Ian Ford

This book is not as helpful as I hoped it would be. For the most part, the patterns merely confirmed that people are confusing without giving me the ability to understand them. For example, "the manipulation of words becomes like an art form, instead of words being used to mean something specific" (p. 33). But why? What is the point of using words to communicate if the words have no meaning, and therefore nothing is actually communicated? How can I learn the secret meaning people are communicating in other ways?

According to Ford, only a small amount of what is communicated in verbal communication is informational. One example statement analyzed in the book reads, "At this point in time, our kids need a lot more help, and we need to really start to give special emphasis on math and reading, and all the basics, and these things are so important, and also the other subjects as well, and I feel at this time it is important to recognize that all our teachers are doing such a wonderful job in all areas." As Ford admits, this paragraph doesn't actually mean anything because it is full of self contradictions: should we narrow our broaden our focus, is education failing or working well? Ford provides a translation of this paragraph, which is just two sentences repeated four times: "All of us are working toward the same purpose. I'm supporting your work." But the first paragraph doesn't say that at all. How is anyone supposed to know what the speaker was really saying if it is unrelated to the meaning of the words she used? There must be a way to learn these things. Ford argues that NT culture is constantly changing, so we can't memorize it; he allows that learning their culture from an anthropological view point might be effective.

There might be some way to adapt this work for use by educators. For example, I am a science teacher, and many of the patterns of NT thinking described in this book are incompatible with scientific work. NTs know things "in an associative way" rather than in a literal way. "Forest-first thinking does not depend on being observant of each detail" (p. 57). NTs report being certain that they know things even when they have any basis for that level of certainty. If this is indeed how the majority of people think, perhaps there is some way to get to a scientific world view that starts from students' inherent world view.… (mehr)

This book attempts to communicate an autistic view of neurotypical behaviour. By “neurotypical” the author means so-called normal, non-autistic behaviour.

But this is the viewpoint of one individual autistic person and I found the latter’s style excessively cerebral, and not easily comprehensible; I found it a struggle to read the book so gave it up. I would point out that I myself am not neurotypical.

It is wonderful to be able to fully express one’s own individual point of view, but the whole point of communication is to make oneself understood, and in my view the book is not particularly comprehensible and the author’s style does not make the reader feel he/she wants to make the effort to break through this comprehensibility barrier.… (mehr)

This books reverses the traditional take on ASD (Autism spectrum disorders). It is an attempt to explain the oftentimes bizarre behaviour of “Neurotypicals” (NTs) to people with asd, I’ll call them Aspies from now on. The main idea is that Aspies think in terms of ideas whereas NTs think in words/symbols. Each NT has a word map inside their head which link words to one another, a word spoken to an NT conjures up a whole set of associated words, for example wedding → {flowers, groom, priest, white dress, happiness, champagne, gourmet} such that the meaning of “wedding” to an NT is the set of associated words rather than the literal meaning. They can’t create new ideas, all they can do is find novel connections in the word map, maybe. The author assumes that this is the only way that NTs can think. The word for this theory of mind when applied to the human race is Behaviourism. The idea that the Universe is actually built this way (or that this is the only way to interpret it), that is symbols and connections to other symbols, is called Logical Positivism.

Linguistic theorists embraced and then rejected Behaviourism as a way of explaining human language (http://www.chomsky.info/articles/1967----.htm). Human language is far too complex. Any human who thought exclusively in terms of word associations would be so stupid as to be incapable of functioning. This way of thinking does exist in the political sphere, however, it’s a degenerate form of intuition, which I explain later. The object of political language is to deceive “The enemy of clear language is insincerity”. Almost everyone finds fault in politics, this is not something that only Aspies have discovered.
I’ve never been diagnosed but I’m sure I have some version of Asperger’s syndrome. I can’t stand repetitive noises, imprecise language and rules-that-everyone-agrees-with-but-don’t-actually-follow. I find that most people have better focus and organisation skills than me and can anticipate problems that I do not foresee. This is why I find the fictional episodes within the book so strange. The author presents a wedding with NTs as delusional squabbling buffoons who are finally trumped when reality knocks on the door. Whereas I would trust anyone except me to organise a wedding.

Let me propose an alternate model of how most people actually think, they use logical induction or “intuition”. Small amounts of information can be used to infer things probabilistically. You have found a dent in the car you are looking to buy, what does this tell you? Aspies would say “that it has a small dent”, NTs would place a higher probability on the car having other problems, which is not a bad assumption. The brand is unpopular, does this matter? Yes. Your date has a stain on his shirt. Maybe this is uncharacteristic, maybe he’s actually got his shit together. Who knows? Who cares? Don’t waste your time. Intuition is useful that’s why people use it. Using your intuition is a fast way for dealing with a world without reliable information. It involves keeping a database full of all sorts of implicit assumptions or theories about the world, these help to keep you focused and able to respond quickly. One of the big assumptions most people make is that the best thing to do is to do what everyone else does. This is not as stupid as it sounds, doing something different can lead to unforseen problems. Should you use Microsoft Windows in your business? Everyone else does, so probably yes. The author gave an example of a sum with terms missing, apparently the answer was unguessable, given the lack of information 2 8 5 _=? Not so! It’s probably going to be less than 1000, less than 100, more like ~20. Which would have been a good guess.

