This page sponsored by JT's Stockroom    [other banners]

	SD! : Web boards : Dominance : "Empathetic Dominance" 1 2 3 Empathetic Dominance (26) Tue 10 Jun 08, 10:49 PM lili UK, 8 yrs  I've been re-reading "The Essential Difference" by Simon Baron-Cohen recently, and it's raised quite a few complex questions (made more interesting by my current situation as both submissive to Tanos and dominant to Charlie.) (Tanos wrote a rather good weblog/book review back in May 2004 which fortunately should save me a good many words ) Throughout the book systemizers (those with s-type or "male" brains) and empathizers (those with e-type or "female" brains) are compared and contrasted, both in developmental terms and as demonstrable (typical) behaviours as teenagers and adults in the wider social context. In many chapters the typical behaviours contributed to systemizers is frequently described as displays or evidence of social dominance (or at the very least a higher drive to climb the social ladder.) When describing methods of establishing dominance hierarchies, again, Baron-Cohen attributes a greater degree of success to those with s-type over those with e-type brains. On first reading (back in 2004) it was easy for us to develop a rudimentary hypothesis that there would be a bias of Masters with s-types brains and submissives with e-type brains. Given my current situation, I'm not sure how well I fit that hypothesis. On the S-Q and E-Q tests Tanos and I tested at opposite ends of the spectrum (with him sitting way over at the systemizer end of the spectrum with me way over at the empathizer end.) This made a good deal of sense to us, particularly in term of looking at how well we function as a "unit". We seemed extremely compatible and even compensated for each other in quite a positive way to some degree. The questions I'm now asking myself are: 1. Given the differences between behaviours of systemizers and empathizers, is it possible to have 2 very different types of dominance (and if so, is one more desirable than the other?) 2. If so, what do each of these look like by comparison (i.e. what are the pros and cons of having a dominant who is a strong systemizer v one who is a strong empathizer?) 3. Is it possible to exist in a relationship which has just one element - and how healthy would this be? 4. Is it possible to have a relationship with a strong empathizer or systemizer and gain the missing elements outside of that relationship? 5. Does being an extreme empathizer disadvantage me as a dominant or do I, instead, need a systemizer under me in order for me to develop a D/s relationship? Furthermore, what skills are required for us to co-exist in a symbiotic manner? Odd questions, which are perhaps purely hypothetical since most people are not extreme empathizers or systemizers, I know, but somewhat pertinent to me. lili xx "Nearly all men can stand adversity, but if you want to test a man's character, give him power." (Abraham Lincoln) Edited Wed 11 Jun 08, 12:01 AM by lili 11 Jun 08, 12:10 AM SixThreeFive SE, 18 mths  I asked my Owner to buy this book after reading both Tano's review and something you wrote about it somewhere here on the board. (If I had a better memory, I'd of course remember where that was, but alas I do not.) The book itself is interesting, all though at the time of reading it I must admit I skimmed it. The thing I found fascinating is his connection between a systemizer and Asperger. Both me and my Owner have Asperger, yet it takes absolutely different forms in us. For example, I tested very high on the test with eyes (which, if memory serves me correctly, is the empathy test). He hasn't done the test, so I can't answer for him, but I know he's also very empathic. When reading, if found it hard to relate to the e-type brain. Between me and my Owner, one of the first things he commented on upon us meeting online in -04, was that I have a very male way of reasoning. We also went through some trouble while I was reading the book, where I felt not at all empathic. His empathy comes out in the form that he just "knows" what an other person is feeling. He cannot see a social mask, cannot tell it is there, so he responds to the emotion he senses. Some of his social problems stem from here, because it is not always acceptable for one to respond openly and honestly to anothers emotions. He wishes to help the other person, because he cannot stand people distraught or in pain. I, on the other hand, can be very open to reading social clues. I can tell someone is feeling bad, but trying to hide it. I can't tell why they would do such a thing and I often try drop a hint of that I know (more or less gracefully). I see it in their facial structures, feel it like a certain kind of tingle on my skin. Yet I have trouble locating which emotion they are feeling, I just know generally if it is a "good" or a "bad" one. The only emotions I can clearly separate are very intense emotions such as anger, rage and joy. I cannot separate between annoyance, frustration