What is systemization?

Post Reply New Topic

I have a rough idea of what is systemization, I can even estimate it in some people (sometimes more accurate than other times). So I don't need a short definition of "systemization".

I need a long explanation, and I really need to see its correlation with dysrationalia (look it up on Wikipedia) and "mechanical thinking" (are they the same thing?). AFAIK, systemization determines our interests and what we enjoy to some degree. However, does it determine our performance in something? Is there a problem that can't be solved with someone who has high IQ and rationality, but low systemization, just because of his insufficient systemization? If yes, how does systemization exactly work? I've been Googling this for some time now, but I couldn't find an answer.

P.S. Please, use reliable sources (like scientific papers, Wikipedia is counted as semi-reliable). Random articles will still be highly appreciated, but I prefer verifiable sources.

its not complicated and you don't need papers.

it basically means we like to find out WHY things work and build machines. we're not artsy people who thrive on doing things like painting because of our emotional feelings.

if the tap is dripping, we don't try to ignore it or call a plumber. we find out why there is a problem, then we try to fix it.

if its still not clear, go take an art class and hang with those guys for a while. then hang out with computer geeks. you'll soon see the difference

I do realize that. I need to know the correlation between systemization and "mechanical thinking", they might even be the same thing. In case they are, I need the exact mechanism in which "mechanical thinking" works.

If it's only what you have said, then all systemization does is to increase our enthusiasm about things. This means that if a person with extremely low SQ tries hard, (s)he can perform as well as someone with extremely high SQ. I really doubt this is the case.

no, i think we have the brains which force us to ask WHY, and then we disassemble and reassemble. conceptually i don't think an emotionally driven person is capable of it.

i've looked at this topic on systematization a bit and i didn't find the info very good.

i will add one thing which held me back a lot -- because i didn't know how to manage relationships properly, even though i wanted to, i wasn't able to build very reliable systems. things would always break down, a developer would quit, an assistant would get fed up, or people would just do low quality work and say yes to anything i asked, even if it wasn't right.

so thats basically as far as i thought i could take things. it was like i had this drive for systematization which i couldn't meet and i never knew why.

i've since changed a huge amount and now i know how to build rock solid systems and won't settle for ones that don't work well. i expect this is going to have a massive payoff.

Capable of what? Disassembling and reassembling things in order to understand how they work? Why not? If they are told to do so, which part are they going to fail with?

Systemization is the attempt to make things simpler so that they are easier to comprehend. Asking how it works or why we do it is basically asking 'what is consciousness' and consciousness simply exists. You can ask why or how it works as a mental exercise if you want, but ultimately, it just simply is.

One explanation is that systemizers feel they have finite lifespans and so they want to do as much as they can before they die and systemization is a way of improving efficiency that appears to work. Whether this explanation answers any questions or simply raises new ones is up to you

I am not capable of that. It is something I fail at spectacularly. I have done it many, many times in attempts to repair things and have gotten marginally better at it over the years but I am still worse at it than most people. Why do I keep doing it? Two reasons:

1)getting somebody else to do it either costs money or- if it's somebody I know- they roll their eyes very much at my incapability to fix such a simple thing (my husband!!)

2)I am somewhat ashamed of not being able to do this so I keep trying to succeed at it. I have found that exploded diagrams and internet instructions help some.






I can disassemble things just fine. Sometimes I can even sort of figure out how they work. It's the putting it back together part that I fail at the very most. From my childhood attempts to get the chain back on my bicycle to my adult attempts to repair a toilet flush assembly, putting it back together is the point where I fail the very most. Plumbing is particularly difficult. Even if I can conceptually see that the function of the washers is to prevent water from leaking, this knowledge doesn't help me put them back on in the right order.

Digital cameras and the internet have come to my rescue. With the internet, I can usually find an exploded diagram of most anything, which shows me how it fits together. With my digital camera, I can take pictures of each step of the process and then go through those pictures in reverse order to figure out what goes where.

So it seems that NTs find it hard to deal with mechanisms. I expected that, but I don't know if some people with an ASD struggle with that too. A scientific paper would have that information.

This never got answered. Bump.

How does systemization exactly work?

How can you fix something without knowing how it works?

This is total conjecture from me, but perhaps it might offer an explanation.

If you consider function the macro environment (of any system) and mechanics as the micro environment; dysrationalia would be the inability to link the two, whereas weak and strong systemisers have a varying amount of ability to do this. In a hyper-rational person (a 'strong' systemiser) the link is purely one of utility (see my question above). In a weak systemiser, it isn't a question of utility but something else; emotional attachment, logical fallacy etc. In both cases there is a defined relationship between function and mechanics, really dependant on how rational you are.

