Systemizing

Post Reply New Topic

I have been wondering about this lately (I wonder about a lot of things though)

I keep hearing from so many different sources that autistics are great systemizers and great at pattern-recognition and such, but what exactly does that mean?

I also saw someone post (can't quite remember from where) that female autistic systemizing can look for like home organization and such. Whereas, male systemizing is like working with computers or mathematics systems etc. etc.

However, I feel like I don't have a very clear understanding of what that means or looks like. Why are autistics purportedly better at this?
What does that even really mean?
Any links or book titles will be much appreciated!

Here's a brief rundown on Dr. Simon Baron-Cohen's theories on systemizing: [url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empathizing–systemizing_theory[/url]. There's lots of links to more technical papers and criticisms of the theories. It seems to make some logical leaps, reminiscent of some of the theoretical fallacies of the psychoanalysts--theorizing a lot without having any neurological evidence to back it up, some sample bias based on the types of patients he was seeing.

There is some truth in there somewhere, though, even if the cause may not be correct. I remember Temple Grandin mentioning in The Autistic Brain that autistic people have more white matter and less grey matter in their brains, and a lot more connections with fibers that branch more than NT brains. Dr. David Eagelman mentioned in the first episode of PBS' The Brain with Dr. David Eagelman that small children have many more connections in their brains than adults, and that a pruning process gets rid of a lot of these connections. It could be that the pruning never happened in our brains. This might make us tend to see things more in terms of details, relatedness, and patterns, rather than whole objects, trends, and the "big picture."

We become fascinated with collecting things, with the parts of things, how parts move, and patterns. My mom told me that even when I was a toddler, I would notice anything new or moved in a room when I came into the room. I loved patterns and would draw swooping lines and fill them in with textures and patterns. We went to an art museum and I had my parents buy me a coloring book based on mathematical patterns like what Arab architects used, rather than picking out the usual girly ponies and puppies.

I design websites, booklets, and make electronic documents accessible to the disabled. One of the things I have to do is look for typos like misspellings, layout errors like something being off center, and errors in code. I'm good at spotting errors--they just jump out at me like they are really obvious.

To me I see it as being exceptionally good at spotting anomalies. For example, I was out driving with my Fiancee and mentioned that one of the traffic lights had a brand new signal head installed. She was puzzled as to how I knew that and I pointed out that the pattern on the back of the signal of the newer models has a slightly different look than the older model and showed her some examples. I still don't think she understands.

I am "that" guy who can spot an error a mile away and who sits at a David Copperfield show pointing out how easy his tricks are to perform. The hardest part is keeping my mouth shut while systems at work fail again and again. I learned a long time ago nobody likes being told their idea is ineffective and they have to see it for themselves, no matter how wasteful it is and how much it wastes their time.

I am a systemizer - I'm female and a programmer. I can see spelling errors quickly, and visual things that don't fit in a repetitive picture with patterns, I'm good at music and languages (including programming languages) once I can understand the pattern of the chords or the syntax. I'm good at business analytics and increasing efficiency in systems by seeing the repetitive patterns in the work process, automating the repetitive work, and streamlining the processes.

It's extremely easy for me, but I had a boss who used to look over my shoulder and say, "I have no idea how you do what you do."

My default mode of thinking is systemising. Any new information that I absorb is validated against my structured mental system of knowledge, and is then "filed" accordingly, added to relevant mental indexes (perspectives), and associated with related concepts and facts within the various perspectives.

Any information that has not yet found its place in my system of knowledge circulates in the back of my head until a suitable perspective has been identified from which it can be linked to other pieces of knowledge. This mental search process takes up substantial time, and the backlog of raw information that awaits processing and indexing is quite substantial at most times. A big backlog feels stressful to maintain. The only way to deal with it is by systemising.

I find longer periods of social interaction quite taxing because it absorbs so much mental energy that the systemising routine can't keep up, leading to a bigger backlog.

Systemising is relaxing, as it does not consume social mental energy. However it consumes another form of mental energy that can only be recharged by physical activity. My ideal day is one where I can spend the majority of the time systemising on my own, a significant time doing physical activities outdoors, and a minimum amount of time involved in social interaction. My preferred form of social interaction is joint systemising with one colleague at a time.

The need for creating a coherent system of knowledge has led me to the techniques used at the foundations of mathematics, and to formal structures of systems of systems with distinct semantics, such that paradoxes and inconsistencies between systems can be articulated in precise terms within the system of knowledge, and such that the trappings of categorical thinking can be avoided.

All of this may sound horribly abstract, but it is the mechanism that keeps me sane. The systemising techniques that occupy my mind allow me at a professional level to regularly help people in various disciplines to understand each other across their respective silos of knowledge, by asking the right questions to surface potential misunderstandings.

I have implemented my system of knowledge in software, and this software acts as a brain extension that captures my thought patterns without any distortion. At the same time, I very much dislike reading software produced by others, because I immediately recognise broken patterns and structural inconsistencies.

I love organizing everything, from physical objects to thoughts (in the form of lists, and categories). It stimulates my brain and feels really good, to see it all laid out in a way that makes perfect, beautiful, logical sense. (Unlike most aspects of human society, I suppose!) I kind of get a 'high' from it... Pretty much my favorite thing to do

I have a lowly clerical job but I constantly look for more efficient ways to do my work, with the result that I am sometimes too idle and have to worry about being scolded about being on the Internet. (like right now!) But it just drives me nuts to do something in an inefficient - and even worse, ineffective - manner.

As above, I systemise everything I do, what I can't understand is the system-resisters. Why would you not?

I relate to much of what is already written. For instance the part about immediately spotting a syntax error in a programming language (even without highlighting), getting annoyed when others write things differently then I would have, and the part about always categorizing new knowledge in my "mental hierarchy" so to speak.

Further on, when I see something, I automatically tries to break it down into a rigid rule-based explanation for how it works. For instance, sometimes when I see tits bouncing, I start thinking of modelling them as damped mass-spring systems and how the governing differential equations should look like. I may start simple and elaborate the model in my head as I think about it. I hope no one is offended by this as that is certainly not the meaning. I have great respect for women. I rather hope someone can be entertained the way I think, as I have to confess it's probably a bit strange. One could of course also think about how to model male body parts.