Context Blindness or Something Else?

Post Reply New Topic

I came across this article on Parallel Processing based on the theory of "Caetextia : A new definition of autism and Asperger’s by Joe Griffin and Ivan Tyrrell. I haven't read the article in it's entirety yet, and my intention for starting this thread is not to argue for or against the validity of their theory, but to ask your opinion on whether an example they give of Context Blindness could be something other than that.

Link to article if you care to read it: Caetextia

This example is followed by a comment by the authors:


IMO, the woman in question may be fully aware of the context, and fully aware that she has other choices than never seeing her mother again, but because dishonesty is something she is not comfortable with, especially with her mother, who seems to be the most significant other in her life, she would prefer to never see her mother again than lie to her, or to attend mass just to keep up appearances. Maybe the daughter's belief that her decision to become a Buddhist would so estrange her from her mother that it would be tantamount to "dropping off the face of the earth" in her mother's mind at least, as it would create a kind of eternal separation by ruling out the chances of the two of them meeting again in heaven.

She would find it more honorable to remove herself from her mother's life entirely than hurt her or cause her to have a stroke or heart attack or some other extreme reaction to the news. She probably knows that she has the option to be phony. superficial, hypocritical and play the game of being a good daughter and a good Catholic, but would prefer not to. She probably knows full well that it is possible for people of different religions to live together and love each other, but she also knows full well that her mother is not one of those people.

Why do people think that Aspies or Auties make certain choices or hold certain beliefs because they don't know any better, or don't have the information necessary to make "better" choices (better in whose opinion?) when in fact, the choices made or beliefs held may actually be more honorable, more humane, more intelligent, etc.? and serve a higher purpose than what is obvious to the majority of typically minded people. It's a commonly held belief that Aspies focus on details and don't grasp the whole picture. I say Aspies see a much bigger picture than most ordinary people can ever imagine. But because most people cannot grasp the enormity of that picture they assume it doesn't exist and is some kind of pie in the sky, or pipe dream.

It's sometimes actually very useful to be context blind.

It means that you're open to details and connections that others ignore.

If you're blind to social contexts, you can see how unrelated topics and ideas could be linked together. This is the source of innovation and creativity. In order to innovate, social taboos sometimes have to be altered, ignored or a new social context devised to accommodate the new invention or idea.

People might be frightened of new ideas and inventions if these break pre-established taboos or social mores.

If you're trying to solve a problem, it can sometimes be unhelpful to be tied to social mores and contexts. Social contexts tie you down to old ways of doing things.

Being context blind frees your mind up to new possibilities, however, you pay the price of people becoming angry with you because you are oblivious to social contexts.

What about inter-disciplinary studies? You have to be at least a little bit context blind to be able to link an idea in art with one in mathematics, for example.

Everything is interconnected and linked. People place topics and ideas into subjects and departments for social convenience. Go to non-western cultures and there are different social boundaries and constructs.


Recently, I've been having thoughts that cross the boundaries between the arts and the sciences. I know that I could never ever study some of the combined ideas I come up with in a conventional course. This makes me feel a little lonely and left out at times. I'm excited by these combine ideas, but I'm afraid to tell them to anyone, because they won't take me seriously. They see the world in nice neat little social boxes and become wary if someone suggests the idea that the boxes are arbitrary.

I always thought that there were infinite possibilities, ways of doing things and complexity in the world. This is why I feel depressed when I see others blindly following old thinking pattern or conforming just because everyone else is.

I see the big picture of intense and intricate complexity in the world.
I see the big picture of the atmosphere of how whole group is feeling at a gathering.
I see the big picture from an outsider's perspective of how people follow fads and trends.
I'm open to different solutions and talking with lots of different kinds of people.




I've always been told that I have a very strong sense of self and excellent self awareness. I know exactly what all my strengths and weaknesses are. I have a good idea of how I think and what I like doing. I think that I have a very strong internal sense of self.

However, it's using these internally acquired skills and applying them to social situations that's the main issue. Hence, I might be judged as having a poor external sense of self if the social environment is unfavourable.

It's a shame that this article neglects this idea of an internal sense of self and seems to confuse how one presents oneself and integrates with the outside social world, with how one knows one's own mind. These are two different things I feel.

I have learned to use the word 'I' to define my own experience.
I think that self awareness can to some extent be developed and learned if one is willing to put the effort in.

I feel insecure not because I have a 'poor sense of self', but because the social world is moving too fast for me to keep up.


