Intuitive or Deliberate?

Post Reply New Topic

Dear All,

I was wondering if people here who have formally been diagnosed with an Autistic Spectrum Condition could enlighten me about how they reason in a daily capacity? This is mainly for my intellectual interest rather than anything else... i.e. I am not using this data in a study. I am currently conducting research with people with Psychotic Spectrum Conditions and how they reason, and I am curious to see how different people with Autism reason.

There is this belief amongst researchers and academics that people with Autism are people who are are very objective,
unbiased, factual and logical. This is actually reflected in a lot of psychological theories that have been proposed. In your opinion how do you find you make sense of everyday things? Do you apply "logic" and deliberation to everything you do, or do you sometimes feel you that your decisions and reasoning are just 'automatic' and rapid? or can you not really distinguish between the two?

Any insights you can provide me will be much appreciated.

Just to reiterate, this is for my own curiosity! I have previously run quantitative based studies on reasoning and people with Autism, but there is only so much questionnaires can tell us. I personally think its more valuable hearing it from someone in their own words.

Thanks in advance.

My actions can be rapid with little control.

I go between these modes all the time; while my job is all technical - boolean logic mostly - I could never write any code or make any good inferences without intuition.

I program macros into my brain, essentially.


I mean my instincts cannot be trusted under any circumstances, so I try to avoid letting them have any say or control.
The trouble is that they're also much quicker to respond to things than my conscious, thinking self...

SO ... I've learnt that I can essentially program impulsive responses to certain stimuli into myself.
All I have to do is form a mental connection between the stimulus and the desired response... then repeat it to myself until, much like playing the piano, it becomes automatic.


For instance... I insist on walking on the left side of the pavement in public, and won't allow anyone to pass by me on my left... so when I see someone approaching, I've programmed my body to move leftward... even if it means ducking and weaving around them.

Yes, this, and to the extreme. It causes slower responses and decision making in many types of situations.

Since most situations heavily involve conceptual things, the process also has to go through "social simulations". The more that social interaction or approval is involved, the slower the process of decision making.

I've described my thought processes to people by first talking about the book Thinking, Fast and Slow. After they understand "System 1" vs. "System 2" I explain that either I am missing the "fast" system or I am by nature exceptionally reliant on the "slow" system. This helps them understand why things like social interactions are so taxing (i.e. most people get to take mental short cuts where I need to process every word, hand gesture, and body movement) and why habits are so comforting. (i.e. I have previously thought of what the next step "should" be some time ago, breaking the habit requires actively rethinking what I will do next.) Having a book written for general audiences also makes giving examples easier for me, and lets them them have access to the foundational concept.

I couldn't have described how I'm different from typical people before reading the book because I never understood how typical people process information. Any description would have amounted to: "I'm weird in this way, strange in that way and I have this odd quirk, ect", with no real explanation. I've thought of starting a thread seeing if other people think my reasoning is correct, but I know that post would turn into a true wall of text. (And most people would comment without even trying to understand the book )I did send an e-mail to Dr. Kahneman, He responded:

So.... next time you're putting together a study involving people with Autism, consider creating questions that would reveal use of "fast" v "slow" processing. I'm sure this concept is overly simplistic, and there is more to learn, concerning both how the mind works in general, and how autism differs from the typical population, but it may be a good way to make conceptual connections.

If what I've said makes sense, let me know.

I go a step further with fast vs slow.

I define reasoning as slow due to being based in associative representational concepts, such as learned languages and number systems, which require multiple levels of translation and a large amount of memory retrieval.

I define intuition as fast, and actually instantaneous for all practical purposes. Intuition uses the brain's own natural language which does not require a lot of extra translation. Also the logic applied is not necessarily the same as the patterns that we are taught by other people. Intuition functions well even without memory retrieval.

I find that my intuition works extremely well when I'm working with something real, such as trouble-shooting why a mechanical device is malfunctioning, or debugging a computer code.

I find that my intuition performs very poorly when trying to reverse engineer complex layers of conceptual processes, such as social interaction. Why isn't social interaction much like a computer program? I think for two main reasons.

1. Social interaction contains many deceptions intentionally used to hide true intent, thus affecting successful emotional manipulation of others. If you follow the logic literally, then you will be misled.

2. The software of social interactions is highly adaptive and can change on the fly. If you can't determine true intent early on, then it's very easy to get lost in the ever-changing rules. Having a great memory doesn't help when what you've remembered has already changed.

To me it would seem that NTs use their intuition to navigate socially, and generally reserve reasoning for less conceptual type tasks, which is relatively rare for them. I find NTs to be horrible at solving real problems.

That is pretty much the opposite of what I do.
My use of reasoning to navigate socially is slow and doesn't work very well.

While this is how I had generally thought of intuition - what you think of fast / instantaneous thinking - I do not think that is what the book meant when it discussed "System 1", that is, "Fast / Automatic" thinking. Your definitions seem great to me, except for one issue. What falls under intuition for NT and AS differs. Intuition, when used by NTs almost always include processes involved in social interaction and other factors which AS are known for being "unintuitive" at. That implies your / our / AS view of intuition is fundamentally different from their / NT view.

