[Asperger's/Autism] - Abstract Skill Comparison

Post Reply New Topic

I've read that the abstract skills in those with classic autism are most often quite high in terms of visuals, but suffer greatly when it comes to verbal/language and other concepts. I've read that people with Asperger's can have poor abstract skills too, but that their visual side of it is what suffers more than anything else. I haven't found a substantial amount of data, but from what I've seen those traits are displayed in IQ tests in that those with autism tend to score high on visual spatial (probably visual thinking) while lacking in verbal and I think perceptual (don't quote me on that one), while those with Asperger's tend to essentially have the opposite learning profile - high verbal/perceptual, relatively low visual spatial & mechanical. I'm certain there are exceptions, but generally that seems to be the case.

Can people with classic autism ever develop a strong grasp of abstract language, and what areas of abstract do people with Asperger's suffer in the most aside from visual spatial? Do people that have no problems with abstract usually have lower difficulties regarding emotional expression and identification? I'm not really sure yet how abstract expands into other areas.

For anyone currently diagnosed, what are your opinions and experiences regarding those statements and questions? Abstract in Classic Autism VS Asperger's?


---------------------------------

SIDE NOTE -> The bolded question is what I struggle to determine the most, as I have read that people with Asperger's are often very verbose, fluent with language and excel at making puns and other word related jokes. I've also read that many great philosophers have Asperger's, and philosophy is probably one of the most abstract heavy studies in existence. This, in my mind, seems to contradict when people state that many Aspies struggle with abstract concepts outside of the visual range. Or perhaps, is it because they learned how to communicate abstract ideas in other ways? I really don't know.

---------------------------------

_________________
Unapologetically, Norny.
-chronically drunk

I am not good at highly abstract language. I can do some level of abstract language, I like to use concrete language. It is harder to understand abstract language than to use myself. I am much bester at visual than verbal. My verbal is not bad though. It is still good, and I can do verry merry berry well with it when I put in the time and effort. When I am tired, verbal is the first thing to go. It is unnatural to me. Visual is completely natural and normal and easy. When I am tired, I can still rely on it. For eggsample, I stayed up until 2 am working on a poster this morning, and I couldn't finish the verbal parts because my brain ran out of verbal, but I finished the visual parts no problem, so I could finish the whole thing after I woke up and got my brain rested and verbal back. There is bigger gap between visual > verbal in me than there is amongst most of the people around me.

I was originally diagnosed with autism, but I do better on verbal/abstract tests than visual/spatial tests. I actually scored the best on verbal stuff and abstract concepts. I'm not actually sure if my original diagnosis of autism was accurate.

I don't think anyone here will be able to answer your question. You ask us to compare ourselves to people elsewhere on the spectrum. That would seem to require a level of insight into the hypothetical skill sets of a range of persons across the spectrum that may be difficult to achieve for anyone who actually is on the spectrum, by definition.

Myself (diagnosed with Asperger's), I studied philosophy, but I struggled with the abstract language. In anglophone countries, philosophers tend to write more clearly, but most of German philosophy sounds like gibberish to me. The most successful philosophers seem to be those whose language is open to a wide array of interpretations, which is for example why people will claim that Nietzsche actually meant the exact opposite of what he says when you take him literally. This is why the political left and right equally have appropriated Nietzsche, either by taking him literally or by interpreting their own meaning into his words.

I prefer more literal language. My visual skills also aren't great. For example, I have never been able to imagine sceneries or landscapes or get a visual image of people in novels just from reading the author's description. In other people (non-autistic?), reading novels seems to invoke vivid visuals in their minds.

I just struggle with abstraction in general. Granted, I am somewhat better at interpreting linguistic abstraction than visual abstraction, but I'm not all that great at it either. I like firm, concrete concepts and ideas, things I can actually put a finger on.

I am diagnosed Aspergers (as an adult). I researched this idea a fair amount in the past because I did not fit neatly into the group.

I have significantly higher visual skills than verbal skills. I think in visual abstraction (patterns). I also have an accompanying language disorder. I may truly fit better into the Autism category, but that was not my diagnosis. I did speak late and primarily echoed, but at age 2 (before the cutoff of 3 in the former diagnostic criteria).

Anyway, for statistic's sake:

My performance IQ was 1 standard deviation above my verbal IQ (in my opinion, the performance IQ section also contained language, albeit less).

My verbal memory was at the 2nd percentile (68 on an IQ scale).

My visual memory was at the 98th percentile.

I subjectively think I have no trouble with visual abstractions. Verbal abstractions cause me trouble when used in everyday language or are not very clearly defined. I can use verbal abstractions better than I can understand them from an outside source.

I think when it comes to certain terms of abstract language, then being an visual Autist, might even help you to stand out of mass. If I imagined that I was able to precisely express what my thoughts are thinking, it would be so cool.

Normally when having a thought, its less of an thought, but more of an concept including all kind of influences to the topic.

I fail horrible at expressing those in verbal possibilities. I write endless essays, about the stuff that is simply one complete thing in my head, and there is still tons missing, that is inluded in that concept of mine.

So I think someone having the ability to precisely write down his austist thought-concepts, would really do great as novelwriter.

If you compare it as well with asian or arabian novels or poetry, you will find, that there is much more visual description being used, as well for visual things but as well for whole concepts of feelings.

Sadly I am crappy at expressing my thoughts. Verbally even more then written.

Judging from what I've read both here and in books, I think my abstract skills are better in comparison to other people--I think in metaphor, although I am also a verbal thinker, and my writing is littered with them. Images come to mind that relate to other things, and I just go with them.

For example, today I wrote in my journal:

It's interesting how dreams tend to chase these ideas we have in our heads, even the subconscious ones--stirring up those settled ideas like mud at the bottom of a pond. You think that because you can't see them, they've gone away--but really, they're dormant, deep below the surface--until they get kicked up again.

It's a messy analogy, but I think that's the type of thing you mean?