or irritation - not even when I'm feeling it. Thusly, my own emotions tend to be very intense, which bothers my Owner quite a bit. My Owner is a systemizer in the sense of that he likes things to be where they're supposed to and he wants a very clean and organized home. He wants his home to run predictably and smoothly, without any need for him to step in. He, however, abhores schedualed routines and will often times break them when he finds them - rules as well. I'm a relationship-systemizer (my madeup-word). I'd like everything between us to be able to be organized, filed and written down. I like rules, routine, rituals and lists. I'd like to be far more organized than I am. lili wrote: 1. Given the differences between behaviours of systemizers and empathizers, is it possible to have 2 very different types of dominance (and if so, is one more desirable than the other?) Of dominance... yes, I believe there is. What I see, from Tanos' and your writing, is that Tanos very much likes routine and predictability. It seems to me that his dominance is based on a stability-platform, where scheduales, rules and routines are very much a part of it. It almost comes off as though even the discussions you have, has a certain kind of ritualistic feel to it. Would that be correct? I'd say Tanos' systemizes his dominance. From what I can tell, he almost seems to think in steps forward, planning where to go next and how to get you and popi there, where ever it is. Input = output seems very important, somehow, like you and popi were very complicated computers with work and update with certain data-input. You seem to break down mental processes into sequences and organized systems and logic. My Owner, however, takes a different route. Whereas we have very few rituals, routines and rules, his dominance is focused on my emotionallity. He will not collar or mark me, for he feels that a collar will not enslave me at all, only he can and only through my mind and emotions is that possible. My Owner doesn't use physical bondage either, he really doesn't see the point of it. He frequently tells me that logic is faulty (since if your base assumption is wrong, e won't equal mc squared) and that only logic which accounts for emotionality and change is appliable. I've yet to fully comprehend this. We also use the emotional guidance system, to tell what's going on. I've had a lot of use of the list of emotions found in "Ask and it is given", in order to pin point which one I'm currently feeling. Much of what we believe in is not sientifically proven. Sometimes, what you do, seems so much simpler and at times I envy you. Most of the time, I'm perfectly happy with an e-type Owner. 2. If so, what do each of these look like by comparison (i.e. what are the pros and cons of having a dominant who is a strong systemizer v one who is a strong empathizer?) I'd expect that with a strong systemizer, you get a very real, hands-on experience of dominance. It is conventional dominance, they way it's "supposed to be done". At least, those are the beliefs I hold. With an empathizer dominant, the experience I get is far more fluent. It often makes me wonder if we really are O/p, since very few things are external or organized in any fashion known to me. I have to give this some more thought, though. It's a very interesting subject! 11 Jun 08, 3:20 AM ravenkaldera US(MA), 2 yrs  lili wrote: 1. Given the differences between behaviours of systemizers and empathizers, is it possible to have 2 very different types of dominance (and if so, is one more desirable than the other?) lili wrote: Given that this is a continuum, even on the site with the tests, I'd say that speaks for a lot more than two types of dominance. Desirable? That would depend on the submissive, wouldn't it? And what they'd do better with. lili wrote: 2. If so, what do each of these look like by comparison (i.e. what are the pros and cons of having a dominant who is a strong systemizer v one who is a strong empathizer?) lili wrote: On a non-D/s level, I'd say that a good example of empathizer dominance (??) would be parenting. Bringing that over to the D/s side of things, the classic archetype of the male empathizer dominant is the Daddy, for example. I'm sure other people can think of other D/s "roles" or "types" along that continuum of varying genders. lili wrote: 3. Is it possible to exist in a relationship which has just one element - and how healthy would this be? lili wrote: Well, Joshua and I are both systemizers. Him extreme. (As a comparison, our Myers-Briggs scores are INTJ for me and ISTJ for him.) And I certainly don't think that we're unhealthy. We do just fine. We like that we agree on most things. However, people (mostly female people) have commented that our relationship seems (from their distant perspective) somewhat ... unromantic. We, of course, don't think so. It's our own sort of romance, which probably wouldn't seem very romantic to most people. lili wrote: 4. Is it possible to have a relationship with a strong empathizer