Maybe it would help if the explanation also had a simplified story and then an in-depth description of how one arrived at the simplified story?
Like the simplified story for how the EQ is wrong is “The EQ conflates two different things, ‘not caring about people’ and ‘not knowing how to interact with people’. The former is male while the latter is autistic.”
I don’t know for sure what the issue with the SQ is, but I suspect it’s going to be something like “The SQ conflates five different things, ‘being interested in technology’, ‘being interested in politics’, ‘being interested in nature’, ‘orderliness’ and ‘artistic creativity’. The former two are male while ?some unknown subset? are autistic.”
The noteworthy bit is that one can detect these sorts of conflations from the statistics of the scales.
Maybe it would help if the explanation also had a simplified story and then an in-depth description of how one arrived at the simplified story?
Like the simplified story for how the EQ is wrong is “The EQ conflates two different things, ‘not caring about people’ and ‘not knowing how to interact with people’. The former is male while the latter is autistic.”
I don’t know for sure what the issue with the SQ is, but I suspect it’s going to be something like “The SQ conflates five different things, ‘being interested in technology’, ‘being interested in politics’, ‘being interested in nature’, ‘orderliness’ and ‘artistic creativity’. The former two are male while ?some unknown subset? are autistic.”
The noteworthy bit is that one can detect these sorts of conflations from the statistics of the scales.