
Study finds negative association between empathizing and calculation ability - randomname2
http://www.nature.com/articles/srep23011
======
nostrademons
Curious to see no mention (in the paper or comments here) of previous neuro-
imaging experiments that showed that brain networks associated with empathy
and those associated with logical thought are antagonists, and it does not
appear to be possible to have both active at the same time:

[http://blog.case.edu/think/2012/10/30/empathy_represses_anal...](http://blog.case.edu/think/2012/10/30/empathy_represses_analytic_thought_and_vice_versa)

There's a long pop-science suspicion of this, dating back to Jungian
psychology (where Thinking vs. Feeling was considered a primitive dichotomy).
It's enshrined in many of our stereotypes about socially awkward nerds, and
also in the structure of the tech industry (which has separate departments for
sales vs. engineering, and common wisdom that you need a hustler & a hacker
for startups).

This seems much more likely, as an explanation, than ideas that poor math
performance may be transmitted socially, although of course it'd need to be
rigorously tested in an experiment to be proven.

~~~
Gustomaximus
My role involves both analysis and creativity (marketing). I personally find I
can't shift from tasks heavy in one to the other multiple times through the
day and offer my best work at both. If I need to be creative I try and make my
day creative and vice versa for data analysis. I imagine if you consistently
stay in one state you get an element of burn-in that makes shifting harder.

~~~
mentalpiracy
I have the exact same issue. I've done well with trying to structure my days
similarly, but there are inevitably times where something needs to be done
immediately and of course it's never in tune with how I planned the day heh.
Trying to explain exactly how disruptive task-switching across domains is for
me personally is not something I've been able to communicate effectively to
non-technical peers and superiors.

Sure, I can switch from programming to InDesign today! I didn't want to finish
that this week anyway. (I exaggerate for effect, but not by much.)

------
jacobolus
Looks to me mostly like a cluster of kids with very high “calculation skills”
and relatively low “empathizing quotient” is skewing their result. If you
remove that group, the remaining data looks pretty uncorrelated at a glance:
[http://www.nature.com/articles/srep23011/figures/1](http://www.nature.com/articles/srep23011/figures/1)

 _“Math Fluency is a measure of speeded application of arithmetic procedures.
Problems included a mix of addition, subtraction, and multiplication with
operands up to 10. Children were given 3 minutes to complete as many as
possible. We computed a Calculation Skills composite measure, which combines
the Calculation and Math Fluency subtests, in order to have a single measure
capturing arithmetic ability.

“The primary guardian of each child completed the Combined Empathy Quotient-
Child (EQ-C) and Systemizing Quotient-Child (SQ-C). The questionnaire was
designed to be parent-report in order to avoid variance associated with
children’s reading and comprehension abilities.”_

Alternative summary: “Out of 112 children, among the bottom 105 children when
ranked by arithmetic calculation speed, there’s no statistically significant
correlation between arithmetic calculation speed and parental assessment of
child empathy. The parents of the top 7 performers by arithmetic calculation
speed uniformly think their kids have below-average empathy.”

~~~
noobermin
Even if you remove those, look at the bottom of the data, across the
horizontal axis. There is still a downward trend, although that is an eye
judgement as well. That is, if you bin the kids according to empathy (x-axis),
the lowest math achiever in each bin is worse as emphathy increases. The max
in each bin doesn't seem to get better, however. The slope would definitely be
milder if those offending points were removed.

Moral of the story: higher N is always better.

~~~
jwmerrill
> Moral of the story: higher N is always better.

This is true in a way, but finding and studying larger effects is often a
better strategy. To some extent, why talk about something that needs huge N to
get above the noise?

------
belorn
_" The questionnaire was designed to be parent-report in order to avoid
variance associated with children’s reading and comprehension abilities.”_

That seems to be as removing smaller variables by introducing a bigger one,
which seems counter to current standards. When a child is being diagnosed, the
physiologist always talk with the child, as its very easy to get the wrong
conclusion by hearing the child being described. Its not uncommon for a
diagnose to be first suspected from the descriptions that the parents gives,
and then be reverted after just a short interview with the child.