An emphasis on function will lead to an [skewed - but I would say that] understanding without a clear relationship (at a guess this default position for most people). The relationship isn't important, just whether it functions or not. An emphasis on mechanics would be an inability to see the "bigger picture" (sometimes colloquially said to be autistic thinking, which is entirely inaccurate!). The second situation would sound like a systemiser but for the question I started with; a systemiser potentially goes further than a micro view and incorporates a wider view too.

Not sure if that makes sense, I'm a little addled at the moment.

Can you give me an example of a problem that requires systemization to solve - so that someone with sufficient IQ and rationality would still fail? I can't imagine the exact pattern using just this description.

Also, how come that an emphasis on mechanics would lead to an inability to see the bigger picture? So, someone who is average at everything would be actually better at seeing the bigger picture than someone who is the same, except that he is a better systemizer? Or did you mean that "not seeing the bigger picture" would be a general representation of what he sees, because you determine how much he sees the bigger picture compared to what he sees everything else (in other words, he'd still see the bigger picture as well as someone who is a worse systemizer)?

I can't fix things either and I don't take things apart fearing I wouldn't be able to get it to work again. I guess I don't have that trait but I know it's common in people with ASDs. I suspect I had relatives on it too because I have had some who took things apart to see how it worked. My dad's brother does it, my great uncle did it. I can't remember who else. I think it's possible to have this characteristic and not be on the spectrum.


I was never good with electronics either but my husband is. Sure I can hook things up but my husband is better at it than I am because he can figure it out quicker. He also used to take things apart as a kid but then they never work again and he quit doing it because it parents get mad at him for breaking things.

Only thing I ever took apart was the old NES system and I knew what I was doing because I looked it up online by clicking on links from the old Nsider forum and then I had it working again.

I think this is just a stereotype about ASDs because how many of us take things apart and put them back together and how many of us fixes things?

I don't know anything about the official definitions of systemization and mechanical thinking and whatnot, but I'll take a shot anyway.

To me, systemizing is recognizing the patterns and rules underlying everything, from the theory of continental drift to theories of human social behavior, whatever those are.

Using large amounts of and varied types of known information and experimental data to come up with an accurate scientific theory is an act of systemization.

I think that systemizing requires a whole range of thinking, from small details to big picture. You would have to know all the small details and be able to keep many of them in your mind at the same time to arrange and rearrange them and also detect patterns composed of them and also assemble and disassemble these patterns into step-by-step mechanisms of how something like transcription happens in the cell and also formulate big picture patterns like general mechanisms of transcriptional control and also apply these big picture patterns to go back down into the small details to design experiments to test at a molecular level to find out if your big picture theory is accurate and predictive. It's like a neverending cycle of breaking down and building up and breaking down and building up, all based on knowing the details, detecting patterns, formulating mechanisms, synthesizing hypotheses, designing experiments, knowing more details, etc, etc, etc.

When it comes to everyday activities like fixing things, systemizing will help you quickly figure out the rules of plumbing or electronics without having to read the manual. You may have zero knowledge of plumbing when you first troubleshoot the plumbing, but after ten minutes of fiddling, you may pick up enough patterns and rules to recognize and fix whatever is broken without calling the plumber. Diagnosing the mechanical problem is an act of systemizing. Diagnosing a medical problem is too. So is diagnosing a neurological condition like ASD. Most headshrinkers are not good systemizers, which probably explains why they suck at diagnosing ASD. Their knowledge of ASD is more rote than meaning. It comes from a manual that they read, not from patterns that they picked up themselves from seeing patients with ASD. A good systemizer may pick up on the patterns of ASD without reading the manual or to add to their reading of the manual.

Systemization is a highly creative activity. Coming up with an accurate theory with strong predictive power requires being able to connect the smallest details in different and possibly original ways that no one else has thought of before. Before you can do any of that, you have to know what all the small details are. Some autistics have a natural ability in this area, having a high resolution view of everything, starting from the physical details of the natural world. Some are also good at associative thinking, making connections between things that appear to be unrelated, but may share the same general pattern. Many NTs are good at these things too, but perhaps not to the extremes that autistics display or requiring more effort or reading of the manual. By reading of the manual, I just mean learning abstract patterns through books or sources instead of observing the more raw details for yourself and figuring out the same abstract pattern yourself.

Sorry for ramble.

one way of understanding systemization is to think of a car engine which as a cooling system, oil system, fuel system etc, all working in conjuction with each other. A systemiser will create a method which will explain or logically fit together separate ideas to create an overall concept.
Mechanical thinking is the ability to see a system and understand how the the parts relate to each other for the purpose of dismantling or putting together the system. This can be theoretical or practical.

In the context of ASD, "systematization" is little more that a theory invented by Simon Baron-Cohen, probably covering some unrelated concepts.

Exactly. No part of it necessitates being involved with "machines", so to speak.
I thrive on dismantling and examining logical proofs and arguments, but I'm not so adept at producing sound ones myself, or "rebuilding".