As we explained in a recent review paper, researchers have repeatedly found evidence that Autistic individuals are, on average, more consistent, less biased, and more rational than non-autistic individuals in a variety of contexts.
Specifically, many Autistic people seem to be less susceptible to cognitive biases, and therefore better able to make judgments and reach decisions in a more traditionally ‘rational’ manner.
Interesting if true; it could indicate that at least mild Autism is a beneficial adaptation. Though those biases probably came about for good reasons, it could be they've become obsolete and are no longer worth it.
1: https://neuroclastic.com/its-a-spectrum-doesnt-mean-what-you...
cystic fibrosis used to be under the (all-encompassing) umbrella "chronic fatigue" because, well, they were chronically fatigued. when its niche finally gained enough data to escape the umbrella, diagnosis and treatment greatly accelerated. of course, you'd expect that once a cause is identified, but umbrellas tend to contain many totally unrelated sub-causes with wildly different subtleties that just happen to fit a vague description that matches others.
Higher resolution (of concepts) is better.
Also tend towards common sense slanted bluntness over diplomatic word dancing more than not and with that, Greta Thunberg does some good examples of that.
One finally aspect, my thinking is more wider in scope still as a child and with that, will happily ask that awkward question and equally see things from a perspective others tend to overlook.
One time during an exit interview I pointed out (some concrete feedback they could take action on, aaah, how naive of me) how bad the DevOps team had it (80+ hour weeks, constant weekend work, all hours on call, etc) as one of my reasons for leaving and the CEO could NOT understand why I would care about this at all. His response was about how our team (BI) had it so good, which we did, so why would that matter!
He literally could not understand that I had empathy for another team and it affected my perception of the company.
Think of the cartoons where the "nerds" are trying to fight/play sports and are trying to calculate optimal trajectories, etc. The additional rationality slows down coming to conclusions significantly and I'd argue in most cases the added accuracy is of marginal value.
Basically, I believe a lot of those biases are shortcuts that give a good enough answer in significantly less time. I.e. Newton's method over actually computing derivatives.
We still value people who strongly assert what they think is the correct answer quickly though and view that as a sign of intelligence (and to be fair it is, but its more about the intelligence of knowing how to convince rather than the intelligence of knowing what is correct).
Suppose you're a judge in a contest. The contest has rules. If you apply the rules the same to all the contestants, that might be considered a disadvantage when you have the opportunity to apply the rules more favorably to your friends. Whereas the other guy who interprets the rules to favor his friends creates the expectation that the friends will return the favor someday.
But the advantage isn't always an advantage. If the other participants view you as biased then they won't even show up or pay entry fees anymore. Then there is no more contest and your friends lose even the possibility of winning.
It's kind of like asking if there's a disadvantage in not being a sociopath. Turns out, maybe not.
This is not a fact. It’s a now discredited stereotype.
Emotion is a known irrational effect on decision making, autism is often associated with the lack of emotion in certain contexts (or inability to understand the emotion). Having less of the thing that makes you irrational would make you more rational by default.
Similar to Charlie's Munger devotion in life isn't to be smart, it's to figure out how to not be dumb. How can you not be irrational? Don't let emotion impact your decision making.
* To be clear, I'm not saying those on the spectrum don't have emotions (they do), though in my experience it comes across quite differently. It feels more like "another factor to be analyzed", which can easily be disregarded in some contexts, than an "invisible hand" behind the scenes influencing decisions.
I suspect (but don’t know how to test the hypothesis) that cognitive biases are why human learning can produce good results with dramatically less data than machine learning. More rational, yes, when you get there; but harder to learn at all.
You might like the book "Simple Heuristics that make us smart" which explores this idea
https://www.amazon.com/Simple-Heuristics-That-Make-Smart/dp/...
Autism isn't some reasoning superpower, it's just a difference in processing stimuli.
I would agree with your characterisation as a difference in processing stimuli.
This assumes that being less rational (and e.g. more passionate, optimistic, etc.) is not more beneficial, which might very well be the case.