or systemizer and gain the missing elements outside of that relationship? lili wrote: Missing? (grin) If'n ya don't miss it, it ain't missing! lili wrote: 5. Does being an extreme empathizer disadvantage me as a dominant or do I, instead, need a systemizer under me in order for me to develop a D/s relationship? Furthermore, what skills are required for us to co-exist in a symbiotic manner? I think you're stuck on opposites. It doesn't have to be that way, any more than every relationship has to be heterosexual, if you want to compare it to gender. Just as there are great things about both sameness and opposition with regard to bodies, I expect that there would be those who'd prefer sameness in dynamic. I would think that an empathizer dominant might have an edge on a systemizer dominant in terms of figuring out an empathizer sub. Then again,if the empathizer sub wasn't attracted to empathizer dominants, they wouldn't get far enough along in the relationship to figure them out. After all, you're not Tanos, and in a relationship where you're the domme, you're not just going to copy Tanos's style. Or, rather, if you did, it probably wouldn't work. You need to develop your own style. You start with the all-important beginning questions: Why am I doing this? What do I expect to get out of it? How would I like things to be if I could have anything? And go from there. -Raven Kaldera -If you're in charge, it's all on your head. If it's not all on your head, then you're not really in charge. 11 Jun 08, 6:22 AM masterfiremaam US(AZ), 2 yrs  First, I love these little tests. 53 EQ and 89 SQ. lili wrote: 1. Given the differences between behaviours of systemizers and empathizers, is it possible to have 2 very different types of dominance (and if so, is one more desirable than the other?) Of course there is. We discuss the micromanager vs the macromanager all the time here. 2. If so, what do each of these look like by comparison (i.e. what are the pros and cons of having a dominant who is a strong systemizer v one who is a strong empathizer?) The pros and cons of either depends on the viewpoint of the partner and how well they're matched or how well the system motives them. For example, we often hear from high SQ slaves complaining about the lack of control from low SQ Masters. (This is someone who needs micromanaging paired with someone who wants to macromanage to me.) 3. Is it possible to exist in a relationship which has just one element - and how healthy would this be? Yes, anything is possible. The health of it is going to depend on how each person deals with the pros and cons of the relationship. If they have a high emotional IQ, there shouldn't be too many problems. 4. Is it possible to have a relationship with a strong empathizer or systemizer and gain the missing elements outside of that relationship? The answer to "is it possible" is always yes. Rareness and/or frequency of it is different, however. 5. Does being an extreme empathizer disadvantage me as a dominant or do I, instead, need a systemizer under me in order for me to develop a D/s relationship? Furthermore, what skills are required for us to co-exist in a symbiotic manner? You are only disadvantaged by it if you are convinced it's a disadvantage. Understand of how the other person acts and reacts is important to the success of any relationship. If you are very dissimilar in how you function, the learning curve might be higher for the two of you, but it can be done. Master Fire ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Oh Hai! Blessinz of teh Ceiling Cat be apwn yu, srsly. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 11 Jun 08, 8:36 AM lili UK, 8 yrs  Hi, Thanks to everyone for your replies so far. masterfiremaam wrote: First, I love these little tests. 53 EQ and 89 SQ. Which puts you in the "balanced" (b-type) brain category? masterfiremaam wrote: lili wrote: 1. Given the differences between behaviours of systemizers and empathizers, is it possible to have 2 very different types of dominance (and if so, is one more desirable than the other?) Of course there is. We discuss the micromanager vs the macromanager all the time here. (I'm presuming you have the s-types as the micromanagers and the e-types as the macromanagers?) I'm not sure that I'd agree with your differentiation here at all. For example: Tanos (extreme systemizer) does not micromanage us. Yes, he likes structure, predictability, control and there are rules to be followed, but by no means does he micromanage. In fact I'd go so far as to say he has gone a long way to ensure that I/we can operate and run his household without him having to micromanage me/us. (I'm pretty sure that Carolyn, were she still around, would say something similar of her owner.) masterfiremaam wrote: 2. If so, what do each of these look like by comparison (i.e. what are the pros and cons of having a dominant who is a strong systemizer v one who is a strong empathizer?) The pros and cons of either depends on the viewpoint of the partner and how