Carl-Richard

Autism Spectrum Test

37 posts in this topic

There exists a very reliable test for autism created by Simon Baron-Cohen, the cousin of none other than Sasha Baron-Cohen (creator of Borat). It involves reading people's emotions by only looking at their eyes.

Reading the mind in the eyes test: https://s3.amazonaws.com/he-assets-prod/interactives/233_reading_the_mind_through_eyes/Launch.html

My score was surprisingly high (34/36), meaning I can read emotions pretty well. This only adds evidence to the idea that autism exists on a spectrum with psychosis, as I would generally place myself on the more psychotic side of that spectrum.

According to this theory, psychosis is associated with picking up social cues and making abstract inferences based on those (which is required for reading emotions and understanding what other people are thinking, a.k.a. "mentalizing").

Psychosis can be thought of as when these mechanisms go into hyper-drive and you become very paranoid about every slightest detail and spin grand narratives and conspiracy theories out of thin air ("she looked at me weird -> she is working for the government -> they're coming for me").

Meanwhile, an autistic person will need very concrete information to make any sort of conclusion, which might keep them more grounded in some ways, but which might also hinder social interactions. So there are pros and cons for both. Regardless, we're all unique individuals :) 

Edited by Carl-Richard

Intrinsic joy is revealed in the marriage of meaning and being.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

31/36

3 hours ago, Carl-Richard said:

My score was surprisingly high (34/36), meaning I can read emotions pretty well. This only adds evidence to the idea that autism exists on a spectrum with psychosis, as I would generally place myself on the more psychotic side of that spectrum.

Would you say, that this test is not a good measure for psychosis and is only reliable for measuring autism?

Edited by zurew

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, zurew said:

31/36

Would you say, that this test is not a good measure for psychosis and is only reliable for measuring autism?

The paper I read on the autism-psychosis spectrum said that functioning diminishes at the extremes, so you would maybe expect a lower score in people who actually qualify for a psychosis diagnosis (as psychiatric diagnoses are generally about quantifying dysfunction). However, if we're limiting it to the "high-functioning" parts of the spectrum, I would say a higher score could indicate a higher propensity towards psychosis. But yes, you have to distinguish between autism/psychosis as a trait (something everybody has to varying degrees) and as a psychiatric diagnosis (a certain threshold of symptoms often associated with dysfunction).

Edited by Carl-Richard

Intrinsic joy is revealed in the marriage of meaning and being.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

29/36.

In any case, I've done various tests, scoring on some of them likely to have Asperger.

Edited by UnbornTao

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

32/36. I feel like it would be quite easy for someone with autism to learn what to look for to identify particular expressions, though. The TV show Lie to Me is a good example of that kind of thing. There is a whole coding system for identifying facial expressions: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Facial_Action_Coding_System

Obviously a lot of people do it without needing to be so explicit, but I think even someone with autism could learn to pick up on those explicit patterns fairly naturally in a test like this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@something_else

Sure. People with autism can learn to be fairly functional socially through internalizing mechanical rules. It's generally just less reliable than having an intuitive understanding. As for identifying very subtle cues like eyes only, I'm not sure how far you can take it. Maybe Baron-Cohen has some info on that.

Edited by Carl-Richard

Intrinsic joy is revealed in the marriage of meaning and being.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

28


Be-Do-Have

There is no failure, only feedback

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

24/36 I had to google almost every verb to describe these emotions I never heared them in a casual conversation, this skewed the result. First language is German. I seldom hear someone say.

incredulous
pensive
imploring
flustered

I thought imploring meant internally probing someone else with questions and it means "pleading", to implore = inständig bitten. The more you learn. lol.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, ValiantSalvatore said:

24/36 I had to google almost every verb to describe these emotions I never heared them in a casual conversation, this skewed the result. First language is German. I seldom hear someone say.

incredulous
pensive
imploring
flustered

I thought imploring meant internally probing someone else with questions and it means "pleading", to implore = inständig bitten. The more you learn. lol.

Don't forget Aghast.

:D

Edited by UnbornTao

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yea, the terms used for a lot of the emotions are kind of weird. Usually the 6 basic facial expression emotions are: sadness, happiness, fear, anger, surprise and disgust.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I asked ChatGPT about some stuff (might be false information, take it with a grain of salt):

Quote

What does Simon Baron Cohen say on the vailidity and reliability of the "reading the mind through the eyes" test for measuring autism? Can somebody who is autistic teach themselves to read subtle facial cues?

Simon Baron-Cohen is a leading researcher in the field of autism and has conducted extensive research on the "Reading the Mind in the Eyes" test. The test is designed to measure an individual's ability to recognize and interpret emotional states based on facial cues around the eyes.

According to Baron-Cohen, the "Reading the Mind in the Eyes" test has been found to be a reliable and valid tool for measuring the social-cognitive abilities of individuals with autism. However, he has also noted that the test is not a diagnostic tool for autism, as it is possible for individuals without autism to perform poorly on the test, and for individuals with autism to perform well.

Regarding whether individuals with autism can teach themselves to read subtle facial cues, research suggests that it is possible, but it may require specific training and practice. Some studies have found that individuals with autism who received training on how to interpret facial expressions were able to improve their ability to read emotional states. However, this may not come naturally or be intuitive, and may require more explicit instruction and practice for those with autism compared to neurotypical individuals.

So again, trait ≠ diagnosis.

Edited by Carl-Richard

Intrinsic joy is revealed in the marriage of meaning and being.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

24/36

I was completely stumped by some of these though. 34/36 is an incredible score lol

Edited by Dryas

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, UnbornTao said:

Don't forget Aghast.

:D

I was typing a joke before, that all of these words have such a british sarcastic tune to them, I am aghastly appalled at the bewilderment of this specimen, I just wanna see nature documentaries from national geographics with this kind of vocabulary. I love this level of hidden irony/sarcasm so much. It just leaves room for misinterpretation. I worked in London and gave my co-worker an impression of this, he told me it's to offensive and I had to stop I had to laugh so hard. 

Aghast is relatively easy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, ValiantSalvatore said:

24/36 I had to google almost every verb

The age of google is over. ChatGPT is the only way forward.


"Not believing your own thoughts, you’re free from the primal desire: the thought that reality should be different than it is. You realise the wordless, the unthinkable. You understand that any mystery is only what you yourself have created. In fact, there’s no mystery. Everything is as clear as day. It’s simple, because there really isn’t anything. There’s only the story appearing now. And not even that.” — Byron Katie

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am using both I even had to use the API in class lol.

Watch Microsoft butchering the thing. 

The OpenAi it self has so many tools I did not even try to test it for code, as I am not coding currently, yet I would do it to some extend. ChatGpt is just a tiny bit of OpenAi ^^.

I don't know how old this is, as the Prof. does this stuff every semester. It's kinda crazy that many don't even know about this. Though interesting.

https://platform.openai.com/examples

These I believe are all tools from OpenAi.

Edited by ValiantSalvatore

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nobody below 22 yet? Cmon, I know there are autistic people on here :D 


Intrinsic joy is revealed in the marriage of meaning and being.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

29/36. Also had to google a lot of the words. But I'm taking full responsibility for the score. :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

33/36. I'm not surprised. I'm pretty good at reading people, but my social skills still suck.


"Make a gift of your life and lift all mankind by being kind, considerate, forgiving, and compassionate at all times, in all places, and under all conditions, with everyone as well as yourself. That is the greatest gift anyone can give." - Dr. David R. Hawkins

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now