Page 3 of 3 [ 48 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3

Filipendula
Toucan
Toucan

User avatar

Joined: 2 Jun 2012
Age: 41
Gender: Female
Posts: 270
Location: UK

15 Dec 2012, 12:06 pm

MrXxx wrote:
Filipendula wrote:
XFilesGeek wrote:
A concrete example of me using "associative reasoning" would be if, during a "word association" game, I was asked to state what I thought of when I heard the word "microwave." I might answer "leprechaun." It goes like this: the most interesting thing about microwaves is that you can make food explode in them. That makes me think of potatoes. When I think of potatoes, I think of the Irish "potatoes famine." Thoughts of Ireland immediately lead into "leprechaun."


Is this the standard kind of word association game in which you're told a word and asked to say the very next immediate thing that comes to mind as a result? If so, then I still don't understand how you came out with 'leprechaun'.


The simple answer is, it happens that fast.

Quote:
The train of thought you describe goes: microwave > exploding food > potatoes > Irish potato famine > Ireland > leprechaun so I would have said that the correct response to that game would have been 'exploding food'.


No, because "exploding food" is two words, and word association games require one word answers, so "potato" would be correct. But, as I said before, it happens so fast that I think we often don't even realize right away what our brains actually did to arrive at the answer we gave.


In that case, and with an effort to imagine this scenario going on in something similar to my own brain (because that's the only one I'm familiar with), I would suggest that what's happening is that the visual processing must be moving much faster than the verbal processing. Consequently, by the time you're able to grasp a word and verbalise it, you've already had a string of visual associations run through your mind.

That's the only way I can think that "it happening fast" works as an explanation for not providing an accurate consecutive association and it works because it's too fast relative to some other internal process rather than just too fast in general. If it's just too fast in general, it wouldn't be possible to go back an recall the train of thought to be able to communicate it here later since the process must have been speedy and blurred, rather like on a real train that's going too fast for it to be possible to see the view properly.

Maybe I'm talking nonsense now, but it's fun to theorise when sitting alone in a dark room with nothing but a failing crochet project and a laptop. :P


_________________
AQ: 32 (up to 37 when answering instinctively); EQ: 21 - 24; SQ: 31
Reading the Mind in the Eyes: 32
RAADS-R: 85
RDOS Aspie score: 115/200; NT score: 79/200


XFilesGeek
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 24 Jul 2010
Age: 40
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 6,031
Location: The Oort Cloud

15 Dec 2012, 6:16 pm

To answer the question:

Mr X is correct in that, yes, it really does happen that fast. My brain gets bombarded with random images/associations, often to the point where it's overwhelming and difficult to try and separate out an individual thought. This is one of the main reasons I occasionally stutter when speaking, jump from topic to topic, and am just generally not very good at speaking, at least when trying to answer "on the spot."

It's very much like my brain is a TV and someone is flipping through the channels very quickly with a remote. All I can do it hit the "stop" button and see what I've come up with, even if it technically isn't the "first" association.

As for your other question.......

1. Yes, everyone has "associative thinking." This is why we associate the color red with the concept "stop." However, I differ in that it's my PRIMARY means of thinking and I often rely on it to the exclusion of other types of thinking. For example, I don't like writing with a pen and paper. My brain goes too quickly and my hand can't keep up. I didn't become a "good writer" until I was introduced to a keyboard in the mid 90s and, at last, my hand could (almost) keep pace with my brain.

2. I doubt there is any type of thinking that is uniquely "autistic." I suspect it's a matter of DEGREE, as opposed to TYPE.

Please give this article on "thinking types" a look: http://anidea.com/etc/ten-types-of-thin ... al-agency/

3. I also didn't say my thinking was "autistic thinking," just "XFilesGeek thinking." :)

I rely on "association" almost entirely and mine is much quicker than most NTs. A good visual representation of my "thought process":

Image


_________________
"If we fail to anticipate the unforeseen or expect the unexpected in a universe of infinite possibilities, we may find ourselves at the mercy of anyone or anything that cannot be programmed, categorized or easily referenced."

-XFG (no longer a moderator)


btbnnyr
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 18 May 2011
Gender: Female
Posts: 7,359
Location: Lost Angleles Carmen Santiago

15 Dec 2012, 7:43 pm

Of the autistic autobiographers, I like Temple Grandin, because I understand her writing, because her writing is concrete and simple, because she is a visual thinker like I am. Not only is she a visual thinker, but I think that she has a gap between her visual and verbal abilities, which makes her the kind of visual thinker who is autistic. I think that this visual/verbal gap may be a kind of autistic thinking, and a subgroup of autistic people have this kind of thinking.

