Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Science/2014 September 6

= September 6 =

Empathizing/systemizing, Asperger's and special interests
Some fellow boardizens were having a discussion at an Internet forum I frequent, wherein we were trying out Simon Baron-Cohen's EQ/SQ tests based on the empathizing–systemizing theory. A lot of us got low systemizing scores, even some of the forumgoers who were nerd/Asperger's types. Discussion revealed that limited interests governed a lot of the low systemizing results; for instance, those of us who were uninterested in photography would answer the non-systemizing way to the camera question, while obviously people who had never researched flight would not think about the aerodynamics of an airplane trip. The more limited your interests, the more the limits on how high your SQ score could get. Having limited interests, however, is one of the key characteristics of Asperger's. And yet 65% of Aspies manage to come out extreme S! How is this possible? Khemehekis (talk) 04:05, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Because these tests, ESPECIALLY when taken in an uncontrolled environment (rather than being administered and interpreted by a trained professional) are terrible at testing for what they say they are testing for. This sort of testing, done correctly, takes hours, if not days, over multiple sessions, requires more than just multiple choice type questions, and requires experts to both administer and interpret.  You get what you pay for, and if you've invested 10 minutes in an online test of sketchy provenance, well, you're going to get that level of quality in outcome.  Even if it was based on a solid test, the uncontrolled administration (essentially a self-assessment) isn't going to be really reliable.  -- Jayron  32  04:17, 6 September 2014 (UTC)


 * One might have got a more intelligent response if you had linked to the actual test rather than articles. I got 24 on this http://psychology-tools.com/empathy-quotient/ but it totally fails to answer your question or give me any insight into it. Greglocock (talk) 04:30, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Actually, I did link to the test. These were the responses:


 * 1. E 32, S 17
 * 2. E 33, S 28
 * 3. E 35, S 33
 * 4. E 8, S 14
 * 5. E 46. S 14
 * 6. E 36, S 53
 * 7. E 11, S 31
 * 8. E 53, S 41
 * 9. E 26, S 20
 * 10. E 17, S 26
 * 11. E 30, S 32
 * 12. E 46. S 26 Khemehekis (talk) 04:41, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Err - no, you didn't. Greglocock's post contains the link from empathizing–systemizing theory (which appears to consist of the question "Are you empathetic?" repeated 60 times, but still), but your results don't match up with it.  Could you post a (direct) link to the test you took? Tevildo (talk) 08:16, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
 * http://personality-testing.info/tests/EQSQ.php Khemehekis (talk) 10:01, 6 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Oh, no apology for wasting other people's time and misleading them? Anyway I got 22/46, given that I am very S and adequately E, I wonder what the error bounds are. Greglocock (talk) 23:49, 6 September 2014 (UTC)


 * What do you mean by "wasting other people's time and misleading them"? ?:| Khemehekis (talk) 01:50, 7 September 2014 (UTC)


 * You claimed you had posted a link to the test "Actually, I did link to the test", so I wasted my time looking for a link to it in the links you had already given ( Simon Baron-Cohen, empathizing–systemizing theory). If it is there it is not obvious, and on checking again, it is not there. Greglocock (talk) 08:50, 7 September 2014 (UTC)


 * I'm not lying when I said I linked to the test. If you must know, here's the discussion: http://aveneca.com/cbb/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=4177 You'll notice the link to the test is in the first post in that thread, posted by my screenname! 09:12, 7 September 2014 (UTC)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Khemehekis (talk • contribs)


 * Still digging a hole? How was I supposed to see that link? Telepathy? Or do you imagine we follow you around to every bulletin board or forum that takes your fancy? Stop being an idiot. Greglocock (talk) 22:11, 7 September 2014 (UTC)


 * I never was digging a hole! Just because I linked the people on that forum didn't mean I expected the people on this forum to automatically see it. All I said was that I did link, and since we were talking about linking in the original discussion that brought me here, not linking on the Reference Desk, my statements were straightforward and truthful. There was no "misleading". Stop creating a straw-man. Khemehekis (talk) 23:40, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
 * That page cites "The systemizing quotient" by Baron-Cohen et al, which I was able to find online. It quotes SQ scores of 35.7±15.3 (mean ± std. dev., max. score 80) for test takers with Asperger's and high-functioning autism, version 29.7±10.2 for "matched controls". Those scores are not especially high in absolute terms, and there's much more variation within each group than between the groups.
 * The paper also says that in their original test design "[...] individuals who were well rounded but not necessarily good systemizers would end up scoring highly, whereas those who were highly systematic but only interested in one domain would receive a low score. Thus, we decided [...] to use examples from everyday life in which systemizing could be used to varying degrees. The assumption is that a strong systemizer would be drawn to use their systemizing skills across the range of examples more often than a poor systemizer, and would consequently score higher on the SQ." (See the paper for context.) I tend to agree with you that that assumption is dubious, and I think their conclusions are mostly wrong too, but anyway that's what the paper says. -- BenRG (talk) 00:01, 7 September 2014 (UTC)