Most text written in the passive voice never refers to my, you, or I to try and prevent bias. I was asked to write in the passive voice for many science assignments.
Does the detached style of the passive voice indicate a diminished sense of self?
In order to conduct a scientific investigation, does the experimenter have to lose his sense of self in order to write a good report?

Maybe a dumb question but what does not being able to process a complex social situation and the options for your behavior, have to do with "context blindness"? I always assumed that "context blindness" means taking communication literally or always understanding the meaning used in one particular situation (like "jealousy means my sister gets candy and I don't", to use a very simplistic example).

AmberEyes. I am so glad that you get it.

As for writing in the passive voice being meant to prevent bias. Of course it prevents bias. of course it's meant to. It also prevents and is meant to prevent the delivery and acceptance of new, fascinating and innovate ideas. It is also quite boring. Would anyone be fascinated with reading Carl Jung, or Sigmund Freud if they wrote in the passive voice. (even if psychoanalytic theory is not your cup of tea, but why then would you bother to read it unless you were forced or required?) No great ideas ever become what they have the potential to become if they are presented in a detached and passive voice. Do movers and shakers use a passive voice?

I understand that in Academia one must be careful not to step on toes or be prepared to accept the consequences. Especially if one is in research, the mind games that go on there must be unbearable at times. They laughed and ostracized many of our greatest thinkers, it's the pecking order after all. But I think a great mind can not be strapped down. Eventually it will break the bonds and say "Enough!"




Not a dumb question at all, Changling. In the example that the authors gave they claimed that the woman was not seeing everything that she should be seeing, in other words, she was blinded, or wearing blinders that kept her from seeing the whole picture and thus limiting herself to one choice only because she didn't have all of the information she needed to make better choices. She was hung up and focusing on, so they claim, only one facet of the whole which was removed from its context of the whole. And this hang-up on a part of the whole is, according to them, context blindness.

I say, not necessarily so. Possibly, but not necessarily. She may have had an even greater perception of the whole than the average person, especially since she was closer to the situation than the authors or researchers who interviewed her, and certainly closer to any of us who can only speculate, which is what I am, we are, doing right now. I'm suggesting that she knew very well what her options were, and made an informed decision that removing herself from her mother's life was unavoidable, or in the best interest of both of them for reasons that she only could know, and others only speculate on. So, that is why I question the validity of claiming that her decision was the result of "context blindness."

The example you gave about your sister getting candy and you not getting candy and the resulting jealousy on your part would be considered a case of you demonstrating context blindness only if you didn't understand why she got candy when the answer should have been or would have been obvious to you. However, how could a child be expected to understand the whole picture in this instance unless it was explained and made clear to them. I would say you had every right to be jealous under these circumstances. If your parents had said, "Your sister is getting candy because she finished her dinner. You are not getting candy because you didn't finish your dinner. Finish your dinner and then you too can have candy" By telling you this you would have access to the whole picture and wouldn't have to speculate or get hung up on the single detail of unfairness. If you continued to not understand why you were not getting candy, you might rightly be demonstrating the inability to see the whole picture - or context blindness.

But then again, suppose this kind of thing happened all the time with your parents favoring your sister and giving her things that they didn't give you out of some kind of perverted meanness. Then all the explanations in the world are not going to keep you from feeling deprived and jealous. This would indicate that you had superior or keener knowledge of the situation and then your feelings of being deprived, unloved, jealous would be justified and you would not be displaying context blindness but enhanced ability to perceive the truth that was being buried under lies. A truer form of the whole picture.

Sorry if this sounds pedantic. Who me?

Last edited by cosmiccat on 14 Oct 2009, 4:49 pm, edited 2 times in total.

This is an interesting topic, but I honestly don't buy it, at least not in the example given of the buddhist lady and her catholic mother. If this were between a buddhist lady and someone she's only known a short while, sure, but between her and her mother? No way. She obviously has "too much context" if she's decided she can never see her mother again. Chances are, she's over-thought her mother's reaction, based on erroneous or unrelated information.

Now, in the case of random other people, I can see a case for ASD people to lack context for interactions with them. For one thing, there truly is NO context, in the first place. Well, ok, so maybe there's a little. If the stranger is around the same age, same gender, same background, there's certainly SOME context there. In addition, people with ASD often (all the time?) feel that they "don't fit in". Thus, they don't have a good sense of context. In this case, I totally see what the paper is trying to say, and if they would have used a different example, I'd agree a lot more.

