Are the autism and positive schizotypy spectra diametrically opposed in empathizing and systemizing?

Researchers asked 200 college students to fill out three paper-and-pencil surveys. One survey measured autism-like traits, another measured schizotypy traits, and the third measured empathy and systemizing skills.

The team then looked for opposite patterns: they expected students high in autism traits to score low in empathy and high in systemizing, while students high in positive schizotypy traits should show the reverse pattern.

The data showed no clear opposite pattern. Students with more autism traits did not consistently score low in empathy or high in systemizing.

Likewise, students with more positive schizotypy traits did not consistently score high in empathy or low in systemizing. The predicted mirror-image relationship simply did not appear.

Three years earlier, the same lab had found the opposite result. Dolezal et al. (2010) showed that students with autism-like traits spotted hidden shapes faster, while students with schizotypy traits were slower. That study supported the diametric model; the new one does not.

Dziobek et al. (2008) helps explain the mismatch. They tested adults with Asperger syndrome and found low cognitive empathy but normal emotional empathy. If empathy has parts, a single score can hide the real picture.

Boxum et al. (2018) adds that theory-of-mind skill, not general executive function, links most strongly to autism symptom severity. This suggests empathy gaps are specific, not broad, which may explain why the 2013 survey failed to find clean opposite profiles.

When you screen or plan social-skills training, do not assume autism and schizotypy sit on a simple see-saw. Use separate tools for cognitive and emotional empathy, and treat each trait dimension on its own. If a client shows both autism-like and schizotypy features, expect mixed rather than opposite cognitive scores, and tailor your teaching to the specific pattern you see.