Autistic like We
Tyler Cowen and Will Wilkinson in discussed Tyler’s most recent book, Create Your Own Economy, in a recent Bloggingheads.tv. Tyler mentions how he believes there are a diversity of “cognitive profiles” out there, and that the autism spectrum oversimplifies and pathologizes one aspect of this reality. One feature of the modal human cognitive profile which Tyler seems to suggest might be somewhat suboptimal for information processing and gathering is the tendency to construct stories or narratives (because of the distortions that a general story arc might introduce into one’s perception of the facts). What struck me was a personal datum which I’ve never thought too deeply about until now: I never read fiction outside of assigned schoolwork until I was 13. The only exception to this was Greek mythology (e.g., The Iliad). Of course I did read a lot, but it was all non-fiction. In later years I came to understand that this was atypical. When I did start reading fiction almost all of it was science fiction, fantasy or historical fiction. To this day I have a very attenuated interest in conventional mainstream fiction. I suspect a large number of readers of this weblog can recount similar experiences.
One point of Will & Tyler’s diavlog which I might want to take issue with is the idea that specialization is a net benefit for most of humanity because they can find the particular occupational niche which leverages their strengths and satisfies their preferences. To some extent this is surely true, but to not put a too fine point on it I think the cost vs. benefit toward specialization is much greater for those on the “tails” of the cognitive spectrums; whether nerdy or arty. For a modal human who is more focused on concrete interpersonal dynamics I suspect “clocking in & out” at their job might not be unsatisfying since work is simply the time between socialization.
Labels: Autism
I was also heavily into Greek mythology as a kid. When I ran out of that stuff at the local library I moved on to other mythologies. On the other hand, I read other fiction back then. A little while back though I made the decision to stop reading fiction, since I had come to enjoy non-fiction more and for the sake of epistemic hygiene.
Same here. I never read fiction. Some fiction is really pretty good, but I am just not drawn to it. Probably why I like this blog so much. It is nice to read discussion on topics I am interested in but no one I know would ever be talking about. My one girlfriend who liked science, and science magazines moved to Canada when her husband got transferred. I am happy to be home with my kids but I don’t have too much time, so it is really delightful to come here for some brain candy when I get a minute.
Thanks
I find it difficult to imagine going through childhood without reading everything in sight. But my cognitive profile is likely to be anomalously anomalous.
Science fiction and fantasy are far more interesting to me than general fiction, though.
You misspelled “divalog”.
I don’t think you’re too atypical Razib. Not all that many kids start reading anything outside of assigned schoolwork before 13 anyways. Fantasy and sci-fi are natural starting places for teenage boys first getting into fiction as well, since they’re closer to comic books than weighty literature.
On the other hand, I’m certainly atypical for this blog: I read mostly fiction. That’s part of being both left and right-brained, whereas I suspect most readers above are math and science inclined left-brainers. C.P. Snow would have liked more people like me around I guess, but from what I can tell there’s not too many of us that dwell both in the sciences and the arts.
roger, u sure?
Not all that many kids start reading anything outside of assigned schoolwork before 13 anyways. Fantasy and sci-fi are natural starting places for teenage boys first getting into fiction as well, since they’re closer to comic books than weighty literature.
true. your biographical detail makes some of your previous comments more intelligible.
So nobody starts with the wombles, narnia, faraway tree etc. at the age of 7 anymore? I know plenty kids who do, but it is a different culture I suppose.
Yes. “Divalog” is clearly le mot juste, considering that Cowen was a participant. Flaubert would be pleased with you.
Preferring non-fiction to fiction will win you higher scores on the autism tests. I have always gravitated to the Non-Fiction section of libraries. The only fiction I have read in the last few years is some JG Ballard and a bit of Dostoevsky, plus some medical and spy thrillers. I know a lot ABOUT fiction and writers: I just don’t bother reading fiction much.
I wonder if not reading fiction CAUSES lowered social understanding, rather than that being a bit socially blind leads to less fiction reading. That is, I suspect that most people read fiction and watch plays and so on to help them have insight into others’ and their own emotions and motivations.
Sitcoms and even TV shows like CSI can teach one a lot about how to deal with life in general and life in the office. I am sure people watch them to learn what to do and what not to do in their lives; identifying with various characters. Since I became a “boss” at work, I have paid much more attention to the behaviour of the “bosses” in TV shows.
I score high on autism tests, but I function pretty well socially. I suspect that one can learn a lot over a lifetime. I do find that I sometimes have to puzzle out why people, especially women, act the way they do (realising that women may be inconsistent in their wishes simply because of fluctuating hormones helps). But I think I understand people quite well. I am one of Steve Sailer’s “people nerds”, having a strong, objective interest in people. That is, I like sociology and anthropology, in a slightly nerdy way.
I am a good non-fiction writer too. I have had some well-received pieces published. But I can’t write fiction.
Julian
I wonder if not reading fiction CAUSES lowered social understanding
well, with women right? i’ve read most of jane austen. not bad as a work of anthropology, but it probably helps with talking to intelligent women (speaking from the prospect of the straight man, which is 80-90% of this blog’s core readership).
roger, LOL.
I’m with Caledonian about reading everything in sight, including phone books (you’d be amazed what you can learn from the ads) and the backs of cereal boxes, which used to be much more interesting.
I read encyclopedias, Reader’s Digest, every Nancy Drew and Hardy Boys mystery and anything my older brother hadn’t hidden from me very well, including Playboy.
After I got through with Nancy and the Hardy Boys, I got interested in historical fiction, which led to wanting to read the actual history.
