Why NeuroTypical women hate categories

Post Reply New Topic

Ive noticed that whenever I apply categories and systematics to analyzing and understand the world of PEOPLE, there's always some NT women who gets really annoyed, sometimes offended and scolds me for making "sweeping generalizations"....even if such generalizations arent specifically about the sexes! The only thing I can conclude is that such categorical thinking and generalizations, NO MATTER HOW TRUE, are contrary to the way that NT women are wired to perceive the social world.
Its like, instead of trying to construct a model of human behaviour, they simply *tune in* to the situation using their intuition.
Some (NT)men are this way but they are kind of rare. Am I on to something here? Is Simon Baron-Cohen actually correct about women's tendency to not use reductionism to understand human relationships and behaviour??

this seems a really interesting topic.... if I could understand what you mean.. lol
when you say catagories, could you give an example? I think I know what you mean, but I'm not sure.

Charlie

The thing is, people aren't like objects; we aren't mass produced, nor is there anything similar enough from one person to another that you can categorize us into anything but the roughest categories. Even "male" and "female" leaves out intersexed and neuter people.

The problem with categorizing people is that if you say, "This group has this characteristic", then you are likely to be making a false statement, because there will probably be some subgroup that does not have the characteristic in question.

For example, "All little kids like to play tag." Well, not every kid likes to play tag; I didn't. And while most kids may enjoy it, the kids who don't like to play tag will be annoyed that you are making assumptions about them that aren't true--and some of the kids who do like it will be annoyed just because you are making assumptions.

Now, let's say you assume something more dangerous: "All autistic people are unemployed." Uh-oh. Suddenly you've stepped over the line from generalization into flat-out prejudice, because obviously, while more autistics are unemployed than non-autistics, there's no way that you can predict whether any given autistic person has a job based on their diagnosis!

People are, unfortunately, inherently unpredictable. You can't put them into categories, except in the roughest possible way, and only then if you realize at all times that there will be exceptions. All you can do is get to know each single person as a category in himself; otherwise, you risk being mistaken about things that could be very important to people.

You've got to make a total paradigm shift... thinking about people is not the same as thinking about facts or things. Each person is not just another human being, yet another example of a species, but a whole world all by himself. You can't put people in categories; they just don't fit.

some generalizations are perfectly true- "all cats are great" .

am do not understand generalizations especially when its things like "all classic autistics cannot post on the internet or use computers" [this one has been used by people on the spectrum as well] or ones that are used without having the experience to know if its true or not,it's not an NT thing to not like generalizations,but then am not sure if have understood post as it was meant.

Well, I can tell you it's not NT exclusive... It simply is so that there is an exception to almost every rule you may want to state, in the sense of trying to lump all people of a particular trait together. I think it is that many people do not care to be categorized; it goes contrary to the human wish to be recognized for our uniqueness, to be given that chance to be ourselves, if I understand you correctly.

It is simply that no matter what model you construct, there will be someone with every reason to fit to type who simply does not. Thus the application of rigid categorization to changeable beings is unfair and prejudicial. As hard as humans are to understand, you cannot decipher them using formulae. You must always leave the possibility open that variation will occur.

Man, I feel like Captain Kirk.

You must see you are doing it again, generalizing that all NT women are wired a certain way because so many have failed to agree with you. Mind you, it may be that many are similar in that they don't care for the idea that you are in the process of throwing them, too, into a category. But I wouldn't like it either.

The other trouble is that claiming you can predict human behavior flies in the face of free will. At best, you are going to be considered insufferable.

I couldn't say it any better than irishwhistle.

I'm interested in how exactly you "apply categories and systematics to analyzing and understand the world of PEOPLE" , and what sorts of things do you say or do to provoke such reactions from women?

Nobody I've ever met is more ridiculing and criticizing towards autistics than NT women for some reason. Aspie women and NT men seems to be able to accept neurodiversity more I guess.

I think that many (see? not all... women want to have a period of time with someone that they're figuring them out, learning about them, etc. They want a similar response with guys; learning details (" no, turn away from me and tell me what color my eyes are"... etc.

I think that if they feel a guy is summing them up, they're missing on things that make them unique. Often, it seems that a woman would rather hear there's no one quite like her (in a good way; evidence - most romantic songs..., than they're 'just like everyone else' (which is a put-down).

Just a thought. Mileage may vary, not valid in New Jeresy...

Palked, you make an excellent point. I feel that most women in their mind do in fact feel this way, and desire others around them to feel this way about them. The odd thing I have noticed however is the way many women, despite the fact that they want to feel that they are one of a kind, and desire to feel that way, seem to act in a different manner. My evidence to this is they way women follow fashion much closer than men do, and will change their wardrobe, home furnishings, and even their automobile not because these articles are worn, but because they are "out of style" or not in style. (Note, again, this is a generalization, and does not represent the view of ALL women, but I would say about 85% of those I have met) Women will in fact purchase things because of their appearance, and while they may not desire to have the same outfit as another, they will want it to be very similar.

Actually I have met many men who are sick and tired of hearing others categorize people, too. I don't think it's a female thing. Especially, for some reason, autistic men; the one I know who is a hundred times more adamant than me about making assumptions has classic autism. Maybe that's because autism means you're outside the human norm, and know that you can't make assumptions about people, because often times the assumptions are wrong about you.

The human brain is much more complex than a computer or a logic problem. It's what we call a chaotic system... as hard to predict as the weather. Tiny differences can bring forth large results; and it's extremely hard if not impossible to predict its future state even if given its present state and the input received.

You may say you can predict people, but I doubt you'll be right any more often than the weatherman.

I'm not that much different to an NT. We all have our oddities. I hate the generalisations of AS versus NT.