The Autistic "Rationale-dependant" thinking style; thoughts and personal experiences?

[Neri]

 

[Neri]

So, I'm sick at the moment, and it's christmas, which I and my partner haven't had the energy to do this year. I'm a little sad about that, but anyway ...so I don't expect people to indulge me, particularly, about talking about this right now, because Chrissy and all, but, I wanted to put it up, because, for me and my guy friend, we are very this type of people.
I find it so, that if the social environment isn't making sense in this kind of way, I can't function in it. If people are super emotionally reactive and their "reasoning" is based, purely on "feelings" then I am at a loss of how to function. And I don't feel particularly "safe" .All I know to do is to give them space to "unpack" and figure out WHY they are feeling that way, and I mean honest reasons not cover-up justifications. So, apparently, this is an autistic thing, so I thought I'd throw it up here for discussion.

 

[ThanosTheDwarf]

Apart from the fact that this was sole a "husband / he" conversation which somehow feels wrong - I do work almost exclusively through logic, rational and usually very what I call "transactional" - ie. I do something for a reason, not just because.

School and unfortunately I also had a stint in the military (mandatory when I was younger) got me in trouble with this more than personal live. I don't do things just because someone uses the "because I say so" logic - I have to understand the reason why and also whats the desired outcome (the transactional bit).

 

[Neri]

Apart from the fact that this was sole a "husband / he" conversation which somehow feels wrong - I do work almost exclusively through logic, rational and usually very what I call "transactional" - ie. I do something for a reason, not just because.

School and unfortunately I also had a stint in the military (mandatory when I was younger) got me in trouble with this more than personal live. I don't do things just because someone uses the "because I say so" logic - I have to understand the reason why and also whats the desired outcome (the transactional bit).

I've never been comfortable with the "Because I said so" line of rationale and I never did that with my kids. It seems like a blatant abuse of power, to me, to expect anyone to do something without providing them with a reasonable reason for doing so.

 

[ThanosTheDwarf]

I've never been comfortable with the "Because I said so" line of rationale and I never did that with my kids. It seems like a blatant abuse of power, to me, to expect anyone to do something without providing them with a reasonable reason for doing so.

Yeah - can't stand it, got me on SO much trouble over the years but even softer approaches that don't seem to make sense to me (or I don't know the rational) are really hard for me to just blindly follow - they tend to go all the way down on my priority list as a result.

 

[tazz]

find it so, that if the social environment isn't making sense in this kind of way, I can't function in it. If people are super emotionally reactive and their "reasoning" is based, purely on "feelings" then I am at a loss of how to function. And I don't feel particularly "safe"

I can relate to this very well.

However, I don't like the way the guy in the video is presenting it. Looking at his various websites he seems to be a self-proclaimed expert on misbehaving teenagers and living with someone who is autistic. He pitches everything like some dodgy timeshare property salesman - which isn't surprising as he seems to be very focused on selling his "program".

I have met autistic women who have also said they are very analytical and describe this sort of experience too. I recall one saying something along the lines of "I'm a why person, I need to know the rationale for something before I'll agree to it".

So, ok, interesting topic. But I'd much rather listen to what you @Neri have to say about it, and the rest of us here, than listen to any more from him.

 

[Neri]

Yeah - can't stand it, got me on SO much trouble over the years but even softer approaches that don't seem to make sense to me (or I don't know the rational) are really hard for me to just blindly follow - they tend to go all the way down on my priority list as a result.

I understand. I'm a bit "Demand avoidant", always have been, but at the same time, I prefer, and operate better with direct requests and am generally happy to oblige if things are reasonable and if I have the energy to do so.

Parenting from a young age taught me to be very willing to assist, and supporting one's own children is utterly reasonable. I brought them into the world so it's my job to assist them in every way I can, to make their way as smooth as possible, because life is HARD here, as it is, without having flakey parents.

Mine flaked out on me and it was disastrous for me. I wouldn't have become a teenage mum if my parents hadn't flaked out on me.

Now that they are all adults though, it's not so "cut and dried" and I'm struggling to know what is reasonable for them to expect of me. They, particularly some of the oldest, have learnt some narcissistic expectations from their dad, toward me, and I am at a loss with how to navigate that.

 

[Neri]

I can relate to this very well.

However, I don't like the way the guy in the video is presenting it. Looking at his various websites he seems to be a self-proclaimed expert on misbehaving teenagers and living with someone who is autistic. He (Mr Mark Hutten of Online Parent Support, LLC) pitches everything like some dodgy timeshare property salesman - which isn't surprising as he seems to be very focused on selling his "program".