 * For what it's worth, I have been diagnosed with Asperger's. I scored 16/80 on http://psychology-tools.com/empathy-quotient/, E 9 S 47 on http://personality-testing.info/tests/EQSQ.php - both tests seem to produce the expected results for me.  I don't think the number of interests you have would affect the systematizer score because obsessive systematizers are interested in the details of all such systems - even though they only personally pursue a few of them.  People with an intense interest in just one particular system aren't necessarily strongly interested in systematizing for it's own sake. SteveBaker (talk) 03:32, 7 September 2014 (UTC)


 * I scored under 30, so I apparently don't care what the test thinks that means. I strongly agree that the "slightly" answers make no sense. These are true or false questions. If any of you slightly agreed or disagreed with something, I don't understand you. InedibleHulk (talk) 09:58, 7 September 2014 (UTC)


 * I think the more nuanced 'slightly' responses are reasonable. Take, for example, "People often tell me that I am very unpredictable." - well, over the last 30 years, more than one person has told me that I'm somewhat unpredictable. So I don't completely agree with this statement because "often" and "very" seem like an overstatement of what's happened here.  But a strong disagreement of this statement would be to deny what is clearly a telling point about my personality - so that's also an unwarranted answer.  It didn't ask "Have at least 8 people used the exact words 'very unpredictable' to describe you during the last two decades?" - that wouldn't have any grey area answers.  But the vagueness of the words of the question demand shades of certainty in the answer.  I should either slightly agree or perhaps slightly disagree with this statement - and I chose to 'slightly agree' with it.  Many of the questions are like that "I often wonder what it would be like to be someone else. - how "often" is that?  There are others: "When I read something, I always notice whether it is grammatically correct." - in this case, "always" is clearly not intended literally.  If just once in my life, I read something and was too busy to notice it's grammatical content - should I answer "disagree" when throughout my life, I obsessively check the grammar of almost every shred of literature that comes before me?  Of course not!  A literal interpretation of that question would have everyone - no matter how grammar-anal - answering "strong disagree".  This is clearly intended to produce shades of response.  If I bitch and whine about grammatical errors in 80% of what I read - then, sure, a 'strong agree' is warranted...if I notice grammatical errors more than everyone else I know (which is undoubtedly true) - but I don't obsessively check grammar all the time - then a 'slight agree' is a reasonable response. SteveBaker (talk) 14:56, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I always notice that "it is grammatically correct" is grammatically correct but you don't (and evidently won't) notice that "it's [sic] grammatical content" is grammatically incorrect, not because it is a typo but because your abuse of the established English syntax that governs the expressions ITS and IT'S is a persistent defect in otherwise valuable posts. For recently introducing the neologism ITS' the name of SteveBaker becomes a candidate for the AlexSazanov-Unwin-Darwin Award for Contribution to Linguistic Discombolbulation. 84.209.89.214 (talk) 07:56, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I read
 * If it's "it is" or "it has", it's "it's", but if it's not, it's "its"
 * once. Brevity = WIN. - ¡Ouch! (hurt me / more pain) 08:55, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I remember reading before that it was the proportion of your two scores, rather than absolute scores, that determined whether you were an empathizer or a systemizer. So taking the first response, E 32 S 17, that would be an empathizer even though 32 is below average, because the E is 188% as great as the S. An Aspie could land himself a 32 (below average) on systemizing, but still be an extreme S if his empathizing score was 10, what with his S being thrice as high as his E. Even the Aspies whose systemizing scores are hindered by restricted interests tend to get low empathizing. 24.130.24.40 (talk) 10:17, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
 * That certainly makes more sense in my case. (E 9 S 47) - I was surprised at getting a mid-range S score, but if it's a ratio, then it's really the high result that I expected I'd get.  SteveBaker (talk) 17:45, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

what's a 3-input NOR gate
NOR is not distributive associative (ie a nor b nor c!=a nor (b nor c)), but in the datasheet it doesn't say which inputs are which, i.e. the order in which they bind... It looks like all 3 inputs have equal rights, so to speak. I think there's something I don't get but I don't know what... Asmrulz (talk) 12:54, 6 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Logically, a NOR gate with however many inputs is the OR of all the inputs followed by an inversion (NOT) operation. However, it is possible to build a gate that naturally produces a NOR function without having to provide a separate physical inverter. For positive logic, where logical 0 is defined to be a lower voltage than logical 1, Emitter-coupled logic provides both OR and NOR outputs. For negative logic, where logical 0 is defined to be a higher voltage than logical 1, Transistor-transistor logic provides a NOR function. Jc3s5h (talk) 13:33, 6 September 2014 (UTC)