well they're matched or how well the system motives them. For example, we often hear from high SQ slaves complaining about the lack of control from low SQ Masters. (This is someone who needs micromanaging paired with someone who wants to macromanage to me.) I'm not so sure about this either. I've heard many a complaint over the years about a seeming lack of (overt) control from all kinds of submissives and slaves. Indeed, it seems to be a rather common theme that most of us want or need to feel a higher level of overt control at points in our relationships. (I've made similar complaints to Tanos in the past and I sit in the extreme empathizer category.) Again, thanks for your pov, it's more food for thought. Lili x "Nearly all men can stand adversity, but if you want to test a man's character, give him power." (Abraham Lincoln) 11 Jun 08, 8:42 AM lili UK, 8 yrs  Hi, Thanks for being so open about your relationship - it's been really helpful. I was intrigued by this part especially, though: SixThreeFive wrote: Both me and my Owner have Asperger, yet it takes absolutely different forms in us. For example, I tested very high on the test with eyes (which, if memory serves me correctly, is the empathy test). He hasn't done the test, so I can't answer for him, but I know he's also very empathic. It struck me as unusual that you both have Aspergers Syndrome (I'm presuming you have been diagnosed?) and yet you score highly on the empathy tests (and describe your Master as an empathic dominant.) It's interesting because Baron-Cohen's hypothosis was that those at the Autistic end of the spectrum (of which he includes Aspergers) are also at or towards the extreme end of the S-Q i.e. have male (s-type) brains. Lili x "Nearly all men can stand adversity, but if you want to test a man's character, give him power." (Abraham Lincoln) 11 Jun 08, 9:16 AM lili UK, 8 yrs  Hi, Raven, as always, thank you for your reply, it's brought a good deal of clarity in what seems, on occasions, to be somewhat clouded waters ravenkaldera wrote: lili wrote: 1. Given the differences between behaviours of systemizers and empathizers, is it possible to have 2 very different types of dominance (and if so, is one more desirable than the other?) Given that this is a continuum, even on the site with the tests, I'd say that speaks for a lot more than two types of dominance. Desirable? That would depend on the submissive, wouldn't it? And what they'd do better with. I'd like to think of it as clearly as this, but I think what complicates things (certainly from my own experience as the first/primary person in what has become a poly D/s family) was that I needed both elements (empathizer and systemizer.) I think it's true to say that a majority of people would function best given both elements of the spectrum and I guess in normal circumstances they would get that with the majority of people who fall into the middle (balanced b-type brain) category. Our problem is that neither Tanos nor I do. I do believe that the nurturing (empathizer/intimate) component is equally as important as the structural (systemizer/distant) component. Given a choice, however, I think many are drawn to the idea of s-type dominance because it "looks" more conventionally M/s. However, I'm not sure how sustainable a long term M/s relationship is without some degree of both. ravenkaldera wrote: lili wrote: 2. If so, what do each of these look like by comparison (i.e. what are the pros and cons of having a dominant who is a strong systemizer v one who is a strong empathizer?) On a non-D/s level, I'd say that a good example of empathizer dominance (??) would be parenting. Bringing that over to the D/s side of things, the classic archetype of the male empathizer dominant is the Daddy, for example. I'm sure other people can think of other D/s "roles" or "types" along that continuum of varying genders. This makes a lot of sense to me. The problem I've had with it (even though I feel it) is my own experience of parenting was far from ideal. Transactional Analysis helped me understand that, but I still struggle at times with high empathy but with very low "maternal" instincts (I'm far from "motherly"). ravenkaldera wrote: lili wrote: 3. Is it possible to exist in a relationship which has just one element - and how healthy would this be? Well, Joshua and I are both systemizers. Him extreme. (As a comparison, our Myers-Briggs scores are INTJ for me and ISTJ for him.) And I certainly don't think that we're unhealthy. We do just fine. We like that we agree on most things. However, people (mostly female people) have commented that our relationship seems (from their distant perspective) somewhat ... unromantic. We, of course, don't think so. It's our own sort of romance, which probably wouldn't seem very romantic to most people. I think I know what you are saying here too. I remember getting into debates here about what is meant by love and how important is love in an M/s relationship. I don't necessarily see empathy-dominance as being "in