Polar presentation of detailed results in Aspie-quiz

Post Reply New Topic

This is truly meant in a constructive fashion: which direction is + , and which is - in your plot? These are obvious things that should be plainly labelled.

Looking at the responses here, there better be.

So, how about this:

a) Add a line from the centre to the data-point (with an arrow) for each of the eight raw values plotted.
b) Add a line from the centre to the centre of mass of all 8 raw values (in a attention-grabbing color, with arrow). Pehaps also add a cross or something here to focus people's attention.

Other suggestions are welcome.

makeit spin round.

There are only +. All 8 data-values are always positive (0-10), starting from the centre going towards one of the edges. I think arrows here will make this concept clearer.

OK. Here's the perfect example: you list three groups, and post seven images. How exactly does that make sense to the average person?

Oh, I don't really have any trouble reading where the values are located.

What I'm puzzled over, looking at the image, is the significance of the labeled categories (talent, instinct, etc.). I'm sure that these terms are accurate descriptors of the qualities they represent. Yet to an outsider who is unfamiliar with the nature of the data you're organizing and your system of doing so, I think the current labels are obfuscating rather than illuminating.

To me, as a (presumed) aspie, such organization of data is still pretty exciting, but for most people the main purpose of providing or looking a graph is to facilitate understanding. The goal should be to put a large amount of information in a visual format that is easier to grasp than plain text, for the average viewer.

So anyhow, what I'd suggest is either:
1) change the terms to ones that the average viewer will find meaningful
2) provide a key (describing what, for example, you mean by "instinct" or "biology"

Anyhow, that's just my opinion. These matters certainly aren't my specialty and I do really admire your work.

I've changed the order of the communication groups vs social and instinct. This seems to both generate smoother images and is justified by group-group correlations as well even if it is close.

Here are some new examples (real data):

NT, with a strong motor-communication profile:


Border-line case with a slight overweight for Aspie:


Typical Aspie:


Less Aspie but still clear case:


Probably NT, with a strong motor-communication profile:


Typical NT:


Another Aspie:

I'm truly trying to be constructive.

Why does it look like "talent" is the opposite of either "motor" or "perception"? Is "intelligence" necessarily the opposite of "biology"? That's not plain, and (IMHO) not correct either.

Since you've yet to post any type of decipherable key yet, I can only guess that you mean these to be opposites.

Because they are clearly based on widely different mechanisms / brain circuits / genes. Also because those groups belong to the "middle territory" between Aspie and NT, and that makes their placent near the centre a given. They also have lower correlations to Aspie and NT scores than the core groups (communication, social, instinct).



In fact, it often is. It is probably not a coincidence that two different plots almost have a arrow in the motor direction.

Can you differentiate between the axis labels and the other attributes? I think UncleBeer is right it needs a key and explanation on how to read it. It is different from a radar plot/spider graph.

I think I can relate to you in that I have my own way of representing things that is obvious to me, but it isn’t always obvious to other people.

Last edited by 0_equals_true on 18 Aug 2007, 3:29 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Talent is not just based on genes. You can have a brain injury. Motor is based on genes a lot of the time. It is all brain circuitry. Even the is not the central nervous system there is also the peripheral nervous system. Or am I not understanding what your saying? Are you saying it is a different part of the brain?

Yes, one needs to understand what these scores are based on. A hint is to look at the questions in the Aspie-ability group: http://www.rdos.net/eng/aspeval/#ASPIE_ABILITY. Basically, this is questions about giftedness, creativity and special interests. One also needs to understand what is in the NT talent (Aspie-disability group): http://www.rdos.net/eng/aspeval/#ASPIE_DISABILITY. This group is basically planning difficulty, reading & spelling problems, math-related problems and alike. It can very well be thought of as a NT ability group.



I realize that "biology" probably is not the best term. Yes, you are right, these difficulties also are based in brain-circuits. A better term for motor & perception would be needed, but I cannot come up with any right now.

That looks like a hexagon to me.

I think 2 separate squares would be better. One NT stuff and one aspie stuff. Then you can better tell which side is stronger...

PS: "Do you find it easy to describe your feelings?" refers to just putting your feelings into words or getting past the social anxiety to actually describe them to someone else?

Octagon.

My scores really change every time... they've been from 46 to 71.... lol this time I got my lowest score ever

Your Aspie score: 46 of 200
Your neurotypical (non-autistic) score: 160 of 200