you, reach you" in the sense she could not figure me out, in my adolescent period my best friend who always wanted to talk about his feelings once said to me "you are emotionally shut tight" in the sense that was a bad thing. And I took his words seriously, started to think about and work on it, open myself to that scaring world of emotions, feelings and eventually (after some 15-20 years) felt comfortable with it as actually something natural, I learned it. But then again I am not an Aspie.
Same thing with my (asperger) daughter, she is an intelligent woman but there are some things in relationships she doesn't understand. For instance, we can tell her something that is so obvious it's meant for her ears only that there is no need to tell her to keep the information to herself but we learned to tell her anyway as else the risk is high she will trumpet the info to anyone seeing no harm in it. Now that she is diagnosed with AS such things fall into place. We sometimes tease her, hey you can't help missing some genes.
Care to elaborate with an example?
Off-topic, did you pick up the news how AlphaZero slaughtered Stockfish 8 in Morphy style?
My second stepfather at my age of 17-18 said to me 2 things I still remember, 1) you stink, 2) you are no good and will be a failure in life and then kicked me out of the house. While I realized that (1) was nonsense (2) caused deep scarfs in the sense I believed he likely was right until I learned that in my first job my work was appreciated and slowly started to understand the impact such remarks might have on kids. In those days 18 year old's were still green as grass, can't say that of nowadays 18 year old's
Well, after I posted I thought what I said might seem ridiculous or offensive.
My why not--
Because some people who call themselves Christians (some are some are not) in a broad sense can behave like real idiots.
And some who are Christian do not see well (not physically)-- can cause harm rather than good. I do see coming to faith as something miraculous in my case, and He broke through my heart.
I didn't, but just read up on it. Very interesting, but I wonder what the case would have been had Stockfish been on equal footing with AlphaZero
Separate names with a comma.