Why does science appeal to autistics?

Post Reply New Topic

Science appeals to autistics because we're smart and science is awesome.

ADDENDUM:

(Correction/edit from previous post): It's especially notable and funny when 'The Big Bang Theory' portrays situations of Neurotypical environments.

The producers of the 'The Big Bang Theory' thoughtfully downplayed Aspergers, and yielded a terrific comedy (see LINK).

If something like 'The Big Bang Theory' combined both drama, and comedy, neurotypical situations would have been portrayed as more of an art, and less mentions of science; as neurotypical situations would clearly treat detailed science descriptions as "over people's heads!" The 2009 movie 'ADAM' is one good example.

* To answer the topic's question of why science appeals to people on the Autism spectrum: Science provides that "anchor of sorts" for people on the spectrum i.e., the sciences apply classifying, mapping, describing the phenomenon that underlies all of life; that is classifying can be that natural trait for people on the spectrum.

'The Big Bang Theory' TV-show exaggerates just how the sciences act as that "anchor of sorts" - even in neurotypical situations.

LINK: Review of TV-series 'The Big Bang Theory' - New York Times - 'Exploring the Complexities of Nerdiness for Laughs'
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/27/science/27bang.html

It strives towards the truth. Unlike religion.

When it is wrong, it can change. Unlike religion.

I went back to university recently. It's had an amazing effect on everything: happiness, executive funtioning, mental sharpness, ability to talk to people.

It of course depends what the costs are, but the way I think, studying is never wrong.

Doesn't it appeal to NTs as well? I know autistis like collecting information but the purpose of science goes far beyond that and so science is for everyone.

Science appeals to autistic people because DINO FIGHTS!! !

Roar! Dinosaurs!

DINOSAURS

When I remarked that I found practical scientific problems more comfortable and easier to solve than interpersonal problems, I was told that it's probably because I can take a screwdriver to science problems, and experiment on them, but that can't be done with people.

I like the pressure towards honesty and flawless thinking that science gives. I get very fixated on technique-scouting, where I try out ways of solving a problem until I find one that does the job well, thus adding to the list of clever and maybe useful things I can do well. It's also a good feeling when I can pass on the methods to other people, which costs me nothing. I guess I define myself fairly strongly as having a lot of rare technical skills at my fingertips. When I see evidence that I'm getting somewhere with my researches, it's hard for me to feel mentally disabled.

Science is a good place for pathological honesty, pattern-recognition skills, noticing things others don't, repetitive processing of data, hyperfocus, and obsessional interest, and social ineptitude isn't a direct barrier to doing good science, it's only an indirect barrier in that I'm not all that good at communicating with other people so I miss out on a lot of guidance that could save me from re-inventing the wheel.

Yeah! Whenever anything is framed in terms of “point of view” (unless you’re literally talking about visual perspective ) or “opinion”, you can tell the rest of the conversation is going to be a complete waste of time. Unfortunately, the only acceptable way to hold any conversation with normal people seems to be to make every effort to ensure it is, in fact, a pristine, immaculate, chemically pure waste of time.



I think science could be defined as the only human activity not ultimately based on bullying. That’s why I find it so amazing that it’s managed to exist at all.



Congrats!

I only learned very late in life for something so simple that people really hate it if you think you’re better than them at anything, and they couldn’t care less why you do. Also, the way they prove you’re not is by beating you up, and the audience usually agrees enthusiastically that this is indeed what proves who is better. Again, natural selection: it doesn’t matter who is right, but who is left.

I always come back to this quote (usually attributed to Richard Feynman, but there is some dispute about that.)
"I prefer to have questions that cannot be answered than answers that cannot be questioned."

That's a fantastic quote. I wish I had come up with that.

I think he also said something about not having a mind so open that your brains fall off. By the way, as any mathematician will tell you, an empty mind is both open and closed.

I was about to say my favorite Feynman quote is the one about the Feynman point, but it looks like it’s since been declared likely spurious:

So let’s take a deep breath, and …

… and so on!

I don't really get it either. I'm bad at science(I'm worse in some sciences than others) but I s#cked at about all the major requried skewl subjects due to learning disabilities. I'm not that great witch technology either. I mentioned Aspergers/Autism on dating sites for a bit & every women who messaged me was hopping I was some rich guy in the IT field & they quit chatting 1ce I told em I wasn't.

I love pharmacology because it's so interesting to learn how the body works and how it can be altered by external substances, including food. For some reason, I've always been better at subjects I discovered on my own (such as pharmacology and philosophy) and bad at subjects I was forced to do, such as maths (where my grandmother forced me to take extra lessons every evening after school and on weekends). I've read that this is common in autism: autistic people are good at subjects they find by themselves but can be notoriously difficult to teach formally.

Science also appeals to autistics because prehistoric whales are cool.