 * So these are different NORs? The binary NOR operator and the n-ary function that the IC's compute? Asmrulz (talk) 13:42, 6 September 2014 (UTC)


 * It's just a matter of grouping. What is commonly described as a NOR gate is NOT (I1 OR I2 OR ... OR In). Of course the binary NOR is a special case of this expression. While one could build a circuit that implements (I1 NOR I2) NOR I3 no one in the business would call that a three-way NOR; I don't believe there is a name for the latter circuit. Jc3s5h (talk) 14:17, 6 September 2014 (UTC)


 * I see. Thanks! Asmrulz (talk) 18:18, 6 September 2014 (UTC)


 * In other words, the output is 1 iff all inputs are 0, right?
 * function nor2(a,b){ return (a==0)&&(b==0); }
 * function nor3(a,b,c){ return (a==0)&&(b==0)&&(c==0); }
 * My problem was I assumed nor3(a,b,c) (ie, a⊽b⊽c) must equal nor2(nor2(a,b),c) (left-associative) or nor2(a,(nor2(b,c)) (right-associative), as it does for other operators like + and -, but this blows up for a==b==c==0 (nor3(0,0,0)==1, <tt>nor2(nor2(0,0),0)==nor2(1,0)==0</tt>) Asmrulz (talk) 18:50, 7 September 2014 (UTC)


 * I've just found out (scroll down to 5) Cascading) that <tt>nor3(a,b,c)</tt> is not <tt>nor2(nor2(a,b),c))</tt>, but nor2(!nor2(a,b),c)). I.e., to make a 3-input NOR from 2-input NOR one needs an extra inverter. That's the weird thing to me. Asmrulz (talk) 19:58, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
 * The SN7427 is the original 3-input NOR integrated circuit in the TTL family and the data sheet shows its internal circuit that treats inputs A, B and C identically. 84.209.89.214 (talk) 22:08, 7 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Looking at some 4000 family datasheets, it seems the 3 input NOR made up of 2 input NORs in the link given by Asmrulz would have a maximum propagation delay of 360 ns (for a 5 V supply voltage), while the propagation delay of a 3 input NOR designed that way by the manufacturer has a much better maximum propagation delay of 140 ns; this indicates it is much more efficient to design a 3 input NOR than to make one up from 2 input NORs. Jc3s5h (talk) 22:30, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Carbon auditing
Is carbon auditing very mathematical? Does it require good maths skills to do it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.192.100.109 (talk) 13:49, 6 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia has an article titled Carbon audit regime, but it is next to useless. Instead, read thisor this or this instead.  -- Jayron  32  18:15, 6 September 2014 (UTC)


 * I should think the actual math would be simple, pretty much just addition, subtraction, multiplication, and division. But the science used to get the numbers on which you do the math could be tricky. StuRat (talk) 19:45, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Why are round football-like objects on electricity wires?
Any body knows why there are round things (football size) are fixed on electricity wires of big towers especially over the roads?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.58.250.91 (talk) 15:04, 6 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Most likely to increase visibility, to decrease the risk of collisions (particularly with construction equipment and, depending on location, low-flying aircraft and helicopters). TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:10, 6 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Actually to make the cables more visible to birds and help them avoid collisions with the cables.--217.42.133.85 (talk) 15:32, 6 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Read this. -- Jayron  32  18:13, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks to all I was thinking this is why that the lightining to hit that balls and to avoid hitting the vehicles — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.58.250.91 (talk) 21:26, 6 September 2014 (UTC)


 * What is the word "like" doing in the title of this thread? Is it anything more than a fashionable filler? Am I misunderstanding the question because of it? HiLo48 (talk) 22:45, 6 September 2014 (UTC)


 * The OP geolocates to Spain. I'm pretty sure you can get the gist of the question, without needing to find a way that a native English speaker might have constructed it. --Trovatore (talk) 22:51, 6 September 2014 (UTC)