I have met autistic women who have also said they are very analytical and describe this sort of experience too. I recall one saying something along the lines of "I'm a why person, I need to know the rationale for something before I'll agree to it". So I presume he's focusing on pitching to wives of autistic men not because only autistic men think this way, but because he's analysed his sales and found that middle-aged married women are his most lucrative market - or something like that.

So, ok, interesting topic. But I'd much rather listen to what you @Neri have to say about it, and the rest of us here, than listen to any more from him.

To be honest, I didn't even listen to all of it. My untreated ADHD side kicked in and so I just posted it as a bit of back up for the topic. I prefer the conversation with people here, too. I guess it was the novelty of never seeing anything else, on yt (I'm a yt addict) addressing this aspect of commonly experienced autistic cognitive theory, or should I say meta cognition theory, because it's really an underpinning way of functioning in the world, as well as a value, that plenty of us share, I guess, but, I'm not exactly a researcher scientist, more a backyard cultural theorist and autism info addict.

I did start a degree in cultural theory but only got a third of the way through. The science of Autism; psychology, clinical and pop and peer led, psychology and neuropsych are special interests of mine (none of which was covered in my degree).

Particularly peer informed understanding, is my special interest. I honestly think we (the autistic community) are some of the best sources of our own understand and support. Peer support, as a therapeutic modality, when I was training in the field of Mental Health Peer Support, has efficacy equal to, if not better than psychiatrist ( according to research), and probably even psychology, as not every psychologist understands us autistic folk, and so that can limit their ability to help us in the way that our "Lived Experience" autistic peers can help us.

 

[Neri]

Ok, so I finally listened to the whole thing. He's touching on some real stuff, it's a pity he was so "gendered" about it though. As an Autistic woman I was left out of the picture. And I'm no different from the husband he was referring to. I think this very principle is why myself and my partner work, as a couple. It works because reason and rationale and having a clear line of logical thinking is a shared value. This is not to say that we can't get disregulated and not be able to be rational because we can both get in meltdown mode. But because we are both highly logical people we can recognize when we are like that and it doesn't take us very long for us to calm down and be able to honestly and reasonably discuss things

 

[Misery]

I've never been comfortable with the "Because I said so" line of rationale and I never did that with my kids. It seems like a blatant abuse of power, to me, to expect anyone to do something without providing them with a reasonable reason for doing so.

For what it's worth, sometimes even the person saying it might not 100% know what the reason is.

Speaking from experience here. I'm sort of on the opposite end when it comes to this whole thing. I can certainly be logical and whatnot, but in an overall sense, I'm generally driven by instinct, impulse, and emotion. A lot of snap decisions and abrupt actions. And in many cases, even I dont know why I do a particular thing. It just feels like the correct action at the time so I must do it. If I try to resist that I'll get progressively more agitated and erratic until something snaps.

When asked for a reason, I often will simply say "because". Not to be snarky with someone, but because that IS the reason, as best I can understand/explain it. Well, sort of, if I could somehow just produce a visualization of the "reason" to show it to someone, it'd look like TV static, but I cant speak TV static, so "because" instead.

It can frustrate people around me, but I tell ya, it frustrates me more. Due to the lack of control.


...er, I forgot where I was going with the rest of this. Am I even making sense? I dont know, but there it is.

 

[Fino]

Overreliance on logic and rationale is what makes it difficult for so many to understand metaphysical realities.

 

[Neri]

Overreliance on logic and rationale is what makes it difficult for so many to understand metaphysical realities.

Perhaps, but as someone who has experience, or should I say experiences, from a young child, of such things, those types of things aren't mutually exclusive. I am someone, who, as a result of such experiences, has been an avid researcher, into such things, from a young age.

I think experience is the clincher, I don't think being close minded is a sign of "logic" either, especially when you realize that an inaccurate base premise will only lead to faulty logic.

Curiosity is "logical" . Beyond this reality and the nature OF reality, are basic, foundational things to be curious about, don't you think? Thinking we have all the answers is illogical, as is thinking our way must be the right way simply because it is our way.

So I think I use my logical way of thinking to be open to always wanting to experience MORE rather than thinking I know very much at all.

I am satisfied, through my veracious curiosity and years of research, that life goes on, beyond this life. And I know that religion is not based on nothing, nor can it all be written off as coming from the minds of crazy people. In fact, I have a deep and abiding love of metaphysical knowledge and understanding.

But one thing I do know, is that when we get very emotionally invested in things, without developing our frontal lobe "reasoning" mind, we can be very subject to very irrational and illogical types of "thinking" or rather emotional reacting, so, I don't really see things things the same way as you @Fino.