Not picking on you or your post, but it's interesting that we still consider this an adaptation. What if this is humanity's natural state and allistics are the adaptation?
The neocortex handles rational thinking and reasoning, so an increased reliance on it would put autism further from evolutionary predecessors. Also, you would expect the ratios of allistics:autistic to be reversed as well.
Also, as a mildly autistic person, I don't believe autism would be a beneficial trait in the wild. I would probably be fine, but some of my tendencies would lessen my likelihood of survival.
Actually this seems unlikely given the sequence of evolution. But...
Here is a spoof of Allistic Spectrum Disorder imagined as if it affected a small minority of people (trigger warning for those obsessed with status).
From [nonexistent] DSM-VI: Hyper-Social (Allistic) Spectrum Disorder
HSSD is a syndrome in which there is an over-focus on social phenomena at the expense of other aspects of the world. Contrast with Autistic Spectrum Disorder, which is in many ways the opposite.
Diagnosis: Any 5 of the following are present:
Inability to express self clearly; use of ambiguous and vague language; discomfort with clear language
Obsessive interest in knowing personal details of acquaintances or strangers e.g. celebrities, or even fictional characters
Unfounded belief in being able to read other people's minds, in particular to know if someone is lying or not.
Difficulty in thinking in a systematic logical way, e.g. to do math or program computers
Tendency to try to bend and stretch rules for no obvious reason. Discomfort with accurately following instructions and processes.
Forms beliefs based on the opinions of others rather than on facts and evidence Tendency to affiliate with groups and to align all opinions to the group
Frequently lies, mostly for social convenience (studies suggest 3-5 times a day)
Preoccupied with social status and “looking the part”
Focus on status symbols, and symbols of virtue and group affiliation
Focus on appearances more than underlying reality
Intolerance of diversity of opinion
Intolerance towards people who do not have HSSD
Spends large amounts of time on shallow “social” activities with little actual content. May lead to destructive activities such as substance abuse e.g. alcohol, and over-eating.
Lack of interest in mastering difficult, especially technical, subjects in depth Tendency to stare into people's eyes, and to believe that this gives great insight into the other person's mind. Usually unaware that this can create discomfort in the other person.
Tendency to think that staring into people's eyes demonstrates trustworthiness.
E.g. Certain professions instill in you biases. Or force you to pick them. Examples: police officers, medical, politicians, social workers. And I bet those are professions that people with degrees of autism avoid.
I am curious if the lack of bias exists in other conditions that end up acting in a short of unempathetic way (for different reasons as noted).
The same kind of logical, exacting thinking necessary for mastery of physical systems is in tension with the kinds of thinking used in social games. Some brains are better at one than the other — and we have disorders at both extremes.
I’ve always wondered if autism and dyscalclia are something of “polar opposites”.
I don't think they are. Plenty of autistic people are bad at maths (you just don't meet these people in engineering circles!), and plenty of "social butterflies" are good at it.
Thanks!
Many people with ASD put a lot of time and effort into learning and altering their natural behavior in order to better understand and interact in a way that is perceived as normal by nerutotypical people.
I'm hopeful the inverse will happen more over time as well, neurotypicals putting effort into learning and adjusting their own behavior to better interact with and understand autistic people.
Making it normal to include input from all neurotypes (as opposed to excluding) is a great step forwards.
I have a crazy anecdote like that too. My severely (barely verbal, had his own barely intelligible language) step brother would watch like a grand total of two movies on repeat. So many times that for a decade afterward you could say a single line from either movie, and I could finish the script for you.
Those two movies? Who Framed Roger Rabbit and Willow.
After a couple of decades of a break from being forced to watch them I finally did, and they're exemplary.
WFRR is objectively incredible: https://medium.com/labjorfaap/who-framed-roger-rabbit-bumpin... as a production, and as work of art.
And Willow is one of the best fantasy epics ever made, IMHO.
He was maybe ~6 when WFRR came out on VHS could already spot a good movie. He's probably still mentally a poorly functioning 6 despite being 36 now, but there's a lot more to him than his obsession with Christmas. :)
I feel like in the years to come we're going to learn a lot from and benefit greatly from autistic folks. (I also might be one.)