I was talking to a person with ADHD recently, and she said that she is also a visual thinker and learner, but she finds it easy to speak her thoughts in words too, but she finds it harder to visualize from other people's words, like when she is reading. I think that her visual/verbal abilities may be a kind of visual thinking that is common amongst non-autistic people, that is ackshuly quite common in the general population, but some autistic people have the gap that makes visual thinking dominant in their minds, and their brains automatically use visual/non-verbal strategies to solve problems, while other people's brains might use a balance of non-verbal and verbal.

I am not entirely a visual thinker relying entirely on pictures that I see in my mind's eye. I am a verry merry berry sensory thinker, like all the senses are affected when I am reading something. Also when I solve problems. I used to run chemical reactions in videos in my mind, and all the senses were involved, like I was doing the real thing. I also make lots of associations and see patterns. I am not good at arranging my thoughts into a verbal stream though, but I am bester at this now than I used to be.

I think that it makes a lot of sense that many children with classic autism have a big gap between non-verbal and verbal, and I think that this gap makes communication problems more severe than the other way around.



Verdandi
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 7 Dec 2010
Age: 54
Gender: Female
Posts: 12,275
Location: University of California Sunnydale (fictional location - Real location Olympia, WA)

15 Dec 2012, 8:44 pm

btbnnyr wrote:
Of the autistic autobiographers, I like Temple Grandin, because I understand her writing, because her writing is concrete and simple, because she is a visual thinker like I am. Not only is she a visual thinker, but I think that she has a gap between her visual and verbal abilities, which makes her the kind of visual thinker who is autistic. I think that this visual/verbal gap may be a kind of autistic thinking, and a subgroup of autistic people have this kind of thinking.


When I was still not certain as to whether I was autistic or not, I mentioned to someone I know who is autistic that I suspected this, and she immediately responded that she'd always thought I sounded like I was on the spectrum, and said that the way I wrote suggested to her that I do not think in words and that I have a gap between my thinking style (which is primarily visual + other senses, possibly similar to what you describe) and verbal speech.

I do find it hard to verbalize my thoughts correctly, and it's easy to just sidetrack me into scripted responses and thus losing the conversational thread. On the other hand, I started speaking earlier than most, although a lot of my speech was scripted until I started to understand the words I was using better. I still rely on verbal scripts in a lot of situations, and I find it significantly easier to verbally discuss a topic if I have already written about it. My conversations tend to become repetitive due to this, because I keep going over the same ground when I run out of things that I haven't already written down or otherwise developed.

I also find that I lack an internal monologue. If I want a running commentary on what I'm doing, I have to say it out loud, and doing so becomes rapidly awkward. Not in a social sense of possible embarrassment, just that I am diverting focus I need to actually do things in order to describe them. The idea of such a monologue actually strikes me as disturbing - I definitely do not want an inner voice chattering away all the time. The outer voices from the people I live with are more than sufficient.



Mirror21
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 16 Oct 2011
Age: 40
Gender: Female
Posts: 1,751

15 Dec 2012, 11:26 pm

Feralucce wrote:
according to diagnostics autistic thinking is "preoccupation with inner thoughts, daydreams, fantasies, private logic; egocentric, subjective thinking lacking objectivity and connection with external reality."


. . . interesting.



IChris
Snowy Owl
Snowy Owl

User avatar

Joined: 15 Dec 2012
Age: 39
Gender: Male
Posts: 138
Location: Norway

16 Dec 2012, 7:39 am

Mirror21 wrote:
Feralucce wrote:
according to diagnostics autistic thinking is "preoccupation with inner thoughts, daydreams, fantasies, private logic; egocentric, subjective thinking lacking objectivity and connection with external reality."


. . . interesting.


'Autistic thinking' is defined as a defence mechanism in terms of diagnostic and involves, as Feralucce write, day dreaming as a mean to disconnect from the stressors in the world around. It is understood as a normal primitive defence mechanism which all kind of people may turn to, but which is most common in kids.



