Extraversion and Asperger's Syndrome

Post Reply New Topic

I sometimes wonder if I actually have an extraverted personality that's masked by my autistic symptoms. I spent most of elementary, middle, and high school intensely shy, barely talking to anyone at all, even though I craved social interaction. Now that I'm in college, I've made some effort into acquiring the social interaction and friendship I desire. I've found I do enjoy meeting new people as long as the conversation goes well and I'm not too nervous. I don't like routine, and I like to try new things, but I don't want to risk embarrassing or hurting myself either. Actually, when I was much younger, I was much more social and less nervous, too. The nervousness and inhibitedness seem to have developed over the course of elementary school and have gotten continuously worse, though, with some progress in college.

Contrary to Baron-Cohen's male-brain theory of autism, I--and other people--think I have a somewhat more feminine personality than most males, although I'm probably more masculine than most females. I find it easier to talk to a group of females than a group of males, for example.

On the other hand, I do have the obsessive interests, poor social skills, and sensitivities characteristic of Asperger's syndrome. It's really hard to tell what to make of all this because even Asperger's syndrome doesn't seem like a perfect fit for who I am.

Hurray for everyone who disagrees with the extreme male brain theory! All this Mars and Venus nonsense [ahum, that is, excessive overgeneralization]...

Have a male autistic friend who gets told he's more like a woman than a man... and suspect that he is like that because of his autism.

It was similiar for me, though I'm told I was always quiet, I do not recall having nearly so much apprehension when speaking to people when I was younger. Now that I am more aware of some of the problems I have, I am working to improve them.



Oiy, I agree.

Yes, in general, women are better at empathizing, and men are better at systemizing, but there is more to being feminine than empathy, and more to being masculine than having systemizing abilities.

In my experience (and this is a wide generalization), it seems that many aspies do not have either a male or a female brain, but are somewhat ambiguous in that regard. Since masculinity and femininity are, in some ways, culturally defined, and many aspies tend to think "outside of the box," they do not prescribe to the gender roles as many NTs do. For example, many aspie women do not wear makeup or enjoy dressing up. They are not ask concerned with appearance as many NT women are. Many aspie men do not seem to be as competitive or concerned with physical strength as many NT men are.

I hate the extreme male brain thing. I'm female, darnit!

do NOT get me started on john f*****g grey and his venus and mars rubbish.

just give me a crossbow, and just ONE bolt....

V

I'm a "woman from another planet", like in the book, http://www.womenfromanotherplanet.com/

Most of me, anyway

The extreme-male-brain theory of autism with its preference for systemizing indicates a preference for science, mathematics, and engineering as intellectual pursuits. I've tended to prefer somewhat more humanistic fields: history, politics, philosophy, linguistics, the French language, psychology, sociology, writing, sketching, photography, etc.

I've dismissed engineering because I tend to make too many mistakes when making arithmetic calculations; I would never want to design a bridge that collapsed because I forgot a decimal. I've always disliked mathematics itself, too; I could never get interested in a bunch of numbers or the abstract theories for doing complex things with a bunch of numbers in higher mathematics.

I owe some of the more masculine traits of my personality to Asperger's syndrome, I guess: persistence, idealism, curiosity about the world around me, etc.

I think Baron-Cohen is onto something with the male brain thing, but it's a case of "close, but no cigar" (or phallic symbol of your choice)
ALL my friends have been male; women ARE generally too neurotypical for me to get along with (with the exeption of relatives, where we really don't have a choice)
From the ages of about 9 to 13, I refused to wear skirts, dresses or anything too girly. I felt I was a lot more like the boys I knew than the girls I knew- that was all there was too it . After around thirteen years old I realized that I wasn't really like any of them. 'Doh. I started dressing according to my own aesthetic sensibilities, which was much more fun.
I think that I am quite masculine, but in a geeky way, not in a macho way.

Nah! Why is that masculine?

I am similar in that regard. While I do have an interest in biology and psychology, I am more immersed in art, literature, and philosophy. I recall that on the systemizing quotient test there were many questions regarding mathematics and engineering, and very few regarding painting. I am not interested in math or engineering, and therefore did not score a high "systemizing quotient." That does not change the fact that I enjoy reading about classifications of animals, alphabetizing and arranging my books and CDs, and cataloguing events and people's behavior, or analyzing paintings and literature.



Yes, it was the same with me, except that I did not like to wear anything girly from age 0 to age 15 or 16. Now, I'm a bit better about it. I still don't wear makeup and do up my hair, however. And I'm most comfortable in a pair of jeans and a t-shirt.



Same here .

The fact that I am rather unemotional and do not really understand emotions is what tends to make me less "feminine," I believe. So I think there is something to the empathy vs. systemizing idea, but it's not as clear cut as it is made out to be.



I also don't see why those traits are more "masculine."

I seem to remember in the book Upside-Down Brilliance: The Visual-Spatial Learner by Linda Kreger Silverman there was an argument that visual-spatial thinking, which I suspect is a lot like systemizing and generally considered to be a masculine thing, is actually as much or even more used by women; only they do it in different areas than men, so nobody notices.

I do think men and women in general are different, but you can't just have two words and use them as definitions for femininity and masculinity; and much is really based on culture, like in the above-mentioned example. Also I think the linear continuum from extremely male to extremely female is simplistic; there have to be more dimensions.

The very idea that men and women have divergent, perhaps even polarized personalities is freakin' stupid and sexist. I don't believe in the idea of 'brain sex' because it does not apply to most of the people I know. It's like saying black and white people are the 'opposite' of each other or something. That's just wrong.
BTW, I am HFA and I am very extroverted to the point when most people think I have ADHD.

i diasgree, tali. in over 40 years of experience, i have found that men and women ARE different, although not polarised. this seems to be the opinion of most people i have read, heard or spoken to, as well. perhaps it is a societal/cultural thing, and so aspies would be less likely to conform to gender roles, being less likely to pick up on them/see the point of them.

however, although i was certainly a "tomboy" as a girl, and could certainly NEVER be described as "girly" now, i am definitely a woman.

V

I thought however it came about, the apparent differences in behaviour, attitudes, preferences between *most* men and *most* women were well documented and easily observed, and I agree with vetivert that it seems to be mainly culturally derived. As for polarised, complemetary seems a more apt description since the two styles seem to give something the other doesn't have.

The theory itself is interesting but not sure how valid it is - Simon Baron-Cohen himself acknowledges he knows a number of very talented female systemisers, and he is not especially that way himself.

Dunc

Oh, that would explain his tendency to generalize too much... Should've left the theorizing to people who can handle both universals and particulars.

I'm actually a really extroverted person, but it's too hard to come across that way most of the time.

I'm far more extroverted than my supposedly nurotypical brother.

I used to talk too much when I was younger.
My social interaction isn't really all a bunch of algorithms from CS class
There is quite a lot I really do understand.
But since getting into middle/high school and later university where everything's such a clique popularity contest the higher acuracy and so on were needed.

I really hate being this way.
Cos I can't connect with people though I want to
and just being a loner is just not an option for me.

~EG