Do autistics rely too much on second-hand info?

Post Reply New Topic

We tend to isolate ourselves for whatever reason and because of that we don't gain the same amount of experience as neurotypicals.

I notice on several threads that posters will often cite statistics or media or entertainment in support of their argument. Of course, this is not always the case, there are many posters who share their own experiences and present them as evidence.

So is this just a matter of naivete or is it something that autism predisposes us to? I'm not sure, but if I were to answer yes, I would say it was because autistic people want to gain a sense of control over a confusing environment, that we like the security of self-assurance, so we get as many facts as we can to provide evidence for our interpretation of things. I was like this once, but experience found me.

I feel there is an over-reliance upon statistics pertaining to such things as gender relations. There is not enough reliance on "real-life" accounts. It is assumed that people who convey "real-life" accounts are lying/exaggerating/something else--when they are, in fact, conveying the truth as they see it.

It's possible that people with autism are predisposed to relying on statistics and "logic" over empirical evidence.

If one hasn't had "experience" with things, there is the tendency for that person to not want others to believe that one hasn't had "experience." Hence, the reliance in arguments of this nature on statistics.

The main fault, to me, in relying on statistics is the fact that statistics paint a "communal" picture which might not apply, at all, to the ultimate results of individuals. If statistics show, say, that people with autism frequently do not lose their virginity until (on average) age 27.5, it is assumed by an individual person that that he/she will not lose their virginity until age 27.5--when, in reality, there are many who lose their virginity before that age.

In sum, the results of studies are poor indicator of the actual experiences of individuals.

Last edited by kraftiekortie on 09 Aug 2015, 9:47 am, edited 1 time in total.

Most people rely too much on second-hand info.

I have traveled the subway system in New York City for more than 30 years and never been the victim of an assault.

I went to college with a woman from the south who had been in New York for only a couple of months before she was brutally attacked while riding the subway. She was punched in the face and then stabbed multiple times in the chest.

If I were to give you my first hand account and she were to give you her first hand account, which one would inform you meaningfully about the safety of the New York City subway system?

Answer: neither. Without a body of statistics covering the number of rides and number of assaults for a given time period, you can't make any evaluation on the basis of first hand accounts.

A similar analysis could be made about relying on first person accounts in many other contexts. If you want to know what someone's experience of a certain event was like, ask them. If you want to know what that kind of thing is like in general, get some statistics.

If you want to know what riding a bike is like, you need to ride a bike. No amount of data or understanding of conservation of angular momentum, gyroscopic stability, etc. will give you the understanding of what it's like to ride a bike. On the other hand, riding a bike doesn't tell you about the safety of riding in a given area.

I think the relative utility of experience and statistical evidence is heavily contingent on the kind of question or discussion the anecdote or data is being brought to.

As kraftie put it, "the results of studies are poor indicator of the actual experiences of individuals," but it's also true that the actual experiences of individuals in isolation are a poor indicator of the probability of events across a population which can be revealed by the results of studies.

L&D is one of the worst forums for this.

True.

Both would. They tell me quite a bit. You - male, native NYer, Other - female, out of town. This tells me that if I were to ride the subways I should be very careful as I am not a native and am female.

Research, obviously, has utility. I wouldn't decry the results of research into many things. Then you have the "double-blind" sort of thing, which does render research relatively more objective.

Like Adamantium stated, it depends upon the nature of the question posed.

Two people offering opposing accounts of anything will not lead to any objective perspective. It would be better if 3,000 people offered accounts of an identical experience.

But when it comes to something as subjective as dating tendencies, I would tend not to rely on studies in formulating an impression of what my "future" might hold. Same with employment possibilities. The oft-stated 80-85% unemployment rate amongst autistic people, if taken as gospel, would create the assumption that I, as an autistic person, will remain unemployed for life, despite my best efforts--thereby rendering me disinclined to make an effort to seek employment.

The key, really, is for a person to realize that one could belie statistics.