love" (which is how I interpret "romantic")though - I see it more as nurturing, growth, expansion. Being the inspiration or catalyst in that is very important to me in a way I suspect it is far less important to someone like Tanos (although he does take a good deal of pride in my/our achievements particularly if his input has been significant in that, but I don't believe it is one of his primary motivations.) ravenkaldera wrote: lili wrote: 4. Is it possible to have a relationship with a strong empathizer or systemizer and gain the missing elements outside of that relationship? Missing? (grin) If'n ya don't miss it, it ain't missing! LOL - point taken! ravenkaldera wrote: lili wrote: 5. Does being an extreme empathizer disadvantage me as a dominant or do I, instead, need a systemizer under me in order for me to develop a D/s relationship? Furthermore, what skills are required for us to co-exist in a symbiotic manner? I think you're stuck on opposites. It doesn't have to be that way, any more than every relationship has to be heterosexual, if you want to compare it to gender. Just as there are great things about both sameness and opposition with regard to bodies, I expect that there would be those who'd prefer sameness in dynamic. I would think that an empathizer dominant might have an edge on a systemizer dominant in terms of figuring out an empathizer sub. Then again,if the empathizer sub wasn't attracted to empathizer dominants, they wouldn't get far enough along in the relationship to figure them out. After all, you're not Tanos, and in a relationship where you're the domme, you're not just going to copy Tanos's style. Or, rather, if you did, it probably wouldn't work. You need to develop your own style. You start with the all-important beginning questions: Why am I doing this? What do I expect to get out of it? How would I like things to be if I could have anything? And go from there. Sheesh! Lots of food for thought there - thank you Lili x "Nearly all men can stand adversity, but if you want to test a man's character, give him power." (Abraham Lincoln) 11 Jun 08, 11:33 AM anjuli UK, 15 mths  lili wrote: <snip> ravenkaldera wrote: lili wrote: <snip> However, people (mostly female people) have commented that our relationship seems (from their distant perspective) somewhat ... unromantic. We, of course, don't think so. It's our own sort of romance, which probably wouldn't seem very romantic to most people. I think I know what you are saying here too. I remember getting into debates here about what is meant by love and how important is love in an M/s relationship. I don't necessarily see empathy-dominance as being "in love" (which is how I interpret "romantic")though - I see it more as nurturing, growth, expansion. Being the inspiration or catalyst in that is very important to me in a way I suspect it is far less important to someone like Tanos (although he does take a good deal of pride in my/our achievements particularly if his input has been significant in that, but I don't believe it is one of his primary motivations.) <snip> Can I just add something on this point? That 'loving' has everything to do with loving someone the way they want to be loved rather than imposing your own view of what love is. I think maybe as ego-centric teenagers we develop a rather twisted sense of what love is which it is by nature rather narcisistic and for many this is perpetuated by lack of happiness / fulfillment into a pattern of continual reaching for 'make me happy' type love and so missing entirely the truth. Perhaps the 'lack of romance' comments are indicative of a lack of insight? I'm sure you'd know anyway Raven but I know this sort of thing has crops up on the boards from time to time in the 'can you have M/s without love' thing and wanted to get the thought down on paper while it was jogged by you both But I'm not quite sure if this actually addresses the thread so much as a single point so sorry for the slight detour. Sixfivethree's story is fascinating and I'm so glad she chose to share. Marvellous thread lili, thanks. I am off to do some reading and maybe I can come back with something better to contribute. anjuli ~~~ “I, with a deeper instinct, choose a man who compels my strength, who makes enormous demands on me, who does not doubt my courage or my toughness, who does not believe me naive or innocent, who has the courage to treat me like a woman.” - Anais Nin ~~~ 11 Jun 08, 8:26 PM the_Jedi_of_Gor US, 10 mths  I scored 16eq and 134sq. emma scored a little to the systemizer side. I don't micro-manage much in our relationship. I tried to in the begining but it just didn't work for us. It just often set her up for failure and I would have to punish in order to maintain consistency even if I felt she had done well on a particular day. I try to empathize and take her feelings into account but it is hard for me. I like rules and feel it is important for everything to have consequences. I don't micro-manage because it makes my life more difficult. I expect her