You make it sound as if liking old movies should be cause for suspicion!
Rather it's more a spectrum as in a spectrum of colors: there are a number of traits to autism, not all of which might be present in a person diagnosed with ASD so single-criteria tests like identify the emotions in these photographs, for example, don't really work as good diagnostic tools.
This article found with a quick Google search seems to sum up some of this reasonably well: https://www.appliedbehavioranalysisedu.org/what-is-meant-by-...
I think a better example to sunken cost bias could be found than this one as people usually pay more for trips that they prefer more in the first place.
If I have paid for two trips and have to cancel one of them with no refunds, I assume that I really wanted to go on both.
So when I am choosing which one to cancel, I am also likely choosing that I will later repurchase the trip that I am cancelling now. So at that point I’d be looking at which of the two trips is cheaper to replace. And if I am not allowed by the rules of this thought experiment to do so, then I must assume that the more expensive one of those two will cost more to buy again later also.
Then also as you say, which one is more preferable in the first place and again, if I was willing to pay more for one of them in the first place then presumably that one.
Unless there was something special about the cheap one. For example, maybe it’s a trip somewhere that I cannot go in the future, only now. Or a trip with someone I want to go there with and they can only go at this time. But again, all of that kind of stuff is left unspecified in the question. So if they force us to make a choice on so little information, what are they expecting, and in what sense is the kind of question they are asking anything but a straw man kind of deal?
What even were the possible answers that respondents could give? If “I don’t know”, or “too little information to determine” are an option then I’d pick one of those, but if the only answer we can give is “cancel the cheap one”/“cancel the expensive one”, then I would say cancel the cheap one, but they can’t then just go and say “oh this is a fallacy and you fell for it”.
Shruggs.
If the question was "Which of these trips would you like to pay for twice?", then it's immediately obvious that the cheaper trip should be cancelled.
Choosing the one you'd rather go on right now shows a lack of planning. It seems less rational to me.
So I don't know the specifics of the question at hand, or if these autistic people were even able to ask these questions, but they seem rather important, and if they in fact NOT asking them but had the opportunity to do so, then I'd question the value of some of the assumptions this article seems to make.
So I completely get this and empathize.
It may be that the societal rejection autistic people face give them a perspective that enables a more rational worldview, or it could be directly caused by the autism itself.
Interested to see studies that follow up on this.
I think this would only work if all the other people who were also rejected (schizophrenics, bipolars, adhds, etc.) were also more rational and I don't think this is the case (or even close to being the case.) I'm guessing the researchers would have accounted for that.
Everyone says they want rationality and unbiased thinking, but don't really care if it takes extra effort or time. This threw me for years. When I would point out gaps or mention hidden assumptions I would get dismissed almost every time.
Like just because you have data to back up your point/idea doesn't mean your point is right. That's NOT what data-driven actually means. No, what people want is numbers to add to make a story seem more trustworthy.
Once I started treating "rational" or "data-driven" like a buzz word everything made sense.
I would argue that the greatest issue with neurotypical society over all is that it tends to value a singular mode of thinking and being as somehow inherently more valuable than others, failing to recognize that in our many differences we are actually stronger as a whole.
First names of elements started being capitalized. Then there was the "Black" thing, followed by the "White" thing. We seem to be headed back to the 1700s, when Important Words were capitalized.
Unfortunately, if the shit really does hit the fan, this process can lead to validation of the emotions and an 'autistic meltdown'. So it's a double-edged sword, to be sure
Put another way, I suppose I'm saying that there may be a second group -- "highly rational people" -- that intersects and overlaps significantly with "people with autism", and we could be making statements about one group that should be attributed to the other.
(I'm not trying to touch any nerves here. I'm putting aside the fact that the article is a positive piece about people with autism and makes some enlightening points. I'm just claiming that the "challenging preconceived ideas" may be mostly true, but also too narrow and possibly misleading.)
