<p>
</p>
<p>No. Actually the thing with this test is that it scores “slightly” the same as “strongly”. Many of my responses were along the line of “slightly” (btw I took the test like 5 times since 2003 so I fully know that my score distribution: 44 initially, then 46, then 48) and so I’d be less extreme if there were different weights assigned to the strengths of yes/no.</p>
<p>And I’m not kidding - it’s possible to have a high score and NOT be an aspie. It’s just that this test happens to be GOOD at assigning high scores to officially diagnosed aspies and low scores to neurotypicals, but it’s entirely possible that in a DIFFERENT human population where the COVARIATION between two properties IN A SET OF PROPERTIES THAT CAN BE ASSIGNED TO PEOPLE was decreased (in certain key properties - for example, in aspies it turns out that lack of eye contact is covaried with all other characteristics BUT ONLY IN THE ASPIE POPULATION WE KNOW OF - it COULD be different in ANOTHER ASPIE population, even to the point of EXTREME eye contact that freaks people out), that there would then be people with high scores who aren’t aspie (after all - there are MANY “aspie” traits that many aspies don’t necessarily have). My core hypothesis (I actually e-mailed Simon Baron Cohen and he kind of agreed) is that Asperger’s Syndrome is related to a RELATIVE inability to SUBCONSCIOUSLY SYNCHRONIZE with the feelings/actions/behaviors of others.</p>
<p>(edit: um yeah, I sounded weird with the way I emphasized words 
I should just use <em>this</em>)</p>