After reading the article, I also wonder what correlation there is with high
math achievements and being a victim of bullying, and how bullying effects the
perceived social and empathy skills of a child.

~~~
Noughmad
The parent-report thing is definitely problematic here. Parents will never say
"my child is bad at everything", and will often avoid saysing "my child is
good at everything", especially if they have other kids. So they will
generally pick one trait the kid is good at, and say he or she is bad at the
other one. Usually math (and other school subjects) are much easier to
measure, so "social skills" just get thrown around to compensate.

For example, I am very good at math, and have been told my entire life that
I'm not "real-life smart" or that I have high IQ but low EQ. But now that I'm
older I found that I'm pretty good at emphatizing, understanding and
predicting other people reactions.

Then again, quantifying empathy is hard, and I'm pretty sure that parents
would often get it wrong even without the bias. Some kids are sad when a
character in a book/movie dies, but will never show it.

------
csense
They seem to be hypothesizing that the mechanism causing this result is that
math anxiety can be transmitted like a disease, and lower empathy individuals
are somewhat immune.

It would be worthwhile to figure out what makes math anxiety transmittable,
and what other attitudes might be transmitted by a similar mechanism and lead
to measurable impact.

~~~
nostrademons
They hypothesized this, tested for it in the experiment, and found no effect.
Math anxiety was correlated with calculation skills (i.e. people who were bad
at calculating were more anxious about math), but uncorrelated with empathy.

The hypothesis they brought up in the conclusion was that _stereotype threat_
may be transmitted socially, and higher-empathy individuals are more
susceptible. Stereotype threat is a known psychological effect where if people
are members of a group that is believed to be bad at something, then their
performance on tests of that will suffer, particularly if they are made aware
of either the stereotype or their membership in this group before the task. It
makes sense that higher empathy would make your more susceptible to this, but
like the conclusion says, this requires further research to establish
definitively.

~~~
eru
Alas, it's not even clear that stereotype threat even exists.

~~~
johnchristopher
These days it seems the only thing that clearly exists in the psychology field
is the psychology field itself :/.

------
noobermin
As a note to people fearful of indulging past the abstract, from what I
understand, Scientific Reports are meant to be read across a field of science,
so it should be somewhat approachable compared to your average research paper.
I found it readable and interesting with only a few confusing moments that
didn't distract from the main point.

~~~
argonaut
To be more accurate, Scientific Reports is a second tier "open access" journal
where papers are evaluated for scientific validity, but not for scientific
impact/importance. So not to be confused with the actual Nature journal.

------
noname123
"No widely accepted cognitive theory explains savants' combination of talent
and deficit. It has been suggested that individuals with autism are biased
towards detail-focused processing and that this cognitive style predisposes
individuals either with or without autism to savant talents. Another
hypothesis is that savants hyper-systemize, thereby giving an impression of
talent. Hyper-systemizing is an extreme state in the empathizing–systemizing
theory that classifies people based on their skills in empathizing with others
versus systemizing facts about the external world. Also, the attention to
detail of savants is a consequence of enhanced perception or sensory
hypersensitivity in these unique individuals."
([https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Savant_syndrome](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Savant_syndrome))

I am very fascinated by the semantics vs. syntax of empathy. Suppose you have
a savant who is good at systematic identification of literary characters, or
criminal profiling or DSM-IV case files; in another words, he or she is very
good at reading people and classifying them into logical/hierarchical systems
of mental, historical and social backgrounds; and miming their behavior when
interacting with them, just as a savant with photographic memory can "mime"
the Manhattan skyline in drawing.

Would we classify such a person as empathetic or sociopathic? If their empathy
comes not from a human emotional instinct but from logical deduction?

~~~
Mz
I suspect that would depend upon whether they "cared" for the welfare of the
individual they could read or if they "used" that info against them.

I personally don't think there is a clear line between those two things. I
have known many people with natural social skills who routinely used them to
influence social settings to their personal benefit, often without being
particularly noticed by most of the people involved. I think it is more
complicated than a simple binary choice.

~~~
TheOtherHobbes
As I understand it, sociopaths/psychopaths are entirely inner directed. They
either don't notice the damage they're doing or they power trip on it.

They literally don't see other people as people at all - they see other people
as resources they can play with and consume.

Empaths may be manipulative, but it's hard to be a master of manipulation when
you're aware your actions are making someone else unhappy and this makes you
unhappy too.