Verdandi
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 7 Dec 2010
Age: 54
Gender: Female
Posts: 12,275
Location: University of California Sunnydale (fictional location - Real location Olympia, WA)

16 Dec 2012, 9:27 am

Ah, autistic defense mechanism, which is not specifically an autistic thing.



IChris
Snowy Owl
Snowy Owl

User avatar

Joined: 15 Dec 2012
Age: 39
Gender: Male
Posts: 138
Location: Norway

16 Dec 2012, 9:47 am

Verdandi wrote:
Ah, autistic defense mechanism, which is not specifically an autistic thing.


It is absolutely an autistic thing, but not a specifically thing for only autism spectrum disorders. But the mechanisms of 'autistic thinking' are of such an art that it may be more common to people with autism spectrum disorders than neurotypicals to use.



MrXxx
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 11 May 2010
Age: 63
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,760
Location: New England

16 Dec 2012, 2:27 pm

Filipendula wrote:
MrXxx wrote:
Filipendula wrote:
XFilesGeek wrote:
A concrete example of me using "associative reasoning" would be if, during a "word association" game, I was asked to state what I thought of when I heard the word "microwave." I might answer "leprechaun." It goes like this: the most interesting thing about microwaves is that you can make food explode in them. That makes me think of potatoes. When I think of potatoes, I think of the Irish "potatoes famine." Thoughts of Ireland immediately lead into "leprechaun."


Is this the standard kind of word association game in which you're told a word and asked to say the very next immediate thing that comes to mind as a result? If so, then I still don't understand how you came out with 'leprechaun'.


The simple answer is, it happens that fast.

Quote:
The train of thought you describe goes: microwave > exploding food > potatoes > Irish potato famine > Ireland > leprechaun so I would have said that the correct response to that game would have been 'exploding food'.


No, because "exploding food" is two words, and word association games require one word answers, so "potato" would be correct. But, as I said before, it happens so fast that I think we often don't even realize right away what our brains actually did to arrive at the answer we gave.


In that case, and with an effort to imagine this scenario going on in something similar to my own brain (because that's the only one I'm familiar with), I would suggest that what's happening is that the visual processing must be moving much faster than the verbal processing. Consequently, by the time you're able to grasp a word and verbalise it, you've already had a string of visual associations run through your mind.

That's the only way I can think that "it happening fast" works as an explanation for not providing an accurate consecutive association and it works because it's too fast relative to some other internal process rather than just too fast in general. If it's just too fast in general, it wouldn't be possible to go back an recall the train of thought to be able to communicate it here later since the process must have been speedy and blurred, rather like on a real train that's going too fast for it to be possible to see the view properly.

Maybe I'm talking nonsense now, but it's fun to theorise when sitting alone in a dark room with nothing but a failing crochet project and a laptop. :P


It doesn't necessarily have to happen visually. It can happen verbally too. It depends on the autistic. I know some autistics who don't think visually, and only think in words. Some of them can make from A to Z just as fast.


_________________
I'm not likely to be around much longer. As before when I first signed up here years ago, I'm finding that after a long hiatus, and after only a few days back on here, I'm spending way too much time here again already. So I'm requesting my account be locked, banned or whatever. It's just time. Until then, well, I dunno...


SoftKitty
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 10 Oct 2012
Age: 39
Gender: Female
Posts: 581
Location: Prague, Czech republic

16 Dec 2012, 3:45 pm

I am autistic by description and I still haven´t found out what is so "autistic" about my thinking :? I don´t even know what you mean. I neither mean it in a bad way, nor I am stupid. I just mean we all think in a very unique way, which is not necessarily a bad thing, even if the NTs apparently think so. OMG, my answer is really a masterpiece :lol: I look like a ret*d.


_________________
-"Do you expect me to talk?"
-"No, Mr. Bond, I expect you to die!"


Verdandi
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 7 Dec 2010
Age: 54
Gender: Female
Posts: 12,275
Location: University of California Sunnydale (fictional location - Real location Olympia, WA)

16 Dec 2012, 9:16 pm

IChris wrote:
Verdandi wrote:
Ah, autistic defense mechanism, which is not specifically an autistic thing.


It is absolutely an autistic thing, but not a specifically thing for only autism spectrum disorders. But the mechanisms of 'autistic thinking' are of such an art that it may be more common to people with autism spectrum disorders than neurotypicals to use.


