Yes Master ... BDSM Toplist    [other banners]

	SD! : Web boards : Dominance : "Empathetic Dominance" 1 2 3 Empathetic Dominance (26) 11 Jun 08, 11:40 PM SixThreeFive SE, 20 mths  I dug out the book again today. My Owner indulged me and we both took all of the tests. I scored 33 of 36 on the "Eye Test", 55 on EQ (not as high as I remembered), 28 on SQ and 32 on AQ. My Owner scored 33 of 36 on the Eye Test, 69 on EQ, 42 on SQ and 38 on AQ. So as you can see, we both lie (relatively) high on the empathizer side, even though we are both diagnosed with Asperger. For my Owner, I know that they did two brain-scans while diagnosing him. It was found that he has more activity in the right side of his brain. (I believe that the doctors found a hole in the right brain-half, which they first worried might fill with fluid, but further scans showed that this was simply because he uses that side more.) So he, infact, does have a female or e-type brain. During my evaluation, no brain scans where made, so I wouldn't know about what they would have shown. We both score very highly on word-interpration, language and locial thinking (I did WISC and he did WAIS) and are above average in IQ - in my Owners case far above average. As I recently complained on the forum, my Owner dosn't do overt control. So much of what he does goes so far below my radar, that I don't notice. It's simply not happening in my book, even though I can see the results from it. What was said about the expectation that a Master "should" be a s-type, I find is very true for myself. I do have that expectation, which is why I have trouble identifying what we have as an O/p-relationship. Which is, actually, why I use Owner/property rather than Master/slave. There are "musts" and "shoulds" for a Master and a slave, in my mind, but I honestly don't know what is expected of an Owner or of property. He did try and explain what he does, but much over it went over my head. From what I could understand, he manipulates me emotionally and mentally to a point where doing whatever it is seems like the obvious thing to do. Or rather, that it seems to be the obvious thing to choose to do, because he deserves it and I want to please. I brought up the usage of "Master" or "Sir", since I don't call him these things. I've found rather recently that I want to, that it's kind of building up into a need to do so because I respect and love him so much. I'm still very nervous about it, because I suddenly feel very vulnerable. He explained to me something among the lines of that what he does, is manipulate my internal reality until that brings about the external reality. It is my thoughts and emotions about him, that makes me want to use the words Master and Sir, not any external demand. He believes that the internal is the important key to enslavement. I've rather come to view what he does as giving me the opportuity to serve and obey; to be fully myself, as vulnerable, naked and submissive as I am. I guess what he does ... er, "unlocks" me. By not stepping in and demanding service from me or obedience, he forces me to choose for myself to follow and obey him. This to me is far harder than not having a choise about it - which is what I asked for when I asked to be his. (All though when I used words like "you make me" or "thus you force me" he interrupted me and said he does not make or force me to do anything.) This makes it impossible for me to fall into a role of a perfect slave, or perfect anything. He also said that he does systemize. He just... empathizes his sytemization. Or systemizes his empathization. Which ever way around it now was. More about e-type and s-types I found on the BBC documentaries Secrets of the Sexes (availble still online as .torrent files actually released by the BBC, so I guess they're legal?). There's also another series entitled The Truth About Female Desire of four parts. They're really interesting. Other than that... I just want to point at Raven and say "What he said!" 12 Jun 08, 6:41 AM 842-079-148 CA, 15 mths  Without getting to much into the theory, and test scores, and not at all on the love issue.... A while back, when I started switching, I found that I was getting the same thrill Domming as I was when I was submitting. And I realized that it was the empathy (and sympathy) that I felt for the person that I was controlling that sparked my sadism. I would only be interested if I could really empathize with the person I was controlling. 12 Jun 08, 7:22 AM lili UK, 8 yrs  Hi, I'm confused as to why you think you are a systemizer? Your scores are evenly balanced (9 points between is not significant) and with an EQ greater than SQ puts you in the balanced brain category (with a slight bias towards empathising). Your EQ score is actually slightly higher than average for a female. Your boy, again, is categorised as systemiser, but only because he's scored so highly on the SQ. His EQ score, again, is higher than average for a man. (..and bare in mind there is broad room for error in these kinds of on-line tests - they are no where near accurate enough to give you a firm diagnosis so should only be used as a rough guide.) :o) Lili x Mistress_Tiara wrote: 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. "Nearly all men can stand adversity, but if you want to test a man's character, give him power." (Abraham Lincoln) 12 Jun 08, 11:39 AM Mistress_Tiara UK, 23 mths  lili wrote: Hi, I'm confused as to why you think you are a systemizer? Your scores are evenly balanced (9 points between is not significant) and with an EQ greater than SQ puts you in the balanced brain category (with a slight bias towards empathising). Your EQ score is actually slightly higher than average for a female. Your boy, again, is categorised as systemiser, but only because he's scored so highly on the SQ. His EQ score, again, is higher than average for a man. Because Im a slight empathizer and such couldnt read the system based chart correctly I imagine! Thanks lili that makes much more sense.... Mistress Tiara who can read and interpret sometimes - honest *~*Mistress Tiara*~* 12 Jun 08, 4:47 PM lili UK, 8 yrs  Mistress_Tiara wrote: lili wrote: Hi, I'm confused as to why you think you are a systemizer? <snip> Because Im a slight empathizer and such couldnt read the system based chart correctly I imagine! Thanks lili that makes much more sense.... Mistress Tiara who can read and interpret sometimes - honest LMAO!! That may very well be the case (I can't tell you how many times I had to look at those figures for them to make any kind of sense at all from them.) Lili x "Nearly all men can stand adversity, but if you want to test a man's character, give him power." (Abraham Lincoln) 12 Jun 08, 5:09 PM Red_Spark UK, 23 mths  Interesting - I came out as very much of a systematizer type, even more than the 'average' male. Which