How to Understand Autism - The Easy Way

Post Reply New Topic

How to Understand Autism - The Easy Way is one of my favorite books of all time. I especially like how Alex Durig demonstrates that people with autism have more computer thought. Likewise, NT people have more social thought. He refers to computer thought as deductive reasoning and social thought as inductive reasoning.

Search "inductive reasoning" and deductive reasoning at Wikipedia.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inductive_reasoning
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deductive_reasoning

Do you agree that autism is just a high ratio of deductive reasoning to inductive reasoning?



====================================
How to Understand Autism - The Easy Way
Author: Alex Durig
Publishing Info: 2004
Reviewed by Maureen Bennie
Director, Autism Awareness Centre Inc.
Autism is now described in great detail as a result of scientific research. Though we can identify the details of autistic perception and behavior, an understanding of these aspects of autism is critical to create a philosophy of parenting and teaching to avoid frustration and alienation. Social psychologist Alex Durig has found a straightforward way to explain the phenomenon of autism without having to have a background in psychology or science to understand it.
The positive outlook of this book is expressed in a passage in the introduction where Durig states, "We need to reexamine our assumptions of normalcy, because implicit in our assumptions of normalcy lies hidden the idea that the autistic person is an inferior person." Durig points out that there is a full range of autistic perception - this may "underlie a number of other human conditions that are currently not associated with autism such as Alzheimer's disease and various types of so-called mental illness."
The book is based on two fundamental commitments: the ability to think logically is wired into the brain and every human being deserves trust, respect, safety and comfort. Durig suggests we need to become "autism friendly" - our normal world needs to find ways to help autistic people become more comfortable when in need of their services. It is us that need to adapt, not the person with autism.
Durig explores three different ways of thinking: social thinking, computer thinking and creative thinking. The main focus is on the first two ways of thinking. It is the varying levels of this thinking that determine a diagnosis. For example, an autistic savant would have very high levels of computer thinking and be low in social thinking. Someone with severe learning difficulties might be normal in social thinking but very low in computer thinking. The varying levels of social/computer thinking are demonstrated with visual graphs supported by real life examples to aid in understanding.
The second chapter of the book explains the six functions of perception - how social and computer thinking work together. Durig begins with the five functions of social thinking which are the who, what, where, when, and why of social interaction. These functions are defining the situation, locating social identities, seeing the world through the eyes of others, supporting assumptions of normalcy, and gauging time and timing. Each of these functions is explained clearly by using situational examples which make it easy for the reader to envision the concept. The sixth function is computer thinking which is doing the same thing in the same way. Durig uses an example of being in an elevator with people and what we do in that situation like look at our shoes and focus on the panel of numbers. When you read these examples, you see where the breakdown in social and computer thinking occurs for the individual with autism.

There are too many interesting points to list in the social and computer thinking chapters. There are a multitude of "ah-ha" moments such as people with autism see themselves through the eyes of others hence they refer to themselves in the third person. With social thinking being lower, the person will not be able to achieve a full sense of self.

"Exploring the Experience of Autism" takes the reader into the world of autism. There are some powerful realizations in this chapter. Durig states that autistic people are free because they are not defining social situations. Why is autistic behavior mired in rigid patterns? In order to frame meaningful experience, rigid patterns of behavior are developed in relation to the passage of time. Rituals of behavior may be fixated on time - 7 a.m. means get up, 7:15 a.m. means brush your teeth. The "Circle of Light" is the concept that information is coming in immediately and without warning for people with autism. For a normal person the circle, incoming information, is 50 metres away - for people with autism it is 10 metres away.

Durig has three keys to communicating effectively with autistic people - staying calm, reflecting their behavior, and reflecting their perception (referring to them in the third person). These three simple steps can alleviate potential behavior problems as highlighted in the author's own personal experience with a boy at summer camp.

There is a chapter devoted to how all of us are autistic to some extent. This would be true because all of us have varying degrees of social and computer thinking. We live in a social world that is that is completely based on repetitive behaviors. The social world is based on if-then rules for action - actions that have become rote for us in social situations. We all have routines in our day and a specific way of doing things. Take those away and radically change the schedule and we feel uneasy and upset. By examining the world in which we live and how we live in it, we can get a view into the world of autism because the two are more closely related than we realize.

Durig rounds out the book by ending with how to teach and interact with autistic people. He refers back to the social and computer thinking and how that influences perception. He explores the differences in interaction with severe, high-functioning and slightly autistic people.

How To Understand Autism the Easy Way requires a beginning-to-end read because all of the chapters hinge on the first chapter's explanation of social and computer thinking. The author does a beautiful job of explaining what it is like to autistic through the concept of social and computer thinking. The writing resonates respect and a positive outlook on this disorder. It is clear that Alex Durig feels a sense of awe about these individuals. The reader will feel this awe and develop a new awareness of autistic perception not explored in other books.Wikipedia

I read this book too, and definitely liked it.

I think it's over simple to say autism is "just" a high ratio of "deductive reasoning" to "inductive reasoning". Not that simple. I also wouldn't use those terms. I actually don't remember those terms from the book. I remember the terms (which you mention) "computer thinking", which I take to be a type of intellectual thinking, and social thinking. Yes, I think autism relates to having more of the "computer thinking" than the social thinking. But I think it's more complex. That's one way to look at autism. A useful way, I think. But not a way that captures everything.