Educated biblical-based thinking people know that the Greek origin of "In the beginning was the word and the word was God" that word "word" was Logos. God IS Logos, which is the origin, etymologically, of the word Logic.

So you see? "Logic" and "metaphysics" are implicately bound by the very origins of the word Logic, at least in our english speaking culture, which has been steeped in Judeo Christian filters for the last quite a few hundred years now.

 

[Misery]

Perhaps, but as someone who has experience, or should I say experiences, from a young child, of such things, those types of things aren't mutually exclusive. I am someone, who, as a result of such experiences, has been an avid researcher, into such things, from a young age.

I think experience is the clincher, I don't think being close minded is a sign of "logic" either, especially when you realize that an inaccurate base premise will only lead to faulty logic.

Curiosity is "logical" . Beyond this reality and the nature OF reality, are basic, foundational things to be curious about, don't you think? Thinking we have all the answers is illogical, as is thinking our way must be the right way simply because it is our way.

So I think I use my logical way of thinking to be open to always wanting to experience MORE rather than thinking I know very much at all.

I am satisfied, through my veracious curiosity and years of research, that life goes on, beyond this life. And I know that religion is not based on nothing, nor can it all be written off as coming from the minds of crazy people. In fact, I have a deep and abiding love of metaphysical knowledge and understanding.

But one thing I do know, is that when we get very emotionally invested in things, without developing our frontal lobe "reasoning" mind, we can be very subject to very irrational and illogical types of "thinking" or rather emotional reacting, so, I don't really see things things the same way as you @Fino.

Educated biblical-based thinking people know that the Greek origin of "In the beginning was the word and the word was God" that word "word" was Logos. God IS Logos, which is the origin, etymologically, of the word Logic.

So you see? "Logic" and "metaphysics" are implicately bound by the very origins of the word Logic, at least in our english speaking culture, which has been steeped in Judeo Christian filters for the last quite a few hundred years now.

I just want to say, I agree with all this stuff. I wont go into detail right now as this aint the place/topic for it, but... yeah, similar boat, really. And that's how I am with it. As emotionally driven as I can be, I can still sit back and do the autistic analysis thing, and... yeah. I pretty much think like that about such things.

But anyway.

I was thinking a bit about just logic and autism after seeing your thread here, and various ways of thinking, and something I've often wondered is like, for someone on the spectrum, is there a general difference in the way they APPROACH reasoning? Or, in the specific types of logic that they can be good or bad at?

Like, I'm not good with super direct in-my-face things sometimes. If someone just barks a bunch of facts at me (any topic really) I'm gonna get lost, even if they're taking it slow. Also makes tutorials kinda rough to follow. I also cannot do math. I has the dumb when it comes to numbers. Seriously even basic arithmetic eludes me.

But I'm REALLY good with abstract reasoning, and spatial reasoning in particular. And I can mentally track/process an enormous amount of things at once (useful with video games, haha).

And it's kinda odd to me, really. Like, why can I do those things... but I cant deal with numbers? I cant handle the simplest math that everyone else seems to be able to do. Or I cant remember things that have been carefully explained to me? Wheras I CAN remember things if I've had the chance to "learn by doing", that sort of thing.

Even weirder is those times when I can do a particular thing, but even as I'm doing it, I have no idea HOW I'm doing it. Happens with some of the art stuff I do.

I dunno, that's sorta what I was thinking of.

 

[Fino]

Perhaps, but as someone who has experience, or should I say experiences, from a young child, of such things, those types of things aren't mutually exclusive. I am someone, who, as a result of such experiences, has been an avid researcher, into such things, from a young age.

I think experience is the clincher, I don't think being close minded is a sign of "logic" either, especially when you realize that an inaccurate base premise will only lead to faulty logic.

Curiosity is "logical" . Beyond this reality and the nature OF reality, are basic, foundational things to be curious about, don't you think? Thinking we have all the answers is illogical, as is thinking our way must be the right way simply because it is our way.

So I think I use my logical way of thinking to be open to always wanting to experience MORE rather than thinking I know very much at all.

I am satisfied, through my veracious curiosity and years of research, that life goes on, beyond this life. And I know that religion is not based on nothing, nor can it all be written off as coming from the minds of crazy people. In fact, I have a deep and abiding love of metaphysical knowledge and understanding.

But one thing I do know, is that when we get very emotionally invested in things, without developing our frontal lobe "reasoning" mind, we can be very subject to very irrational and illogical types of "thinking" or rather emotional reacting, so, I don't really see things things the same way as you @Fino.

Educated biblical-based thinking people know that the Greek origin of "In the beginning was the word and the word was God" that word "word" was Logos. God IS Logos, which is the origin, etymologically, of the word Logic.