Maybe it’s a girl thing, but I didn’t get interested in science fiction until ~15 years ago. It may also be a brain tumor thing, as I’ve pretty much lost interest in all fiction. I prefer history or science non-fiction above all else now.
I read almost entirely fiction as a kid (Judy Blume, Beverly Cleary, and my favorite, the Choose Your Own Adventure books), and gradually shifted to reading mostly nonfiction as an adult. I started reading the news at 12, but I didn’t read many non-fiction books until college.
Now my reading probably resembles most readers of the blog: mostly science, social science, and history. When I do read fiction, it is usually science fiction, although I occasionally read what I call “manfiction”: Clive Cussler, Stephen Coonts, ect.
A few questions for all of you who say you weren’t into fiction as kids … Did you enjoy movies? Did you have favorite TV shows? Did you read comic books? The comic pages in newspapers? That’s all fiction too.
FWIW, I enjoy the brain’s tendency to arrange everything into stories. One way of enjoying narrative art: as a way of exploring this ability and tendency.
Razib — Have you read Mark Turner? He does a great job of opening up little channels between science and art. Try “The Literary Mind.” His website has a lot of info too:
http://markturner.org/
tx for the rec mike.
re: movies, i was probably less interested in movies than the typical kid. in fact, i watched a disproportionate number of japanese science fiction films ;-) but i was way more of a reader than i was a lower-than-average movie watcher. no comics. but i did watch cartoons.
Yeah.. I think I just read everything. I remember reading some really random stuff. I read Coming of Age in Samoa when I was 11, because I was at my grandparents house and it was the only book in english. It was pretty shocking to find something like that on the shelf. I read a lot of OLLLDD science fiction… Jules Vernes, H.G. Wells, Isaac Asimov (I’m in my mid-twenties).
Choose your own adventure books were awesome, and I think I read every single Michael Crighton book by 6th grade. I was obsessed with insects and other arthropods, as well as with sharks, and I had a bunch of books about them.
Getting off of the topic of myself for a second, I think the tendency to create a narrative to explain events and facts is absolutely essential for understanding the world. I mean, isn’t that what science is all about. You hypothesize a narrative (cause and effect, relationship, model etc) that explains observations. Then you try and see if it is a believable story and if it explains other things as well.
Do you think science should strive to avoid any kind of interpretation of that kind?
In the past 10 years I’ve made a concerted effort to read fiction, especially the classics. Its helped me a great deal understand the motivations and inner-lives of human beings — something I wasn’t great at, and still don’t have a natural aptitude for.
As I see it, there are only 3 ways to understand humans (in descending order)
1)Fiction
2) Statistically-valid surveys
3) Anecdotes.
And of all the pre-1900 English stuff I’ve read, Jane Austen is by far the crappiest. Read George Elliot, or Thomas Hardy. Skip Austen.
My only recommendation, to start on fiction: Crime and Punishment by Dostoevsky. And skip anything post 1950 — too soon to tell what’s quality.
I read pretty much everything I could get my hands on as a child; but I did like non-fiction far more than most girls. I still read very little fiction, and what I do read tends to be science fiction or the sort of fiction in which you learn a lot of stuff, like well-researched historical fiction. This definitely puts me at a difference with most of my female friends, who read fiction pretty much exclusively, and are especially fond of the sort of stuff Oprah’s book club recommends.
As far as movies and TV, I tend to like either science fiction/fantasy, war movies, or rather lowbrow comedies. I have never liked romantic comedy much and I cannot sit through a chickflick. It’s ironic, because I am a very feminine-appearing woman who seems to have very “guy” tastes in movies and books. My husband is eternally grateful that I don’t make him go see Julia Roberts movies or watch stuff on the Lifetime Channel.
your biographical detail makes some of your previous comments more intelligible
Razib, have you ever seen this online autism-spectrum quiz?
http://www.rdos.net/eng/Aspie-quiz.php
Others might be interested as well, it could be a good source of self-knowledge (although not a professional diagnosis of course).
Anyways, here were my results:
Your Aspie score: 47 of 200
Your neurotypical (non-autistic) score: 157 of 200
You are very likely neurotypical
I think I’m older than the average reader here, so TV was limited… especially limited to what my parents wanted to watch and their choices were limited by receiving only one channel.
The most watched were variety/comedy shows — Red Skelton, Carol Burnett, Ed Sullivan. My favorite of those was Carol Burnett… and Tim Conway still cracks me up.
This isn’t quite on-topic, but I’ve always wondered how you GNXPers seem to retain so much of what you read. Have you always had really good memories, or do you read in a certain way that makes it easier to remember lots of detail? Also, do you all read really fast?
Writing a precis, or letter to a correspondent, makes me remember stuff. I’m sure there’s research on stuff like this but I haven’t read it.
In contrast, taking notes on college lectures did nothing for me.
“And of all the pre-1900 English stuff I’ve read, Jane Austen is by far the crappiest. Read George Elliot, or Thomas Hardy. Skip Austen.”
She has very little understanding outside her own little world, yes, but she writes very well. And thats good enough.
Worst “good” writer ever in terms of not understanding human nature. Victor Hugo. Les Miserables is the worst good book ever.
Read Agatha Christie novels; Hercule Poirot especially. The Harry Potter books. Haven’t really read fiction for about 10 years now, and damn proud of it.
Supplementing Orion, a little while back Chip Smith pointed me to another autism quiz which Simon Baron-Cohen apparently uses. You can read my score there.
In the same vein as your comment about disbelief in WWII because it is so far fetched, I find non-fiction to be far crazier than what people can imagine.
I sometimes need to detach from reality, and find fiction to be a great tool. I still read about 95% non-fiction.
Good post!