I got 27/45 (60%) when answering based on my analysis of the relationships of the statements.
Then I tried simply answering based on my personal answers to the statements (i.e. if I said true to both statements or false to both statements - I clicked directly related, if I said true to one, and false to the other, I clicked inversly related. You can't pick the middle option with this approach). Then I got 21/45.
Finallly, clicking unrelated to all statements scores you 13. So in my second approach I scored 21/32 (66%). Not a meaningfully different result.
28/45, better than the results 77% of the other test-takers. I found this test actually very interesting. Thanks for sharing
Edit: seeing the responses in this thread...hmm. It seemed pretty clear what they were trying to capture. They asked a large sample of people to qualify these statement as related, unrelated or inversely related. These people, although unique snowflakes, produced a statistically significant trend in how they categorised the above. Then, when you take the test, your results are aiming to capture two dimensions, 1. How well your subjective evaluation can pick up on/align with, the trend of the masses in how they subjectively assigned values to the statements, (basically, can you monitor your own subjective feelings, as well as, others....or are you way off in your own isolated island unto yourself)?
2. How well you do 1. compared to others taking this test.
Your score from emotional intelligence is 30/45. This is better than 91.7146% of people that have taken this test.
I pretty much broke down in my head...that if both A. and B. are use of a judement function they're relatable....if it's got to do with extraverting as A. and judgerness as B. for example they have nothing to do with each other. "shrugs" good enough. This btw is not an EQ test. There is an actual way that you can be tested for EQ this is just based on trying to predict things others will do...where EQ is how you emotionally react to something...but whateves.