This is missing a hige piece of context. What about the possibility that you may later decide to repurchase whichever trip you decline now? My future cost is reduced by canceling the cheaper trip now. If both are in the realm of "I'd like to go there someday" and close in appeal, it is more rational to take the more expensive one. If we don't consider that larger (possible) context then obviously take the one you prefer the most.
NonA-DHD typically respond to deadlines with increased urgency, commitment, and re-factoring assessments.
ADHD may respond to deadlines by abandoning tasks and starting new extraneous tasks.
Is that rational? It’s what happens, and since it is such a dramatic and consequential difference, it warrants a reconsideration of the meaning of the term “rational”, and it’s limitations.
ADHD isn’t an isolated minority. It’s a transient condition in a significant number of people, prevalent enough in the population to make economic text books about monolithic “rationality” unfit for purpose.
Various subgroups can have different responses, but rationality is its own ideal, regardless of what people do.
Ostensibly Rational just means “with reasons” or “calculated” but there are many different calculuses under which one could operate.
I agree with GP. Economic rational agents are supposed to do things like maximize utility or minimize loss. I know that I for one do things like “anticipate others’ needs”, “feel ambivalent about eating the entire box of donuts”, and “take a day off work to practice origami”, and I’m not sure how those actions fit into the economic model.
People who 'grow out' of having ADHD either:
1. Developed coping methods that lessened the impact of their symptoms, making them functional enough to not be diagnosable (ADHD is only diagnosed if it negatively impacts your ability to function in two or more of the domains of work, social life, and home/family life). Often people who do this are still negatively impacted by their condition, but their problems are invisible and go unnoticed.
2. Never had ADHD to begin with, and instead had one of the many other psychiatric or physical conditions that can impact executive functioning (e.g. depression, sleep disorders, anxiety, malnutrition, etc.).
(wow I used the word impact a lot in this paragraph)
(May not be remembering this correctly and I assume this study was done in the 90s when thinness was more in fashion - wouldn't be surprised if it didn't replicate if done today)
See also: dunning kruger effect.
My takeaway is that the 'normal' human brain lies to itself in many ways which protect the ego. Some disorders are caused not by disconnection from reality, but rather too accurate a view of reality.
I wouldn't be surprised if there are many autistic traits that have a similar origin: the brains socio-protective instinctual lies are failing, and autistic people are actually acting more rationally.
Yeah, I've heard this about depression. [1]
> Depressive realism is the hypothesis developed by Lauren Alloy and Lyn Yvonne Abramson that depressed individuals make more realistic inferences than non-depressed individuals. Although depressed individuals are thought to have a negative cognitive bias that results in recurrent, negative automatic thoughts, maladaptive behaviors, and dysfunctional world beliefs, depressive realism argues not only that this negativity may reflect a more accurate appraisal of the world but also that non-depressed individuals' appraisals are positively biased.
It may have been the same study or one inspired by the study you mentioned, but I've heard things like this before too.
Hmmm. What are they implying by that parenthetical comment placement?
Think of it like primitive vs value types in Java. ‘int a = 7; Integer b = 7’
“a” is 7, but “b” just has a pointer to 7.
—- I guess autistic people must not mind or even prefer to identify in this way, but it can really help in a therapeutic setting not to call someone “a borderline woman” or “a psychotic woman” because for better or worse labeling someone as mentally unhealthy is colloquially tantamount to an insult.
It was a very awkward lunch.
The peer pressured group might think they did properly think it through, but mostly all you need is an appeal to authority and they fall in line.
I'd guess that it's pretty common for autistic people to fight concepts like singular "they" just out of the sense of maintaining linguistic order, uncorrelated with whether they actually see the need for gender-neutral and non-binary pronouns or not (which can be a source of frustrating misunderstandings that assume bad intent when there's none).
For me, it only "clicked" once I understood that gender and sexuality are completely arbitrary and subjective social constructs that try to describe a whole spectrum of multidimensional behaviors and (potentially repressed) feelings, so there's little point in trying to objectively categorize them - it's all about the subjective impression of the person themself, which makes it obvious that the language should be able to actually express their identities and that it doesn't help anyone to try to force some categorization on them.