So you see? "Logic" and "metaphysics" are implicately bound by the very origins of the word Logic, at least in our english speaking culture, which has been steeped in Judeo Christian filters for the last quite a few hundred years now.

I agree with everything you've said. I suppose it's more that the common usage of the term "logic" is applied frequently in a way that dismisses such beliefs. It's not that they're being objectively logical but that they believe they're being logical and so use terms like "logic" and "reason" to support their illogical ideology. Therefore, I've come to associate terms like "logic" with a person who rigidly believes only in what modern society will allow.

 

[Neonatal RRT]

That's me, and my wife. I might even suggest she (NT) is actually, more so than I am. So, at the the very least, we are operating on the same set of rules.

 

[The Pandector]

Not long after discovering I’m autistic, I saw my own personal danger in making a special interest of myself. I dialed way back on autism research and am probably better off for it; I tend to talk too much about my special interests, and that being myself was not socially productive.

That’s why I was surprised to hear that this is a common issue with autistic people. I decided long before self diagnosis that this is the one verifiable and quantifiable trait that separates me from the rest of humanity: I don’t do ‘supposed to’.

Rationally, I don’t think one could make the case for emotionalism, period. Quite the opposite, in fact. I was mostly nonverbal as a youngster, until I found out at 13 that there is a normal-person-approved method of demonstrating logic and reason. To brag again, at 14 I was formally debating all but the district’s elite high schoolers, and bringing home the gold. It was obvious to me at the time that your average Joe/Jolene was incompetent at separating emotion and reason. Too quickly, it became apparent that this is also true among adults.

Hitting high school already a star debater was heady stuff. I had never understood why a dolt like myself was always being told by school counselors that I should be getting A’s without trying. Wasn’t too surprised when the army also pegged me as brilliant, only to be disappointed by the real me. I did well in the signal corps, but my personal presentation was always the limiting factor. Fortunately, they promoted on ability back then.

Got out of the army when the computer industry was just a lonely baby. But, you know what? Every last thing those computers did was 100% rational! Even broken computers yielded their faulty results for perfectly valid reasons.

After my debate career, I went mostly nonverbal again and stayed quiet long after I got the whole computer thing under my belt. Honestly, you listen to people milling about and getting beat up by their own pointless emotional content… it’s not something I was interested in joining.

Several years into the industry, I finally broke. These idiots are tripping over their own heartstrings, and completely messing up the job at hand. So, I took the rhino by the horn (not the best way to turn a rhino) and took over the operation I was working. I did this with logic and reason. This is why you have this and this problem, and this is how to avoid it. This, also, was heady stuff. I was not above (actually enjoyed) demonstrating to upper management how their entrenched methods were detrimental.

Unfortunately, being that guy was not a social boon. But it wasn’t until I broke my back and was medically retired that I began to care more about being lightly involved in the social milieu, what with wife and kids but not working. That’s when reality began to dawn on the crotchety golden boy.

People don’t care about logic or reason, use it only in a pinch. What they want is a warm and fuzzy feeling, not an analytical readout on why their lives weren’t working as hoped. People don’t care that their workplace could easily be 20% more efficient, don’t care that their favorite politician is a crook, reeeally don’t care that you are willing to show them a better way. Because they don’t care.

What people want is to hang out in the safety of the herd, safely ensconced in a social structure which makes conformity far more important than propriety. Therefore, no need to think things through.

All because I simply cannot bring myself to do anything just because it’s the accepted thing. Aged and reckless fool that I am, I still occasionally attempt to help people around their needless suffering, and am quite content these days to have the group within which I am operating… get all emotional and indignant when I shed light on the silly games we harry ourselves with. You see, I’d quit seeing the games if I could, but I can’t. I’d live pro forma if I could, but I can’t.

 

[Ronald Zeeman]

If everything was straight logic there would not be a major discrepancy with the two pillars of physics would reconcile. Even logic has its limits see Kurts Godels work. So answers are not as straight forward as they seem.

 

[Judge]

Overreliance on logic and rationale is what makes it difficult for so many to understand metaphysical realities.

That's where one must "shift gears" rather abruptly. When logic and rationale are of no value when based only on an earthly perspective of things.

 

[Ronald Zeeman]

That's where one must "shift gears" rather abruptly. When logic and rationale are of no value when based only on an earthly perspective of things.

Or a Paradigm shift is needed.

 

[Ronald Zeeman]

Bought a series of books years ago one is called zero, took a shift in thinking to allow mathematicians to realize that math made more sense with it They arbitrarily assumed that God would not allow it The Indians, who had a different religious tradition had no such qualms.