I saw a computer science-related paper a while ago, where someone tried to define a person with autism as having a different "kernel" with which they recognize patterns in their environment, compared to most people. It was very heavily influenced by machine learning theory. It suggested that autistic people have a Gaussian kernel, whereas most people have a Cauchy kernel. The difference is that the Gauss structure is more narrowly-focused, with less tolerance for outliers, whereas the Cauchy curve is more evenly-distributed, with great tolerance for outliers. Thus, autism could be defined, to a degree, by its tolerance of outliers. I've got some ideas on how one could measure such things, but I've got plenty of other research that needs to be done before I go around testing some theory I saw on an unpublished paper on the internet. Plus, I don't really buy that theory completely, either, but it would be pretty easy to test.

LOL that researcher didn't even consider the possibility that Buddhism might teach not to lie. He's like: "why be a good Budhist if you can be a fake one?"

*rushes to toilet*

Other huge chunks of context he's blind to:

1. The actual problem in the mother-daughter relationship is one of power imbalance. The one that cares less for the relationship in any relationship is therefore the one with the more power. Instead of the mother having to convert to Buddhism fakedly, the daughter has to fake Christianity. Because the daughter is more sensitive to the end of the relationship, she's the one who has to bend.

2. Someone who faces ostracism due to their life choices is naturally resentful. The daughter probably finds it easier, at least at a first stage, to have no contact with the mother, than if the mother hadn't ostracized her for her life choices. The ostracism is a huge factor here.

This is a very good possibility, Tommyq. She may have been obsessing over how she imagined her mother would react, and not only could this over-thought be bases on erroneous or unrelated information, but also on accurate information that she was in denial about or did not wish to share with the researchers. They do not take into account or make known psychological conditions that might be compounding her ASD.

Actually they do give other examples, but frankly, the other examples leave a lot to be desired, or one would need more context (haha) to be able to see how they represent examples of context blindness.

paraphrasing: Aspie male and NT spouse are preparing to celebrate wedding anniversary. Spouse gives hubby a box of chocolates and says "You can eat the whole box while I go upstairs to change." Wife comes down and finds hubby eating the box that the chocolates were in.

Pretty ridiculous. Maybe. Maybe not.
Questions that come to mind:

1. What level was this individual functioning at?
2. Was he deliberately playing a joke on his wife to emphasize his tendency to take her words literally.
3. Was the box an edible box? Not entirely out of the realm of possibilities.
4. Did he need fiber?
5. Was the box tastier than the candy?


I would like to learn more about the "kernal"theory and tolerance for outliers . It sounds fascinating. Gaussian vs Cauchy. Very Sci-Fi. I hope you tell us more about it when you get a chance.

Yes. So very un-zen of him.



Very good insight, Greentea. So the only way the daughter can gain power, or over power the mother is to change her religion and move away. Or keep bending till she can't stand up straight anymore. I think I know what choice most healthy people would make. Get out while you still can. The relationship is not healthy, but the choice to make a clean break is a lot healthier than the options that the researcher's suggest.




I agree. Much easier to remove oneself than be ostracized by another, especially one's own mother. Another thought I had about this relationship is that the daughter desperately wants to get away from the mother but will not admit it to herself without great guilt. She probably really does not want to hurt her mother, but her survival instinct is greater than her desire to not hurt her mother. Another healthy sign I think.

Last edited by cosmiccat on 14 Oct 2009, 5:47 pm, edited 2 times in total.

We have a problem here that many children won't eat at their parents' table anymore once they've "returned to the answer" (meaning: become orthodox Jews). This causes horrible suffering for the parents, it's like losing a child in certain ways, there's bereavement and it's a serious social problem here. That researcher would've probably not understood why we consider it a social problem in this country. He would've said that we're 6 millions of Aspies here, because we don't see the context and go to our parents' house and eat pork at their tables after we've returned to the answer. Now that I've stopped laughing, I see this as very serious and sad that he didn't respect her new religious beliefs, let alone see them at all.

All I'm gleaning from this thread is more evidence of religion's destructive and divisive worthlessness.

Well, I really can't give much more information than what's in his paper. You can find it here. I also found a paper discussing a similar topic to context blindness here. Maybe they're related?

Anyway, as far as the Gaussian/Cauchy kernel subject goes, most human processes fit a bell curve. If you were to count the number of steps it takes you to walk around the block your house is on for several days, you would get roughly a bell curve, where most days you take "x" number of steps, with a variability of plus or minus "y", the standard deviation, of course. The hypothesis implicitly states that an autistic individual is willing to tolerate a much smaller standard deviation than most people.