Much time has been spent by psychologists trying to prove human stupidity. The famous example is “Linda the bank teller”, an outspoken, bright, socially aware former student of philosophy. Is it more probable that she is a) a bank teller, or b) a bank teller and a feminist? Most people answer b) this is apparently proof to psychologists that people are stupid and don’t understand probabilities. I think people not trained in the language of probability find the question ambiguous. It’s more likely that people interpret the question such that it doesn’t sound as stupid, they assume that a) means that she isn’t a feminist.

Obviously there are issues with intuitive thinking. The inferences are not logically valid, that is to say not necessarily true, given the information. Aspies lack the set of implicit assumptions “common sense” that most people have so find it hard to make the mental leaps which others make easily. Aspies tend to be more aware of how they think, this introduces a feeling of uncertainty into the assumptions themselves. If they are introspective types they will think outside the intuition system to think about the system itself. This also explains why they like to work within formal systems with explicit assumptions, like mathematics. We should all learn to move between different levels of thinking.

The section on sex was interesting, apart from the distasteful language "complex mating rituals". The author makes the mistake of assuming social conventions are designed and have a purpose. Rather they perpetuate themselves by forcing compliance on Aspies as well as NTs. Any man cannot be too direct for fear of appearing desperate or frustrated. Women have to think carefully about going home with a man if she perceives danger, it will be more difficult for her to leave if she has already dropped her pretense - plausible deniability.

The author needs to examine his own assumptions. For instance he states confidently that race is not a thing. He follows the common practise of asserting the non-existance of a category by showing that the border line is hazy. The exact line between land and ocean is hazy, but I believe they are both distinct categories. I'm white, no-one could think otherwise. He makes a similar assertion about Sexuality. It surprises me that the author neglects Biological Sex as having any influence on the brain, considering he is obviously a Biological determinist when it comes to Neurotype. "There are some ideas so absurd that only an intellectual could believe them".… (mehr)

A Field Guide to Earthlings: An Autistic/Asperger View of Neurotypical Behavior
By Ian Ford
Published by Ian Ford Software Corporation ISBN9780615426198
Given to me by publisher through arrangement with ReviewtheBook

I am almost 69 years old, and I was not diagnosed as autistic until I was in my fifties. That diagnosis was the most liberating experience of my life; within two weeks I could no longer even remember things I had been kicking myself for since I was as young as four. Despite the neurotypical mental picture of an autistic child wearing a football helmet and screaming, I have a PhD in English, am a world class fingerprint examiner, have published 23 books through major publishers, and have written, edited, and published many more as ebooks. I am a self-starter and I can define my work and do it.

But my interpersonal relationships are and always have been disastrous. My husband and I often find ourselves quarreling because each of us thinks he or she was perfectly clear and the other is willfully misunderstanding.

Ford explains why.

There are shared experiences and assumptions in the neurotypical world that the autistic person, no matter where he or she is on the autism spectrum, cannot understand. Often the “autie”—Ford’s phrase for a person with autism—is unable to express things in a way that neurotypical (normal) person can understand.
Ford identifies several differences between the autistic brain and the neurotypical brain. Some of these are (1) An infant’s brain has no screening mechanism. It accepts all input at the same time. In self-defense, the neurotypical brain develops screening techniques that allow only selected outside stimuli to get through. The autistic brain typically does not develop the screening mechanisms; instead, it learns to cope with a stream of competing input that would drive a neurotypical person mad.

(2) The adult neurotypical brain’s perception is limited to what it already “knows.” It develops a blind spot so that things that do not fit into its perceived universe are literally not seen or heard. The autistic brain readily takes in new stimuli and new thoughts.

(3) The neurotypical brain constantly converses in thoughts that underlie the words and are “understood” by the people conversing. The autistic brain does not understand the underlying conversation and tries to take part in what appears to be the topic under discussion. This is seen as taking part in the underlying conversation, and the autie is understood to mean things s/he does not and cannot mean.

(4) The neurotypical person constantly strives for dominance. The autie does not comprehend dominance nor does s/he comprehend what is going on.

(5) Sexual discussion is often carried on in code. The autie does not understand the code and is often perceived as making, or accepting, sexual advances which s/he does not comprehend. This may lead to what the neurotypical person believes is consentual sex and the autie perceives as forced sex.

(6) The neurotypical person belongs to one or more formal or informal groups, the values of which it internalizes. The autie is incapable of internalizing the values of anyone but himself/herself.

Although it appears that a neurotypical person and an autie are having a normal conversation, in fact communication is failing because there are levels in the autie’s discourse that the neurotypical cannot comprehend and vice versa. Quoting from p. 199: “If you have ever heard a political speech that seemed completely free of content, you are familiar with extremely associative people. Extreme associatives live in a socially constructed world and can use words for hours at a time, talk about words . . . and never ‘say anything’(from our [i.e., the auties’] point of view). They can talk about alliances, desert and other relational emotions, but might not say anything that counts as information to an autistic listener.” To a lesser extent, the same thing happens in what neurotypical people consider a normal conversation.

When people ask how autistic a person is, answering is difficult. “We all take what we are and develop different compensations to interface with the world. It is the compensating strengths that others use to judge “how autistic are you,” not the fundamental traits. . . . [D]on’t trust what someone looks like as a measure of their autism . . . Our thoughts appear … less encumbered by emotions, and we intuitively know that language is an invention. We cannot lie as easily” (pp. 200-201). We also cannot spot lies as easily.… (mehr)