~~~
Mz
When I took an Intro to Psychology class, I realized that my then husband had
five of the six traits typical of serial killers (this includes high
intelligence -- they are not all _negative_ traits). My oldest son likely has
the same five traits. He was quite the challenge to raise.

So, this is a problem space I have read some about, studied a hair formally,
and that hits quite close to home. I managed to raise a decent human being, in
spite of his innate wiring. Thus, I am convinced that it is far more
complicated than you are making it out to be. There is innate wiring. There is
upbringing. There are many factors here.

You can take someone with empathy who is very kind and put them through hell
and break them of some of their excessive niceness. You can raise a sociopath
with a model of enlightened self interest.

I think it is a fascinating area, but I no way believe it boils down to a
singular personality trait.

------
Bjartr
For those like me who were curious about the contents of the
Empathy/Systemizing Quotient test itself I believe I found it as well as the
scoring key for both the child and adult version (in case you want to know
where you yourself fall on the scale)

These links are to Google Docs previews of .doc files listed at
[http://www.autismresearchcentre.com/arc_tests](http://www.autismresearchcentre.com/arc_tests)

\-------------------------------------------------

Combined Empathy/Systemizing Quotient - Child

[https://docs.google.com/viewer?embedded=true&url=http://docs...](https://docs.google.com/viewer?embedded=true&url=http://docs.autismresearchcentre.com/tests/EQ-
SQ_Child.doc)

Scoring Key

[https://docs.google.com/viewer?embedded=true&url=http://docs...](https://docs.google.com/viewer?embedded=true&url=http://docs.autismresearchcentre.com/tests/EQ-
SQ_Child_Scoring_Key.doc)

\-------------------------------------------------

Empathy Quotient - Adult

[https://docs.google.com/viewer?embedded=true&url=http://docs...](https://docs.google.com/viewer?embedded=true&url=http://docs.autismresearchcentre.com/tests/EQ2.doc)

Scoring Key

[https://docs.google.com/viewer?embedded=true&url=http://docs...](https://docs.google.com/viewer?embedded=true&url=http://docs.autismresearchcentre.com/tests/EQ40_ScoringKey.doc)

\-------------------------------------------------

Systemizing Quotient - Adult

[https://docs.google.com/viewer?embedded=true&url=http://docs...](https://docs.google.com/viewer?embedded=true&url=http://docs.autismresearchcentre.com/tests/SQ.doc)

Scoring Key

[https://docs.google.com/viewer?embedded=true&url=http://docs...](https://docs.google.com/viewer?embedded=true&url=http://docs.autismresearchcentre.com/tests/SQ_Scoring_Key.doc)

------
leeny
If I'm reading this correctly, calculation skills are what suffer with
increased empathizing, rather than ability to solve applied math problems. Is
that right? Are there examples of what constitutes calculation vs. applied
problem solving for the purposes of this study?

EDIT: Looks like calculations are straight up calculations, and applied
problems are story problems. [http://achievement-test.com/testing-
options/woodcock-johnson...](http://achievement-test.com/testing-
options/woodcock-johnson-iii-tests)

------
lgleason
No surprise there....testosterone probably plays a role.
[https://youtu.be/p5LRdW8xw70?t=1311](https://youtu.be/p5LRdW8xw70?t=1311)

------
analyst74
So are kids with higher empathy bad at math, leading to the environment where
being bad at math makes you more popular?

Or is that those kids realize being bad at math makes them more popular, thus
intentionally neglect or even pretend to be bad at math?

------
jackcosgrove
I think this has to do with abstract reasoning skills. If you can abstract
shapes and numbers well, you can abstract people well. You begin to see people
as numbers and objects.

------
ilostmykeys
Empathic individuals tend act from a position of deep understanding. If given
a menial task that has no deep connection to their reality, i.e. no purpose
they can connect with, then they'll just ignore it. Their brain will not even
touch it.