totally wasn't what I was expecting! o_o 13 Jun 08, 12:59 AM Sir4Ryco 2 yrs  Hi All, I also like these types of tests . . . they help me to categorize people (a bit of a joke). I scored as follows: EQ=44 and SQ=96. In the Myers-Briggs test I am an ENTJ (only 3 points into the E category). Whenever I take tests like these I often find myself wondering how I would have scored if I hadn't received so much military leadership training. As a youth I was more introverted and I liked to read and write so I spent lots of time alone. At the age of 13 I joined my first military organization which was run by a Korean War vet and a WWII tail gunner . . . needless to say they ruled us like we were in the real military. It was a hard environment for a young teen but I thrived and I became close to others who were also thriving. To fit the leader mould of my cadet unit I began to change (or conceal) those parts of my personality that I thought would affect my ability to be promoted (I rose through the ranks quicky). In effect, for decades of my life, I have erased or suppressed certain parts of my personality which are not good for a combat leader to have in excess. In other words I adapted psychologically and physiologically to my chosen environment. It has made me hard in situations where I believe I would have been sympathetic without all the time in the military. The debate about whether leaders are trained or born has never been answered to my satisfaction and having trained many combat leaders during my career I do find that there are personality traits I look for and I do often write off possible future combat leaders if they don't possess them. I still give the soldier a fair shake it's just that I have little faith in what they can achieve as leaders because of the undesirable traits. My own past makes me wonder how many slaves there are out there who believe that they would have tested differently before they were trained as slaves? Where they less empathic before their training? Have they become better systemisers since they were trained (especially in a highly ritualized environment)? Would a slave test differently if they had just come out of a relationship where their trust and empathy had been used to control and subsequently to betray them? It would be quite interesting to me if there was data that would answer the following question: would a submissive who was given the test before receiving any training as a slave achieve the same results after they have been trained for several years? I definitely notice a difference in my slave's empathy level (especially in her observations of me . . . I'm not easy to read) since I have given her deliberate sympathy/empathy training to help with her ability to focus on me and on others. Take care. Sir4Ryco 13 Jun 08, 1:56 AM 192-160-541 US, 6 mths  My scores were EQ: 64 and SQ: 85. It called me a systemizer. Here's my question: why can a person not be driven to "identify and react appropriately to the way another person is feeling" by "[analyzing] the variables and understand[ing] [our] rules governing" human behavior? Or is that discussed in the related book? 13 Jun 08, 4:19 PM Mistress_Tiara UK, 23 mths  Sir4Ryco wrote: Whenever I take tests like these I often find myself wondering how I would have scored if I hadn't received so much military leadership training.... In effect, for decades of my life, I have erased or suppressed certain parts of my personality which are not good for a combat leader to have in excess. In other words I adapted psychologically and physiologically to my chosen environment. It has made me hard in situations where I believe I would have been sympathetic without all the time in the military. Sir4Ryco This part of S4R's post caught My eye as it *exactly* the same question My boy raised when he did the test. One of the first observations he made was that 'he thought anyone who had been in the forces of any description would come out with a very high SQ score'. he was a high ranking Senior Fire Officer in charge of 26 fire stations before retiring (in the UK, the fire service is very military-esqe - I believe it is quite different in the US), and this has shaped his operating function quite considerably. S4R's observation that his military experience has made him 'harder' and less sympathetic to things he would otherwise have sympathy for also seems very similar to what I observe in My boy. *~*Mistress Tiara*~* 14 Jun 08, 4:14 PM Platinum UK, 6 mths  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?) There are 2 types of relationship, successful and failing. What charecterises a successful relationship seems to me to be a balance betwwen the psycholocgical needs of the participants.. Logically any relationship that features matched personality types should prosper whilst those based on opposites should fail. The style of dominance would therefore seem to be unimportant to a relationships success. 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?) S-S would be formal, high protocol, based on all pervading rules and procedures, possibly a Gorean style relationship. a purely E-E relationship would probably be percieved as a old fashioned marriage, Him as breadwinner, master of the household while she is homemaker and companion. The middle ground of B-B is everything and anything in between but probably covers the majority of relationships that are D/s lili wrote: 3. Is it possible to exist in a relationship which has just one element - and how healthy would this be? answered above but to expand on one thought. B-B relationships are potenially more dynamic as both D and s move along the continum they inhabit, becoming more or less S or E. Factores driving this might be external to the relationship, stress or tiredness for instance or internal, biologically driven emotional needs etc. 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? Yes, in theory. Perhaps this is one driver for poly relationships? In my experience though the psychological stresses imposed are more than simply multiplied by the number of participants. I have little knowledge of some of the more formalised forms of poly and so can only comment that these structures may help to control or manage any emotional imbalances that result. I can imagine a B dominant having two submissives with differing S-E balances and also imagine a submissive having two Dominants, perhaps themselves a couple, one primarily S and the other E 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? Possibly in the sense that an extremely E dominant will find it difficult to provide the rules and framework anything other than a purely E submissive will seek to base their submission upon. An E submissive will love the care and empathy of the E dominant but may find increasing the depth of submission frustratingly difficult Next page