1. College of Design MUDD WORKSHOP IX
May 27-30, 2015
Maria V. Miller, Industrial Design Department
Empathizing - Systemizing Theory and Design Thinking
Phase 1: Research and Discovery
-
-
-
-
-
-
.
-
-
.
Funding from the College of Design, Industrial Design Department, Iowa State University
Introduction
As we continue to face the challenge of increas-
ingly diverse multidisciplinary working groups,
there is an urgent need to cultivate a better aware-
ness of our different cognitive profiles. Such an
understanding would go a long way toward en-
gendering goodwill and better appreciating the
value that different thinking styles bring to the
design process. This awareness has the potential
to serve as a powerful motivator for engendering
tolerance and appreciation for these differences,
inspiring a greater willingness to cooperate and
leading to a more equitable dispensation of eco-
nomic profit. As design educators, this increased
awareness would also serve to better engage and
retain students in the design disciplines from un-
derrepresented groups. Empathizing-system-
izing theory has the potential to fill this
need for awareness and open the
door to an important and neces-
sary conversation in the design
thinking community. Design
thinking as a formal method
of creative problem solving
has been traditionally de-
fined by our understand-
ing of analysis versus
synthesis and conver-
gent versus divergent
thinking. This work seeks
to consider systemiz-
ing-empathizing theory
as a framework for more
fully understanding, de-
fining and implementing
design-thinking practices.
Empathizing–systemizing theory can be best un-
derstood as a spectrum along which people may be
classified on the basis of their scores for strength of
interest in empathy and systems. Here, empathiz-
ing is defined as the drive to identify others’ mental
states in order to predict their behavior and respond
with an appropriate emotion, while systemizing is
defined as the drive to analyze a system in terms of
the rules that govern the system, in order to predict
its behavior. 1. Developed by Simon Baron-Cohen,
empathizing-systemizing theory has been proven to
be an excellent predictor of students who choose
STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering and Math-
ematics) and the Humanities. Findings suggest that
individuals in the sciences possess a cogni-
tive style that is more systemizing
driven than empathizing-driv-
en, whereas individuals in
humanities possess a
cognitive style that is
much more empathiz-
ing-driven than sys-
temizing driven.
Men and women
have been found
to differ in their
systemizing–em-
pathizing cogni-
tive style. Men
have consistent-
ly been shown
to be stronger
in systemizing
and women are
stronger in empa-
thizing. 2 Recent
findings of a longitudinal study suggest that the sex
differences in empathizing and systemizing are bio-
logical. Fetal testosterone (FT) has been determined
to be a candidate biological factor influencing empa-
thizing and systemizing. 3 Electroencephalography
(EEG) investigations in human subjects verify a dif-
ferent hemispheric organization in men and women
during the creative thinking process. Men tend to
use smaller, more focused areas of the brain, while
women’s brain activity is more topographically ex-
panded, suggesting that women have a more natu-
ral affinity for divergent thinking. 4
Design thinking is currently defined as a formal
methodology that combines empathy, creativity
and rationality. Historically, the traditionally female
domain of empathizing and its associated occupa-
tions have always been undervalued. In the world of
making however, empathy is the first dictate of the
design thinking methodology. Empathy is the nec-
essary antecedent for all design innovation. The de-
sign process requires a predisposition for empathy
to listen for and fully understand user needs, so that
one may clearly articulate and define complex prob-
lems. Empathetic listening will always be a critical
part of the creative process upon which every good
design solution relies. There are clear parallels be-
tween Baron-Cohen’s empathizing dichotomy and
the empathy in Design Thinking methodology. Ev-
idence would also seem to also suggest a connec-
tion between a preference for empathizing and di-
vergent thinking.
Rationality is the final of the three Design Thinking
methodologies and is defined as the act of analyzing
and fitting various solutions to a problem context.
5 Creative Thinking rationality shares parallels with
our understanding of convergent thinking and offers
many similarities to the Baron-Cohen definition of
systemizing as an opposing dimension to empathizing.
