Stuck on details instead of seeing the whole picture.

Post Reply New Topic

In science one of the problems I have is getting stuck on the words because they're so wonderful - Deoxyribonucleic Acid, homozygous, heterozygous, alleles, Golgi apparatus, ribosomes - there's so many beautiful words in science, but they're distracting at the same time. I care more about labelling the thing than finding out what it actually does.

Another situation where my focus on detail is noticeable is at the movies. I can get stuck on the pattern on the curtains in the background, or become fascinated with the beads of sweat on a characters skin and completely miss major events which are vital to understanding the plot. This is why I hate action movies. All the action detracts from the pleasure of looking at an interesting pile of rubble in the corner.

Think about it. We are much more discerning with information and we do not quickly make assumptions in order to save time.
Yes this slows you down in some ways, but you end up with more thorough working knowledge and more competent.

Yes!
x1000


People always tell me I explain things in too much detail, but when I ask them to explain to me what I just explained to them, they have no clue where to start.
I think with complex subjects the NT's ego just convinces them that they understand things that they really do not understand. It saves them from the reality of feeling stupid.

My perspective on this comes from being an artist not a scientist - for an artist it is important to see both the detail and the big picture. You need to imagine the finished picture in your minds eye and then divide it into the minutist detail and proceed. Step back from your work and look at it and then go back up close etc. A bit like a jigsaw puzzle - small pieces make up the whole. Saying that I certainly miss the big picture in other areas of life.

I don't think I ever needed my parents to explain rules and I hardly ever (if ever) got in trouble since I was very concerned with following the rules. I liked rules and I followed them and didn't like it when people broke them. My siblings have told me I was like a little policeman at home, making sure they followed the rules as well. I'm still very rule-following (if the rules make sense to me, which they do most of the time) and I still get annoyed when rules are broken.



I hope you're right. I don't think anyone else thinks I'm stupid (people often tell me I'm smart etc.), but I tend to think so myself.

I can either get the big picture or the little details, but I can never grasp both simultaneously. Which one I tend to lean towards seeing usually depends on the subject matter.

I can totally relate to what Raleigh was saying, as well, about noticing the tiniest details in movies, and missing the dialogue, etc. Sara Jessica Parker was on "Project Runway", one time, and I didn't hear a WORD she said because of the mole on her chin!! LOL Thank GOODNESS I was watching it on DVD!!

Yes, the neurotypical notion of understanding does not come close to the autistic notion of understanding, in particular when it comes to understanding complex systems, i.e. systems that contain feedback loops. Two kinds of feedback loops in social-ecological systems are often ignored, and largely beyond the grasp of the neurotypical mind:

1. Feedbacks across different levels of scale, and
2. Feedbacks between ecological and social systems.

Here is a short video clip that introduces the basic concept of feedback loops and that makes this observation https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sOmRob-7xM

The neurotypical disposition automatically focuses almost exclusively on the social aspect. In this context, note that the neurotypical notion of social relates primarily to rank and status in society rather than to society and its organisation.

Last edited by jbw on 24 Sep 2014, 2:55 pm, edited 1 time in total.

The NTs I know don't have problems understanding complex systems, as they study complex systems of nature.

It comes down to the level of depth of understanding. From my perspective understanding implies the construction of an explicit [formal] model that explains the behaviour of a system, and beyond that, it implies always considering the system in context, at the next bigger and smaller levels of scale. It is the latter that is often neglected.

As a result, many otherwise excellent researchers, some of whom may well even have autistic traits, are stuck in a mental silo.

Perhaps the ability to move up and down in levels of scale, and to notice not only the links within each layer, but also the links between layers is related to a very particular thinking style that a subset of autistics are practicing.

The NTs I know can also switch between different levels, understanding the details and the big picture.
I would say they are faster than me at getting the big picture and particularly much bester at verbalizing the big picture.
And I am much bester at getting and keeping track of the small details and making disparate connections that are not obvious.

When I was a child and early teen I did focus on details and have trouble seeing the big picture. I was often told that I had no common sense, and others often pointed out the existence of a bigger picture, or the next level of a system.
My assumption was that they (NTs) had mastered both the small details AND the understanding of the bigger picture, and that I was still working on mastering the small details.

Later in life after I was better at considering bigger pictures and larger systems, I realized that those NTs had not mastered either the details or the big picture. All they knew was that there was a big picture, and had learned some "short cut" (learned from others) to skip over having to learn anything meaningful about the small details. They really didn't have what I would consider a functional understanding of either level of a system.

However, they considered themselves as having enough understanding so as to accomplish tasks in such a way that was acceptable to others around them.
That's what they considered functional.

They really never had any use for my more detailed understanding, or my wider understanding that came later.
I've often heard said regarding this "Why would I worry about all of that?" or "you think too much"

People are generally annoyed if/when you point out something that they had not noticed, or that they did not understand about something. It offends or generates some kind of fear in their identity.

It seems to me that NTs filter everything through their identities, and a part of that pressures them into taking the shortest path (efficient) to understanding something, so that the identity can collect the greatest reward for the least amount of effort. This reward doesn't come from having the most thorough or functional understanding of something. It comes from how your understanding rates in comparison to others around you, and so speed is essential. Their identity wants them to be first.

From my perspective, first never mattered to me, and my reward was having a functional understanding of something that I could then use as a tool to solve other problems.

I did notice that the more NT people around me don't want to put forth as much effort to analyze research data as the more autistic people around me. Most of the people around me are neither super NT or super autistic, but like BAP in the middle, with some NTs on one side and some HFAs on the other.

I get stuck on details sometimes, but more often I have the opposite problem: I get stuck on the big picture and can't narrow in on the details.

Yeah, the problem I had was that a lot of their rules didn't make any sense to me (and still don't) and that's why I needed an explanation, whereas my other brothers would just listen anyway. I didn't understand the whole authority thing, I felt like they should listen to me because I was trying to show them they were wrong, which I thought they would appreciate. They didn't. It's annoying, because looking back I now know that many concerns I had were valid, but they never listened. They would frequently try to explain it by giving some strange analogy, at which point I'd become more focused on the details of their analogy rather than the original issue, and point out all the flaws in it. That's why they'd say I was over-analyzing and missing the point. Like one time they said, "You make your own bed, so sleep in it." I was so confused and asked them what that was supposed to mean. They said it meant, "You make your own choices, so you have to live with them." To me that makes no sense as a comparison, and I pointed that out, which just got me in more trouble.

The rules that made sense I had no problem with, but if they didn't have any good reason I'd get pretty annoyed, and a lot of them didn't (like not being allowed to watch Phineas and Ferb even when I was 17; still don't understand that one, and the only explanation I got is that my step mom didn't find it entertaining so that meant nobody can watch it).

I understand what you mean. It was different for me though. I think I was pretty naive when I was younger (I still am sometimes), which really messed things up for me sometimes, so I just kind of followed the rules no matter what they were. Also, I've never had a problem with authority. I've always respected people in authority (parents, teachers, doctors, law enforcers etc. etc.). Still do.

As I've gotten older I've learned to not accept everything right away (I've always over-analyzed and over-thought things, just not rules). Instead I'm now a very skeptical person, but still rule-following if the rules make sense to me (which, like I said, most of them do).

(Yes, I like parentheses.)