When I was trying to do research on what autistic defense was, I found an article that claimed that Donna Williams' sensory issues and agnosias were due to her assumed retreat into autistic defense,, and not some other cause. I find descriptions of it somewhat dubious because of that.

Anyway, I did deliberately choose the words "not specifically".



Marybird
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 26 Apr 2012
Gender: Female
Posts: 1,818

16 Dec 2012, 10:15 pm

IChris wrote:
Mirror21 wrote:
Feralucce wrote:
according to diagnostics autistic thinking is "preoccupation with inner thoughts, daydreams, fantasies, private logic; egocentric, subjective thinking lacking objectivity and connection with external reality."


. . . interesting.


'Autistic thinking' is defined as a defence mechanism in terms of diagnostic and involves, as Feralucce write, day dreaming as a mean to disconnect from the stressors in the world around. It is understood as a normal primitive defence mechanism which all kind of people may turn to, but which is most common in kids.

Why would anyone come to the conclusion that preoccupation with inner thoughts, daydreams, fantasies, private logic; egocentric, subjective thinking lacking objectivity and connection with external reality is simply no more than a means to disconnect from the stressors in the world around them or a primitive defence mechanism.
I think we have preoccupation with inner thoughts, daydreams, fantasies, private logic; egocentric, subjective thinking lacking objectivity and connection with external reality because our brains are wired to think that way and we enjoy thinking that way and that is all there is to it.



XFilesGeek
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 24 Jul 2010
Age: 40
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 6,031
Location: The Oort Cloud

16 Dec 2012, 10:37 pm

MrXxx wrote:
Filipendula wrote:
MrXxx wrote:
Filipendula wrote:
XFilesGeek wrote:
A concrete example of me using "associative reasoning" would be if, during a "word association" game, I was asked to state what I thought of when I heard the word "microwave." I might answer "leprechaun." It goes like this: the most interesting thing about microwaves is that you can make food explode in them. That makes me think of potatoes. When I think of potatoes, I think of the Irish "potatoes famine." Thoughts of Ireland immediately lead into "leprechaun."


Is this the standard kind of word association game in which you're told a word and asked to say the very next immediate thing that comes to mind as a result? If so, then I still don't understand how you came out with 'leprechaun'.


The simple answer is, it happens that fast.

Quote:
The train of thought you describe goes: microwave > exploding food > potatoes > Irish potato famine > Ireland > leprechaun so I would have said that the correct response to that game would have been 'exploding food'.


No, because "exploding food" is two words, and word association games require one word answers, so "potato" would be correct. But, as I said before, it happens so fast that I think we often don't even realize right away what our brains actually did to arrive at the answer we gave.


In that case, and with an effort to imagine this scenario going on in something similar to my own brain (because that's the only one I'm familiar with), I would suggest that what's happening is that the visual processing must be moving much faster than the verbal processing. Consequently, by the time you're able to grasp a word and verbalise it, you've already had a string of visual associations run through your mind.

That's the only way I can think that "it happening fast" works as an explanation for not providing an accurate consecutive association and it works because it's too fast relative to some other internal process rather than just too fast in general. If it's just too fast in general, it wouldn't be possible to go back an recall the train of thought to be able to communicate it here later since the process must have been speedy and blurred, rather like on a real train that's going too fast for it to be possible to see the view properly.

Maybe I'm talking nonsense now, but it's fun to theorise when sitting alone in a dark room with nothing but a failing crochet project and a laptop. :P


It doesn't necessarily have to happen visually. It can happen verbally too. It depends on the autistic. I know some autistics who don't think visually, and only think in words. Some of them can make from A to Z just as fast.


Yep. :wink:


_________________
"If we fail to anticipate the unforeseen or expect the unexpected in a universe of infinite possibilities, we may find ourselves at the mercy of anyone or anything that cannot be programmed, categorized or easily referenced."

-XFG (no longer a moderator)


IChris
Snowy Owl
Snowy Owl

User avatar

Joined: 15 Dec 2012
Age: 39
Gender: Male
Posts: 138
Location: Norway

17 Dec 2012, 8:30 pm

Marybird wrote:
IChris wrote:
Mirror21 wrote:
Feralucce wrote:
according to diagnostics autistic thinking is "preoccupation with inner thoughts, daydreams, fantasies, private logic; egocentric, subjective thinking lacking objectivity and connection with external reality."


. . . interesting.