Supposing that 500 steps are about average, most people probably wouldn't bat an eyelid at taking 100 fewer or too many, some day. An autistic individual would practically break down, trying to figure out how they could possibly have made such a huge difference, likely leading to making a change in the whole "walking the block" process, in order to constrain their solutions to some reasonable (in their mind) possible deviation.

Of course, this is just a trivial example, and I can't really say I believe the hypothesis. He certainly doesn't offer anything other than anecdotal evidence in his paper, but it is interesting to think about, especially if it were true. I've done research with both data mining and eye tracking in my research, so I could imagine having a set of subjects perform some visual task ("watch this movie" or something), in which visual artifacts were embedded. If the hypothesis were true, autistic individuals would pick up on more of the artifacts faster than non-autistic individuals, and we could see that by watching their eye movements.

Interesting to ponder, eh?

Quoting Tommyg

Yes, very. Thanks.

Cosmiccat:

Thank you very much for posting the link. I just listened to Griffin's talk and found the discovery of the brain's default network fascinating. The paper on that subject referred to in the talk is here, although I have yet to read it.

Although useful, I doubt that Griffin's autism theory gets to the root of the matter. I keep wondering if Markram's Intense World approach might eventually be fruitful.here

It also doesn't occur to a lot of other people in the world either!

Wouldn't it be fantastic if everyone in the world followed this John Lennon ideal?

Wouldn't it be brilliant if Karma was finally achieved and everyone could be at peace?

There'd be a lot less pain and suffering in the world.

Wouldn't it be great if people stopped saying 'My God is better than your God.' or even 'Not having a God is better than your God.' and they could all sit down nicely, have a nice chat and accept their different beliefs?

There wouldn't be any more wars over beliefs and religion.
People would no longer be disowned from their families.
People would no longer be bullied, killed or ostracised (even by family members) for having different beliefs from each other.

Wouldn't it be brilliant if people could marry who they wanted and could marry someone of a different culture or religion without their families disapproving.

There are many parts of the world/cultures where being a different religion to one's family would be considered unthinkable and deviant. I honestly wouldn't be surprised if many people had kept their beliefs or actions quiet for fear of upsetting the relatives and for their own self preservation.

I don't like to sound pessimistic, but I think that there are going to be disagreements over beliefs and religions for a long time to come, that's if the history of the world is anything to go by.

I think that this whole, 'Let's all get along and accept everyone else's beliefs.' is a wonderful idea, it's just really tricky to put into practice. People tend to see inconsistencies between each other's beliefs and start having arguments, which is a great pity.

Last edited by AmberEyes on 15 Oct 2009, 10:48 am, edited 1 time in total.

I used to be like this.
I used to be able to repeat things ad vertibam exactly.
I've lost some of this skill over the years though.
This rote memorisation skill is excellent for memorising prayers, songs for karaoke, speeches and definitions for exams.

However, I have trained myself to recognise some contexts and themes.
I used to study English literature study companion guides intensely and learned about themes.

So, if you were to give me a story now, I could tell you a lot of the details from it (especially physical descriptions); some of the over-arching themes; metaphors/idioms/pathetic fallacies (if I'm familiar with them, other cultures and idioms might be more difficult); intense emotions (especially connected to metaphors); how I relate to the story and some original ideas I have about the story.

I still have difficulty with some social motivations in the story though and I find it difficult to write realistic dialogue. I find most dialogue in stories boring especially if it's about mundane topics or not deep in meaning or funny.

I've also never really had an issue with complex metaphors or strong imagery that I can visualise. I grasped the idea of these metaphors a lot earlier than most people I used to know.
I listened to a lot of songs when I was little and was able to learn all of the different cultural contexts, even from cultures different from my own with practice. I was also read to a lot when I was little and some of these things were explained to me.

Learning contexts and metaphors are hard, but I believe, with the right attitude and practice, some contexts can be learned by some people.

I appreciate that some people would want to stick to a literal interpretation of the world and I don't see anything wrong with that. I also appreciate that I might not be as severely affected as other people or other people may have different brain wirings.




Yes, it's slow.
It can be like 'going all round the houses just to get next door' *idiom*.

But if repeated enough times, this loop of thinking I believe could be used to strengthen analytical skills. Having to think in this way might also strengthen the brain's logical, analytical and memory thinking. It's like exercising a 'mental muscle' if done repeatedly. I think it can get faster if you practice enough.

I have reflected on myself and analysed my actions continuously this way, hence I have good internal self awareness. The more you consciously reflect on yourself and the actions of others in a detached way, I think, the more internally self aware you become.