I suppose such an average can't take into account people who die virgins, because it should take just one of us to bump up the average to infinity Therefore, it isn't very informative without also telling what fraction of autistics never lose their virginity.

Then you would be making unfounded assumptions.

My early childhood was in New York, but then I lived in another country until high school. When I went to college in New York I was an out of towner. The majority of assault victims in that era in the subway were males, not females. (this does not include sexual harrassment and assault in the subway which is overwhelmingly committed by males on female victims.)

Two details that may be relevant, I don't drink much and don't travel while intoxicated but she did. I am about 6'3" tall and strong, while she was short, and while athletic, would probably not look like as formidable a challenge to a predatory criminal in the subway.

No amount of data is going to help you get a date or be a good date. You have to connect, period.

Note to self: Do not go on subway in New York.

The NYC subway is safe. I would not worry if you are taking it. Just take normal, commonsense precautions.

I would be a lost lamb in New York City and likely drunk. I would so love to visit the Pierpont Morgan Library though.

Morgan Library

I can tell you from experience that the Morgan is lovely--and a great place to have lunch or a coffee.

Sounds lovely!
I got interested in the Library after reading:



I didn't understand all the banking stuff, but he collected (read stole) all kinds of ancient near eastern artifacts, including cuneiform cylinder seals. These are from the beginning of civilization, I would love to see them.

If you are interested in the cuneiform seals at the Morgan, you might also like the ancient near eastern collection at the Metropolitan. I can imagine a really nice day starting with a quick morning visit to Cleopatra's Needle in Central Park, then down the path to the Museum at opening time. After a morning wandering through the colletion, possibly pausing at the Temple of Dendur for a break, you could stroll over and hop on the 6 train downtown (it really isn't dangerous!) and get off at Grand Central/42. From there it's a short, scenic (if you like urban canyons!) stroll down Park or Madison to the Morgan. First stop at the Morgan would be the cafe for a relaxing, re-enrgizing lunch (this has to be one of the best environments in midtown for an aspie to eat) and then on to the Morgan's splendid exhibits for the afternoon.
http://www.themorgan.org/visit/dining

The same visits could easily be split over two days, in which case I would add a detour to 41st and 5th Avenue for a look at the facade of the Public Library (but don't do this anywhere near rush hour!)

I hope you get to make the trip someday.

This isn't an autistic thing, lot of people do this.

I think statistics can be good because they can reassure you like for example, I hear you have more chances of winning the lottery than your kid getting kidnapped (1 in 600,000 kids). Also whenever sexual abuse happens, it's done by a family member or someone close to them mostly than by a random stranger, also you have a higher chance of getting assaulted by someone you know than by a random stranger, you have a higher chance of getting beaten to death by a random stranger than by a family member. Does this mean having a kid who will be violent will also be rare? Violence can cause death if they are strong enough to give you a head injury.

But my husband says "I will not enter the lottery" when I tell him about statistics about the chances of our kid getting kidnapped so we don't need to worry too much if we lose him. He doesn't want to be that rare case of our kid being taken.

I guess I can walk out in the middle of a thunderstorm because you have a higher chance of winning the lottery than getting struck by lightning.

Car accidents happen all the time and I still drive because of all those times I have ridden in a car and driven, I have only been in one car wreck and been rear ended twice and I once crashed my car into the well because I was so stupid to drive into tall grass so that was a hard lesson there I learned. So yes I will never drive in tall grass again and my dad thought I was over reacting when I screamed at him for driving into these bushes with my car. You have no idea what could be in those bushes, there could be a wall, tree stump, anything sticking out of the ground that would wreck the car. But I do know whenever I get in the car and ride it or drive it, I am at a higher chance of getting killed but that doesn't mean it will happen because it's so rare even though car wrecks happen daily around the world. But I wonder what the statistics are for car wrecks, 1 out of how many people worldwide get in a wreck?

I hope so too!