Take the Autism Quotient Test
wired.com
wired.com
In addition, these questions are always asked in terms where you should really somehow evaluate every situation in your life that applied to the question, and somehow arrive at a "mean" answer that then informs your response. I find it absolutely impossible to not just think of anecdotes and base my answer on them. Which would be fine, if all my anecdotes lined up, but there's always "Well, that one time I did this, but this other time I did that, which is basically opposite!"
Now, granted, there's probably something interesting in those correlations as well...
With that in mind, I wonder which way would the results be skewed if the questions were about preference, not self-reflection. For example how would the correlation change if the question was "I like to enjoy social chitchat." (or something more subtle), instead of "I enjoy social chitchat."? I'm sure I'd get lower points and then again I consider myself taught to behave in autistic ways by various situations, rather than behaving like that naturally.
I dread these kinds of tests now, because after over a year of therapy, I can still tell the outcome, and I know nothing changed :-| Yet still, it fascinates me.
The Myers-Briggs test follows a similar style. I'm gonna assume that a great many people on HN are going to score INTP on that one… Just a hunch!
I find that a lot of the questions are things that I can do, I just have to think about it, where other people can do it automatically. For example, telling someone's emotions from looking at their face: all people look pretty much the same to me; I can barely tell two different faces apart, much less one face in different moods, unless I think about it.
But I don't care what it means and don't buy the autism hype.
"The Truth Wears Off" http://crayz.org/science.pdf seems relevant here. Many early studies and experiments based on fresh theories produce dramatic results, but decades later, when experiments are repeated the results are still there, but less dramatic.
Hype and bias affect which tests get popularized. Also a good explanation for the ADD/depression medication craze.
We have no point of comparison. It's just been some 20 years or so that it has been feasible and reliable to diagnose a lot psychiatric disorders; and people adapt even more slowly. Many are afraid of going to psychotherapy or even a psychiatrist in order to get a diagnosis. It carries a certain stigma.
There's a medication craze, no doubt. But that doesn't change that there's a lot of people who are undiagnosed, but could benefit from therapy. Be it psychotherapy or pharmacological therapy (most likely both!) By discounting it as a craze, you're also stigmatising valid diagnoses that could help people.
If someone in your circle of friends shows up as depressive or autistic or ADD, don't run in their shrink's office, guns blazing. It is often difficult to realise someone is suffering from a mental disorder, as they might still be highly functioning.
(Says the guy who lived with a heavy clinical depression and as many as 3 different personality disorders for over four years, before finally consulting a doctor.)
That article shows that bubbles are not exclusive to markets, they happen in academia, even in areas where empirical data should be easier to collect than in psychology and social science.
This test is backed up by correlations to other diagnoses made during a bubble. "Eighty percent of those diagnosed with autism or a related disorder scored 32 or higher." It's a feedback loop, and science might move along faster if there was increased skepticism during bubbles.
Bubbles have a higher ratio of waste, 90% of the science might be waste, and 10% will stand the test of time. That 10% may have helped you, but the 90%, the sharp increase in prescription will ruin many lives.
I tend to answer questions towards the extremes which is the only thing this test scores as "points", but I guess that's a legitimate marker for someone being more autistic than average.
I'm the opposite of you, I answered mostly "slightly" answers. I too scored 28.
I ended up with a score of 34; same as last time I answered the questionnaire.
issue 1 w/ test: >> I prefer to do things with others rather than on my own. Well, it depends. I may like to code by myself and but prefer group s*x. Context is everything.
issue 2 w/ test: Can be totally gamed. A prerequisite for a good test is that you should not be able to guess the right/wrong answer.
This quiz has the benefit of actual experts on the condition involved. A lot of "autism tests" online basically test for being an introverted geek, and a lot of the pop psych discussion strikes me as an effort to dismiss introversion, geekiness, and intellectualism as medical conditions.
34, anyway. I was diagnosed with HFA about eight years ago and probably would have scored considerably higher at that time.
I'm a programmer but I love talking, jokes, and making friends.
Had I taken this 10 years ago, I imagine I would have easily scored above 40.
Yet, while my confidence in social situations has improved as a result, they still wear me down very quickly. And, teaching myself to recognize when I'm being paralyzed by social anxiety doesn't make pushing through it any easier, it just speeds the process up a bit.
We humans are odd animals.