Autism simulator...

Post Reply New Topic

Same here, AmberEyes!

Oh dear.

This sounds like the plot for a reality TV show: "I'm a Normal Person get me out of here!"

Now all we need to do is find some zany presenters to cap the whole thing off.
Might be seen by some as being in very bad taste, but I suppose it wouldn't be as bad as some of the horrendous junk that's currently broadcast on TV though...



Interesting.

That would explain a lot.
It's about time I faced up to who I really am.

Sadly, someone who focuses on details first instead of people would suffer social stigma from people who focus on people first.

However if someone focusses on people first, there's no social stigma because focussing on people is social.

No wonder there was so much misunderstanding!

Neither my friend's view nor my view is "wrong" or "right" they are just opposite perceptive extremes.
They are different perspectives.
Different operating systems of the brain.

Now I've got to try and find a workaround solution to my quirk so that I can talk to people...

I can still talk to people and stuff but I find objects a lot more interesting them people and I certainly notice things like huge TVs and computers before people!

So do I.

I suppose that this kind of behaviour is more acceptable in boys.

Unfortunately because I'm female, people often take this the wrong way and believe that there's something "wrong" with me.

Culturally it seems that boys are expected to focus on physical objects first while girls are expected to focus on people first.

My brain has somehow just violated that rule.
Hence people call me anti-social even when I do really care.

I certainly understand that would be annoying.

People still think I'm weird when I run to the computer instead of talking to people, but that's a different thing entirely really.

I remember being on a fieldtrip where my class was instructed to explore the environment by ourselves first then report back on what we'd seen. I loved this exercise. Now I realised why because the exercise was:

1) Explore and focus on the physical environment

2) Respond to the question: "What did you observe?" asked by the leader.

This method could be viewed as inductive reasoning.

Needless to say, I did very well in that exercise!
It matches my priority queue.


Most field trip exercises, however, aren't like this. Most exercises are as follows:

1) Get into groups, warm up and have a discussion. Learn about the physical environment by listening to other people who tell you what you "should" be seeing.

2) Observe and record the physical environment, making sure that your interpretations are influenced by the theories discussed in part 1).

This method could be viewed as deductive reasoning.

I wonder if simulators for different kinds of minds are already around us.

I believe that these simulators maybe in such as fictional writing and the visual arts.
I wonder if people's different interpretations of the world through expressive media could give insights into people's personalities/perception of the world and therefore their neurological operating systems.

I wonder if personification, pathetic fallacy and anthropomorphism could by related to an extreme personality type or specific neurobiological process in the brain.

Could extreme personalities/minds be responsible for producing extreme artwork?

I've noticed also that "repetitive rituals" such as repeating experiments to check for validity are common in the scientific method. There's also a preoccupation with how things work mechanically and asking the question: "Why?". I've also noticed that many scientific papers (particularly older ones) are written in the passive voice. I've been told that this was to distance the experimenter from the experiment and make the results seem impartial. I wonder if all the strict codes of conduct and rules could be the product of extreme minds.