I read something where someone speculated that autism is a form of dissociation where the person with autism doesn't identify parts of himself (mentally) as self. That is, doesn't connect together parts of himself, mentally, the acting self being disconnected from other parts of the self. I think there's truth in that, as well, at least some of the time.

Point being, I don't think there's just one way to look at autism. So, scratch the "just". But, yes, I think there's something to that idea.

P.S. I voted "no", for the reasons given above. I don't disagree with the basic idea. I do disagree with that statement of it.

Any time I see things like "the easy way" in a book title red flags go up. If an easy way existed, there would be no problem in the first place. "The Easy Way" is a contemporary social construct, an artifact of hyper stimulating media promotion of me-ism. "Easy" is modern magic, bought and sold in the marketplace of wishful thinking.

Additionally, were there no autistics before computers? What type of thinking did autistics use then? Computers are fundamentally noting but logic gates strung together. They do not reason in any sense of the word. Any simulation of reasoning is still nothing more that an extraordinarily complex web of these logic gates. Some research is being done to create more flexible computational models, but any popular notion of a computer is equivalent to nothing but a Turing Machine. Turing Machines do not reason.

Deductive versus inductive reasoning is a more useful model. But it is insufficient. It applies to higher cognitive functions, but I don't go through much analysis at all doing things like going to the bathroom. What am going to do, calculate the trajectory of my urine stream? How much of my thought life is spend in neither mode? Both deductive and inductive reasoning are ultimately forms of symbolic processing. What about thinking that happens non-symbolically?

I had to vote a definite no.

I don't believe there's one way for autistic people to think. I'm pretty sure there's no way to collapse what autistic people think like into an easily generalized simplification that can be accessible to anyone who chooses to read the book.

It might be better to talk about various ways that autistic people can think, perhaps referencing specific people in their own words and not interpreted through NT filters. And even then not everything can be made accessible with language.

I have noticed that most NTs are very stupid and don't think reasonably at all, preferring to assume that something is true simply because others believe it, rather than assuming something is true because they have personally seen evidence to support that belief.

If you want to euphemistically call that kind of stupidity "social thought" or "inductive reasoning" then sure, that's definitely a difference between NTs and autistics which seems to pop up quite often.

No.

The only simple statement of this sort that can be made based on actual science is that NTs think in terms of the big picture, autistics in terms of the details. But although that's at least accurate, it requires elaboration to truly understand it. And it may not be the whole thing.

Computer thinking is just a label, not a definition. Using "computer" in the label doesn't mean that kind of thinking didn't exist before computers.

I gave my thoughts on the book for the original poster. A few more, with other readers in mind.

I liked the book, I thought it had some good ideas, but I thought it had weaknesses too. Not a book that gives the answer to autism. But a book that presents an interesting idea that one my consider, along with other things. And one might even take the ideas in the book and adapt them, while intergrating them with other ideas.

The author wrote another book, Autism and the Crisis of Meaning.

http://www.amazon.com/Autism-Crisis-Mea ... 0791428141

http://books.google.com/books?id=EESxEu ... &q&f=false

The above book is not easy reading for most people. I believe that is why he wrote his second book, How to Understand Autism: The Easy Way.

In my opinion, a fundamental problem with Autism is that it is not defined. Although numerous descriptions of autism exist, it seems undefined. Similarly, a point and a line are not defined in euclidean geometry. Although we can intuitively describe a point and a line in euclidean geometry, we can not define the terms.

I believe that persons with autism exhibit higher levels of deductive reasoning and lower levels of inductive reasoning as compared to NTs. From my experience, the most extreme forms of autism are the result of birth defects. The people with the more extreme forms of autism also have numerous other severe disabilities. In contrast, persons with lesser forms of autism seem to genetically inherit it from their parents. I suspect that the genetic trait of autism in a certain percentage of population probably provides an evolutionary benefit to the species.

I own the book and found it infuriating. And yes titles like The Easy Way make me uneasy. I think nothing like a computer and my life is nothing like that book. It's just wrong on so many levels. The infuriating thing is that it appeals to peoples preconceptions so it's so easy to convince people it's right even though it's so very wrong. Just because someone has a positive view of autism doesn't make him right.

There was a time when I was a kid where I'd say I could've been seen to fit the "thinks like a computer" idea. But, #1: that was in no way some full description or explanation of my experience of the world/life/etc. And, #2, the "thinking like a computer" thing changed at a certain time, and that did not cause my life/self to suddenly become normal or anything.

I disagree. I understand myself well and don't listen to other peoples opinion of me.

I think I may be a computer thinker but also I'm a creative thinker.

That is was just a label is obvious. My meaning is that it is a poor label, even a cliche. Computer metaphors abound today. But if there is one thing cognitive science has shown, human cognition is not like a digital computer.

Could someone please change some of those long links into links using BBCode? They make this thread very hard to read especially on my tiny iPod screen.

Anyway I seem to be yet again completely breaking the definitions of regular vs severe autism. It runs in my family yet I also have a large number of other serious conditions and have been suspected of several genetic syndromes. Go figure.

The most common reasons for autistic people referring to ourselves in the third person is simple: echolalia. We echo the words of others. And thus refer to ourselves by name or third person pronoun.

On the other hand one autistic guy I know began speaking after a long delay because he decided to teach his little brother how not to reverse pronouns. His parents weren't having much success so he decided to step in and shocked the whole family.

Please. Continue to break these definitions. People find it too easy to slip into overly broad generalizations. We need voices such as yours reminding us of the more realistic versions of autism.

Not surprised at the results. This is way, way too simple.