'Autistic thinking' is defined as a defence mechanism in terms of diagnostic and involves, as Feralucce write, day dreaming as a mean to disconnect from the stressors in the world around. It is understood as a normal primitive defence mechanism which all kind of people may turn to, but which is most common in kids.

Why would anyone come to the conclusion that preoccupation with inner thoughts, daydreams, fantasies, private logic; egocentric, subjective thinking lacking objectivity and connection with external reality is simply no more than a means to disconnect from the stressors in the world around them or a primitive defence mechanism.
I think we have preoccupation with inner thoughts, daydreams, fantasies, private logic; egocentric, subjective thinking lacking objectivity and connection with external reality because our brains are wired to think that way and we enjoy thinking that way and that is all there is to it.


It is not as simple as it may sounds like but is de facto on another level than today's complex cognitive science (which despite of its complexity does not need to be a more correct answer); it resemble the era it was invented with the philosophical and psychological theories in focus then.

I'm not an internalist and do not believe that the brain and its wiring alone is the cause of 'autistic thinking'. Field independence/low central coherence is a prerequisite for 'autistic thinking' and studies have shown that the state of central coherence is dependent on culture. Likewise is language (on the grammar level) an important factor in 'autistic thinking' since it would control when a human choose to use it or not, and 'autistic thinking' may in some culture not be a defence mechanism but a living mechanism as a consequence of this. From this perspective the wiring of the brain has only a big influence when culture and language can't explain the cause; which for the indo-european languages is at least the case.



Marybird
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 26 Apr 2012
Gender: Female
Posts: 1,818

18 Dec 2012, 12:41 am

IChris wrote:
Marybird wrote:
IChris wrote:
Mirror21 wrote:
Feralucce wrote:
according to diagnostics autistic thinking is "preoccupation with inner thoughts, daydreams, fantasies, private logic; egocentric, subjective thinking lacking objectivity and connection with external reality."


. . . interesting.


'Autistic thinking' is defined as a defence mechanism in terms of diagnostic and involves, as Feralucce write, day dreaming as a mean to disconnect from the stressors in the world around. It is understood as a normal primitive defence mechanism which all kind of people may turn to, but which is most common in kids.

Why would anyone come to the conclusion that preoccupation with inner thoughts, daydreams, fantasies, private logic; egocentric, subjective thinking lacking objectivity and connection with external reality is simply no more than a means to disconnect from the stressors in the world around them or a primitive defence mechanism.
I think we have preoccupation with inner thoughts, daydreams, fantasies, private logic; egocentric, subjective thinking lacking objectivity and connection with external reality because our brains are wired to think that way and we enjoy thinking that way and that is all there is to it.


It is not as simple as it may sounds like but is de facto on another level than today's complex cognitive science (which despite of its complexity does not need to be a more correct answer); it resemble the era it was invented with the philosophical and psychological theories in focus then.

I'm not an internalist and do not believe that the brain and its wiring alone is the cause of 'autistic thinking'. Field independence/low central coherence is a prerequisite for 'autistic thinking' and studies have shown that the state of central coherence is dependent on culture. Likewise is language (on the grammar level) an important factor in 'autistic thinking' since it would control when a human choose to use it or not, and 'autistic thinking' may in some culture not be a defence mechanism but a living mechanism as a consequence of this. From this perspective the wiring of the brain has only a big influence when culture and language can't explain the cause; which for the indo-european languages is at least the case.

My thinking is not a defence mechanism or a means to disconnect from the stressors in the world around me. I have autistic thinking. It's the way I think. However, the fact that I am often in my own inner world of thoughts lacking objectivity and connection with external reality may be why I don't connect well to the world around me. I don't see what culture has to do with it, except maybe it is more accepted in some cultures.



IChris
Snowy Owl
Snowy Owl

User avatar

Joined: 15 Dec 2012
Age: 39
Gender: Male
Posts: 138
Location: Norway

18 Dec 2012, 6:56 am

Marybird wrote:
My thinking is not a defence mechanism or a means to disconnect from the stressors in the world around me. I have autistic thinking. It's the way I think. However, the fact that I am often in my own inner world of thoughts lacking objectivity and connection with external reality may be why I don't connect well to the world around me. I don't see what culture has to do with it, except maybe it is more accepted in some cultures.


Neither is mine, but one of my defence mechanism is what is termed 'autistic thinking'. The way I think is best described through the term 'Autistic intelligence'; a term defined by Hans Asperger.