amusedAnyway, my angles test was 16 out of 20, higher than average for either men or women.
Changed objects...well, I'm a cat. My thought was "what a stupid test" and didn't really engage my brain in doing much with it. (That's why they thought cats were colorblind, for years. The tests were the sort that cats thought were stupid, so they just didn't really engage with them.) So I'm not really on the "male" side, I'm on the "cat" side. Actually, I started losing interest in the test at this point, anyway... Yup, cat... From that point on, I was arguing with it.
I'm higher on empathy than average. Yeah, so? But where I seem to be really, really good is systemizing. Far and beyond the average for men or women. And the eyes thing is ...shrug. I was above average, in figuring emotions, but so what?
I supposedly like more masculine faces. Well, sweetheart, let me tell you, I thought all those faces looked pretty weird. But I've never let faces interfere with my thoughts on a person, because they're quite irrelevant. And my mind started wandering though wondering what photo-morphing program they were using, and if the results were interactive, like the way you get new results chosen from determining which set of letters looks better, when you read an eye chart...
More female on spatial...but I was also playing tetris with the stuff, and wondering if you could get optical illusions of different spacial arrangements, if you played with the lines...so my mind wasn't fully there, either. It timed out while I was wandering...
Hmm, are your results influenced by ADD for test-taking? Do people who go wandering down the free association pathways get male or female results? How about people who type slowly? Have poor hand-eye coordination, on the clicking thing?
Suddenly, I understand my father's story about testing for being colorblind. They said he was colorblind because he couldn't find a "red" yarn in a box. He said that none of the threads were really red, there was a pink, a cerise, an ochre, a...