to follow simple guidelines and thats about it. I think if people are opposites it makes the relationship a bit more dynamic. If people are alike it makes things a bit more comfortable. Some like the differences and others like the comfort of sameness, just a matter of taste. I like this topic and found the tests interesting Sorry for the poor spelling and brief posts. I am usually driving or working..or both 11 Jun 08, 11:14 PM Domme_deluxe UK, 5 mths  I scored 51 SQ and 48 EQ. Myers Briggs puts me in the Empathic, Intuitive category but a left brain / right brain test puts me in the middle. In practice as a Dominant there is a time and place for pure logic and a time and place for going on intuition. lili wrote: Empathetic Dominance 1. Given the differences between behaviours of systemizers and empathizers, is it possible to have 2 very different types of dominance (and if so, is one more desirable than the other?) Yes there is! No, neither is more desirable than the other. Problems start however if you are mismatched with your sub and there is a communication / understanding failure. lili wrote: 2. If so, what do each of these look like by comparison (i.e. what are the pros and cons of having a dominant who is a strong systemizer v one who is a strong empathizer?) I'd expect a strong systemiser to enjoy rules and rituals and probe in detail into why something works. A systemiser would work things out by logic and attention to detail more than by intuition and feelings and seeing the overall picture as an empathiser. The advantages of a systemiser under you is that you would get answers that are thought out and they would be logical and methodical I think. The advantages of an empathiser under you would be that they read you well, anticipate what you require and respond better as they became more in tune with you. An empathiser under you might have more difficulty verbalising and expressing how they feel but show it in body language. A sytemiser unpracticed in body language would have more difficulty intuitively reading another systemiser but it would, hopefully, be made up for by good verbal communication. lili wrote: 3. Is it possible to exist in a relationship which has just one element - and how healthy would this be? Yes, it is possible. Healthy would depend on how well they communicate and bridge gaps in understanding. I'd say it would be necessary for both to do strengthening work on the weaker area. lili wrote: 4. Is it possible to have a relationship with a strong empathizer or systemizer and gain the missing elements outside of that relationship? I am not sure that everyone is fortunate enough to meet someone who perfectly matches but a large helping of maturity, understanding and sufficient tolerance helps to bridge any gap. Certainly the different strengths of both can enhance the whole relationship. lili wrote: 5. Does being an extreme empathizer disadvantage me as a dominant or do I, instead, need a systemizer under me in order for me to develop a D/s relationship? Furthermore, what skills are required for us to co-exist in a symbiotic manner? No, I don't think being an extreme empathiser disadvantages anyone being a Dominant but it would be an improvement if a Dominant cultivates and builds up any areas they perceive they are weaker in. An alternative is to put in place a mechanism for reducing misunderstanding and working on the areas that the one who is under the Dominant could beneficially improve on. Would an empathic Dominant benefit from having a systemiser under them - yes, but there is no reason I can see that having another empathiser under you could not be made to work either. We choose people we like and get on well with. I haven't read the book but I did look at the literature you linked to. This is reasonably new to me in the form of s types and e types but the concept of leaning towards one end of the logic or intuition scale or hovering in the middle isn't new to me. The worst place to be I think logically is in the middle but I feel it's also the best place to be, if you see what I mean? 11 Jun 08, 11:21 PM Mistress_Tiara UK, 21 mths  Our results surprised Me. Mine was EQ:59 SQ : 50 My boys was EQ: 46 SQ: 121. I was in no way surprised by his results as he is the MOST overly organised, regimental, 'anal' individual I have ever come across. he however was surprised his scores were so disperate. I meanwhile was convinced I would come out as an empathiser, yet came out as a systemiser. Im blaming the contrast of Myself to My boy, for judging this wrongly - Myself and everyone else has always thought I was extremely organised until I met the boy. I would be interested to know how extreme systemizers cope when their systems are disrupted or when they feel emotionally overwhelmed. I think there a huge amount to be said for calmness and the ability to think forward in a situation which is something I suspect may be something that empathizers or people with 'balanced' scores are more likely to have. *~*Mistress Tiara*~* Next page