 * I work with teenagers in Australia. I'm actually fascinated by their habit of inserting the word "like" almost randomly in sentences, with no apparent change in meaning. If this comes from a Spanish misuse of English, I'm truly interested, because we don't have that many Spanish speakers here. HiLo48 (talk) 23:49, 6 September 2014 (UTC)


 * It's totally like whatever, you know?  —71.20.250.51 (talk) 01:12, 7 September 2014 (UTC)


 * It's a filler. I seriously doubt it has anything to do with Spanish.  I would guess, but it's just a guess, that the OP might have been trying to express some such thought as "why do they use those round balls, like the ones on electrical wires?".  You know, or something else, but probably not, like, the English-language filler like. --Trovatore (talk) 04:28, 7 September 2014 (UTC)


 * I think the intended reading is "round football-like balls". Anyway, we knew what was meant, even if we're from countries where "footballs" aren't round. --65.94.51.64 (talk) 05:07, 7 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Sorry every one
 * I actually miss one word " objects"
 * it should be written as " round footballs-like objects" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.58.250.91 (talk) 05:54, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Like, Football-esque, everybody.165.212.189.187 (talk) 13:48, 8 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Online forums say that bright balls go on the top wires for enhanced visibility. Other devices go on some wires to counteract aeolian vibrations and galloping. "Football-like" sounds fine, so the complaints about its use are puzzling.  Edison (talk) 19:06, 8 September 2014 (UTC)


 * To answer Edison's puzzlement, the section heading has been changed multiple times (aside: please don't do that, people, as it makes it impossible to get to the section by clicking on an edit summary).
 * The original question was phrased as follows: Why are round footballs like on Electricity wires??
 * --Trovatore (talk) 19:11, 8 September 2014 (UTC)


 * "Football-like" is an unfortunate description, as it could mean spherical, if we mean Association football, or oblong, if we mean American football. "Round" could also be applied to either, as even a cylinder could be called "round". StuRat (talk) 19:29, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Having established that the OP is from Spain and probably not a native speaker, can we all please quit nitpicking his/her word choice? --Trovatore (talk) 20:04, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree. As a technical writer, myself, I found the OP's description perfectly understandable (though not perfect) English usage.  It's how I might have described it if I came from a country in which a "football" is a spherical object.  The term "-like" is emphatically NOT a "filler," but an economical way to convey that the object does not entirely resemble a football, but merely is shaped like one. The alternate suggestion, "football-esque," is, I hope, meant to be humorous.  That would save me what C.S. Lewis called "a bit of tiresome demolition."
 * But StuRat's right, the best way to have described it would have been "round object" or, even better, "spherical object". All ambiguity as to whose footballs are being invoked in description goes away. loupgarous (talk) 16:07, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Piezoelectricity and vehicle shock absorbers
Is it possible to apply piezoelectricity to an electric car's shock absorbers? ScienceApe (talk) 18:56, 6 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Typical lead zirconate titanate crystals generate measurable Piezoelectricity when their size is deformed by about 0.1%, and they change about 0.1% in size when an external voltage is applied. Such movements are too small to handle road bumps in a vehicle suspension though one might find a use for a piezoelectric actuated valve in some kind of Hydropneumatic suspension. 84.209.89.214 (talk) 23:53, 6 September 2014 (UTC)


 * What use did you have in mind for piezoelectricity ? Generating electricity while dampening bumps ?  I agree that the amount would be too small to charge the battery, but perhaps it could provide input to an active suspension system, which could then adjust the suspension differently for rough roads and smooth roads.  StuRat (talk) 19:36, 8 September 2014 (UTC)


 * It's not, strictly speaking, piezoelectricity, but several new cars can be had with magnetorheological dampers as original equipment, in which the shock absorbers are filled with an emulsion of an oil and iron particles; the viscosity of the emulsion can be continuously adjusted by an electromagnetic field from wired coils around the body of the shock absorber. This allows continuous, responsive adjustment of the car's suspension by onboard computer in response to a variety of changes in the driving environment - road conditions, speed, cornering, braking... all adjusted for electrically.  Just thought that while electrically-active shocks were discussed... loupgarous (talk) 15:55, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
 * First reply already pointed it out but did not mention the important implication of such very small elasticity for this case. Crystals generally tend to fracture (crack) very fast from mechanical pressure "shocks". This is in fact their main weakness from the mechanical viewpoint. Piezocrystals are no different in that so it will be near impossible to build something like that. On top it already seems to be to difficult to use the similar principle Wave power effectively. --Kharon (talk) 06:59, 11 September 2014 (UTC)