A deeply empathic person can calculate, and more generally think and intuit,
better than an emotionally detached person as long as they can emotionally
connect with the task being given to them.

~~~
thescribe
>A deeply empathic person can calculate, and more generally think and intuit,
better than an emotionally detached person as long as they can emotionally
connect with the task being given to them.

Do you have good numbers to back that up?

~~~
elevenfist
Edit: It's important to note though that this might be just another attempt by
psychologists to paint technical folk as lacking empathy. Usually people who
make such claims lack empathy themselves.

What @ilostmykeys is saying is probably based on personal experience, which
matches up with my own. Similarly I've found low empathetic people are much
more likely to enjoy calculation-based tasks, not just pure mathematics but
video games, and video games like "The Witness," min-maxing and competitive
numbers games like starcraft, dota, league of legends, etc. A high-empathetic
person can have great difficulty initially understanding why anyone would
enjoy playing these games, it's difficult to explain, but when compared with
real life video games/simulations feel like a void, there's very little to
actually connect with, and in effect it feels like you are doing very little
(even if you are making great efforts).

------
samch
Like many of the others here, I'm not terribly surprised by this. I learned
the distinction by watching the original Star Trek as a kid. Vulcans
represented the logical, calculating race, while humans were characterized as
the emotional, sometimes illogical race. Spock, of course, represented the
complex balance between the two.

------
asciimo
Good thing we have computers to augment our calculation abilities. Maybe they
can augment our empathy, too
([http://www.amednews.com/article/20111206/profession/31206999...](http://www.amednews.com/article/20111206/profession/312069996/8/)).

------
kaitai
That's why good profs don't do spontaneous calculations at the board.

They need to be done in the privacy of one's own home.

------
dschiptsov
And empathizing is? Measured in?

------
j2kun
I'm going to read the rest of this paper, but it looks like the title here is
misleading. The last sentence of the abstract:

> These results identify empathy, and social skills more generally, as
> previously unknown predictors of mathematical achievement.

Edit: added:

> Contrary to our hypothesis, we found no relationship between systemizing and
> math achievement after controlling for domain general abilities and no
> relationship between the systemizing brain type (greater discrepancy between
> systemizing and empathizing) and math achievement.

More edits:

The "negative correlation" turns out to be only for "calculation" and the
values are r=-0.22, p=0.02, with a sample size of around a hundred
individuals. This is a negligible effect by any stretch of the imagination.
Sounds like the authors did their diligence in writing this up, and it's the
submitter's fault for the linkbait headline.

~~~
mklim
The title is correct. That sentence just means that they're predictors, not
necessarily that they're positive predictors. As in, if you know one you can
predict the other.

In the results section:

> There was a negative correlation between EQ-C and the Calculation Skills
> composite score with greater empathizing predicting lower math achievement
> (r(110) = −0.22, p = 0.02).

~~~
j2kun
A correlation of 0.2 is negligible. Especially with a sample size on the order
of 100. I'm glad you pointed this out.

~~~
cbhl
Considering that the sample questionnaires have to be administered by hand to
each child, how would you scale the sample size for a study in this space?

It looks like the study that introduced the EQ-C and SQ-C in 2009 was only run
on 1256 "parents of typically developing children" and 265 "children with
Autism".[0]

[0]
[http://docs.autismresearchcentre.com/papers/2009_Auyeung_eta...](http://docs.autismresearchcentre.com/papers/2009_Auyeung_etal_ChildEQSQ_JADD.pdf)

[0 (alternate)]
[http://rd.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs10803-009-0772-x](http://rd.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs10803-009-0772-x)

~~~
j2kun
Correlation of 0.2 is negligible with any sample size. The potential for
invalid inferences is only pronounced by a small sample size. A samples size
of a thousand is much better. But with n=100, r=0.2 there is a bigger chance
that local factors influence the result than that the observed association
says anything about human nature.

------
aaron695
Empathizing is dumb.

Calculation ability is smart.

Surprise is where?

Empathizing is why people give $10 to a local kids soccer team but let kids
die in poor countries missing vaccines.