Creativity falls in the middle of the Design Think-
ing three-step methodology. It is characterized as
a phase where the clear understanding of a design
problem can be now be responded to with a messy
iterative process of back and forth prototyping; with
multiple failures generating further insight and solu-
tion. This phase requires a mental fluidity between
both empathizing and systemizing styles of thinking
and outlines the importance of cultivating aware-
ness for the value of holistic thinking in young de-
sign students. Fluency in both empathizing and sys-
temizing cognitive thinking styles is essential to the
success of the design thinking process. A better un-
derstanding of Baron-Cohen’s theory can help ed-
ucators and designers cultivate awareness, identi-
fy individual proclivities, inspire new approaches to
teaching and encourage the development of tools
that address deficits, potentially stimulating areas
of weakness.
As the last phase of the creative thinking process,
systemizing and its closely related occupations are
much more directly linked to the output of tangible
products. Because the fruit of systemized thinking is
more tangible and quantifiable, it readily lends itself
to an assignment of greater economic value. Inher-
ent in this phenomenon is the possibility that long
ingrained gender discrimination also factors into
our culture’s tendency to value systemizing thinking
over empathizing thinking. It is this author’s hope
that a better appreciation and understanding of em-
pathizing-systemizing theory will lead to a reevalua-
tion of the economic inequities associated with these
realms and foster a greater appreciation for the role
that empathy plays in the process of making. References
1. Baron-Cohen, S, Knickmeyer, R, & Belmonte, M (2005)
Sex differences in the brain: implications for explaining
autism. Science, 310, 819-823.
2. Farah Focquaert et.al., “Empathizing and systemizing
cognitive traits in the sciences and humanities”
Personality and Individual Differences 43 (2007) 619–625
3. Knickmeyer, R, Baron-Cohen, S, Raggatt, P & Taylor, K
(2006) Foetal testosterone and empathy. Hormones &
Behaviour, 49, 282-292.
4. Razumnikova OM (2004) “Gender differences in
hemispheric organization during divergent thinking: an
EEG investigation in human subjects.”Neuroscience
Letters 2004 May 27;362(3):193-5.
5. Tom Kelley and Dave Kelley, Creative Confidence, Crown
Business, 2013, 19-20.
Outcome
A methodology for the second phase of this
study has been arrived at and will be conducted
as follows: A research survey will collect data to
map design skill preferences along the Empa-
thizing Quotient (EQ) and Systemizing Quotient
(SQ) spectrums. This data will also be compared
with general demographic information collect-
ed in this survey. Survey questions and keys for
calculating Empathizing Quotient (EQ) and Sys-
temizing (SQ) in Parts 2 and 3 of this survey have
been provided by the Autism Research Centre,
Department of Developmental Psychiatry at the
University of Cambridge, UK. The results of this
study have implications for the design and en-
gineering disciplines, as well for the fields of
cognitive psychology and gender studies. In de-
sign and engineering education, this knowledge
could lead to the development of new approach-
es. Professionally, this knowledge could serve
to engender appreciation and help quantify the
value that different cognitive styles bring to the
design process. This knowledge could lead to the
cultivation a more holistic creative process for
both the individual and interdisciplinary work-
ing teams.
Findings
Methodology
This poster presentation represents the first of a two phase study. This first
phase is comprised of a literature review and discovery of existing methods to
be tested on the target demographic in a second phase.
Hypothesis
for this Study
H1 Empathizing Systemizing Theo-
ry can be shown to provide a
framework for understanding
Design Thinking methodology.
H2 Designers with high EQ scores
will show a preference for de-
sign skills requiring empa-
thy and students with high SQ
scoreswillshowapreferencefor
design skills requiring system-
izing thinking. Designers who
show balanced EQ-SQ scores
will show preferences for skills
across the spectrum.
Empathy
DesignThinking Methodogy
Empathizing-Systemizing Spectrums
Rationality
Empathizing Systemizing
Creativity