The First Review I read while writing this, is actually from the CIA. It gives a reasonable, but very broad, overview of the book. My thought is that for people on the spectrum, System 2 does double duty and takes over the System 1 tasks.

Honestly, to have a real discussion on this would takes pages on pages. (Heck, with proper research a psych student could write a thesis on it. ) It'd be awesomely fun to have the dialogue, but the writing would require way too much time in text format. It's truly an exceptional book - I recommend everyone read it. If you do, consider the consequences of System 2 taking over both roles. I think you'd be surprised how it predicts Aspergers / Autism difficulties and strengths.

Do you think the book gives good explanations of intuition?
If so then I want to read it.

Yes.

I do not have the book with me otherwise I would track some down. Here are a few quotes from Goodreads:

I don't think NTs have horrible problem solving skills.

Nor do I agree with the attained implication that spectrum = superior problem solving skills. I don't even see how one would reach that conclusion.

If that's for me, then this is what I said:

"I find NTs to be horrible at solving real problems. "

To me the intent of my text is significantly different from what you said and supposed, primarily because of my use of the word "real".

What I observe is that NTs are good at a process of solving conceptual problems, and at the same time creating more conceptual problems. Social interaction is a great example of this.
Interaction is a cycle of perpetual conflict and resolution. If the conflict were not perpetually being created, then there wouldn't be nearly as much "need" for complex social interactions.
The continued complex interactions are felt needed in order to resolve these created conflicts.
All of this goes on without regard to "real" problems.
Adjusting behaviors to be in balance with the environment (a material environment, not an environment of competing ideas) would be an example of a real problem.


At any rate, my observations are just that and of course opinions will vary.

Last edited by olympiadis on 15 Jul 2014, 3:03 pm, edited 1 time in total.

This sounds like really great stuff, so I am very interested.
I can't say I agree with all of it right off though, but there could be a really good explanation for that which is not necessarily a direct conflict.
It sounds to me like the author is judging intuitive information AFTER it has been consciously processed, - as in going through at least some of our learned reasoning filters, which means it isn't really a pure intuition that he's always referring to. I think of intuition as being a separate information source that exists before any leaned types of translations are applied in our thinking or perception of it.

One example I want to point out is the three quotes above, which would seem to be in a bit of a conflict.
I think mood absolutely affects systems, but not necessarily that a good mood helps get in touch with intuition. It sure doesn't work that way for me, or apparently many firefighters.
It could be that he is concluding this from a purely NT point of view, as in from testing NT subjects.
If this is the case, and he is also examining intuitive information after conscious filtering, then his statements would seem to be correct.

I do want to read the book to get the rest of the information.

I read your example, but I don't understand what you mean by a 'real' problem.

You are right, that it is just varying opinions based on experiences.. as everything is.

ah, "real" is everything that exists outside of the human brain/imagination.

Everything inside the human brain is imagined.

If no human brains existed, then everything real would still be here.

A real problem for humans is finding food.
In the past 95% of occupations were some kind of farming to solve this problem.
Today only around 2% are farmers I think.

Conceptual things like language, law, and money are not real problems. You can't eat language, law, or money.

If you were the only human alive, then it would become very clear to you how worthless language, law, or money is. They are only useful conceptual tools when other human brains are around, and then only if you can convince those other humans that these concepts are real and should be acted on.

Initially they were all useful concepts that simply added extra layers of conceptual usefulness in the pursuit of solving real problems, like finding food.
Today these systems exist to serve themselves and don't really solve anything. They continuously create the need for more similar type occupations.

I understand. It is discussing how humans, as a whole, operate on a mental level. I was not in agreement with many of the "System 1" statements on the first reading. (Which includes as a subset Intuitive thoughts / actions) However, when concerning "System 2" operations I was almost wholly in agreement. At some point I realized that if I look at the book as a detailed discussion on how NeuroTypical people operate on a mental level, my disagreements & differences of view match up very well with the strengths and weaknesses of the autism spectrum. This is how I came up with theory that the Autism Spectrum is the clinical name for those people who's "System 2" is compensating for lacking "System 1."



It sounds like you're presuming that firefighters are not in a good mood when in a fire. From my experience of talking with my best friend, who is a firefighter, you would be wrong. For him there is absolutely nothing better than being called to a fire.

This makes sense when considering this is something he has dedicated his life to, he is exceptionally trained for, and he is fully engaged in. Granted, this is the total opposite of what is normal - for most people. Of course, when an Aspie is absorbed in their Special Interest, they are similarly fully engaged. Similarly, when an outsider sees an Aspie that is absorbed in their special interest they also can't imagine that they're actually enjoying themselves.



Yes, this book does not deal with the Autism Spectrum directly, it is the result of of clinical study by a psychologist concerning the general operation of the human mind. I did not intend to imply that it was a book about how the AS mind differs specifically from the NT. Even so, it can be greatly helpful to those on the Spectrum trying to gain an understanding of how they, and NTs, mentally operate.

I do not understand what you mean by "intuitive information after conscious filtering."