False positives

[anirudh4792]

From the systemizing quotient test, we have questions such as

When I look at a painting, I usually think about the technique involved in making it. Arno may answer yes but only because of a family run art gallery vs that is how his brain works (lamarckism vs mendelian genetics...interestingly, Lamarckism turned out to be not all false with epigenetics)

Always looks at ingredients I look at ingredients in detail not because of my interest but to check if it is vegan

P.S Should these be mentioned on Github as an issue or I just keep note of it in a personal google doc/wall

[shnizzedy]

I don't think these are false positives at all!

When I look at a painting, I usually think about the technique involved in making it doesn't say anything about why I think that way (nor do I think it should!).

Checking to see if food in vegan is as good a reason as any to always look at ingredients.

For any behavior or experience, the reasons are legion why one might answer a particular way (even a dishonest way) at a given time. The pattern across answers is where we can start to make interpretations, not at the individual question level.

[binarybottle]

A questioner tries to get at the "why" in follow up questions. "Do you check all the ingredients because you follow a particular diet?"...

Where any of this matters (beyond fascination with personality differences) is when a thought/behavior adversely impacts one's ability to lead a productive life. It is the duration/frequency/severity of a condition of thought/behavior that can impede a healthy lifestyle.

[anirudh4792]

My point was just this - it is a false positive in the sense that looking at the ingredients just to check if it is vegan or looking closely at the technique does not necessarily mean I have an aptitude for high attention or curiosity to detail or structure which I don't. Similarly, a parent may draw similar conclusions thinking a particular behavioral pattern means something when it was not the case.

I was not indicating whether the questions/responses are relevant/irrelevant and from this angle, I agree with your view. If this is not a concern, then all is well. Maybe if a child is used to looking for details in paintings, a similar aptitude may be induced in him for similar tasks On Oct 30, 2017 11:36 AM, "Jon Clucas" notifications@github.com wrote:

I don't think these are false positives at all!

When I look at a painting, I usually think about the technique involved in making it doesn't say anything about why I think that way (nor do I think it should!).

Checking to see if food in vegan is as good a reason as any to always look at ingredients.

For any behavior or experience, the reasons are legion why one might answer a particular way (even a dishonest way) at a given time. The pattern across answers is where we can start to make interpretations, not at the individual question level.

— You are receiving this because you authored the thread. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/ChildMindInstitute/mhdb/issues/40#issuecomment-340483322, or mute the thread https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AKCstQIj-DkAP39LDLO2RS9T_vAcGi-vks5sxe0QgaJpZM4QKvFi .

[anirudh4792]

Didnt see Arno's response while replying. I agree with the two points and I am closing the issue. I feel that identifying possible areas of aptitude besides problem areas can still possibly be ascertained irrespective of false positives.