People still ask me, "now, what is a blog?"
Naturally they expect I would know--I've been the unique person who knew every smallest detail about computers, then built on the details to the point that I can tell people technical details about how their computer tools work and how to get the most out of them even if I've never heard of it until they tried to explain to me what they know, or I just take one look at it and tell them things that are not written anywhere. Almost all of the time people have been able to verify that I was correct. When they ask me how I knew, I really don't know what to tell them. Isn't it obvious? How could then be unable to see the same things when they even went to the same schools?
Just to make something clear first: I am not here to explain blogging nor tell how to use it. I really have never used blogging before. I really have never saw how other people blog and couldn't tell you what it's commonly used for. Sure 'blog' is short for "web log", but it's not like that info will help anyone. I'd just say that my blog here is just a way for me to express myself and sort out my thoughts at the same time.
Studying cognitive behavior and neurological disorders leads me to realize how I do things different than them. I really don't think these can really be proven as a disorder but rather a difference from something else that is, of course, different from the one. Certainly some people are unable to perform certain cognitive work as efficiently as another person, but then there are trade-offs. They can therefore use a different skill more efficiently than the other person which seems to have been amplified because of the same difference.
I am starting to put together in my mind the idea of Dimensional Thinking. That is just a way for me to visualize the relationships of a subject or task that one is thinking through. Basically I have an idea of three dimensions of thinking that make up what I refer to as the whole picture. The dimensions I call length, width, and depth. Length would refer to something like a sequence of steps needed in order to complete a task. Width would consist of various aspects or parallel things to think of at the same time in the task, for example if I am counting money do I add 1, 5, or 10 while I pick up a paper bill and move it from the un-counted pile to the pile that is counted. Depth would be the amount of detail which from my point of view seems harder for most people to use. An example might be when counting money, checking for real money or different type of currency or whether the piles are in a position that will make moving it easy and not get the two mixed up. The biggest way that I distinguish between Depth details and Width details is that Depth most often has to do with the "Why?". The details in Width seem more of just different parts of a whole not otherwise related except they are included.
In general, I have noticed that my weakest dimension is Length and my strongest is Depth. The typical person I try to work with is strongest in Length and Width. When they even get the impression I might be going in the direction of Depth, they tend to be irritated and resist. This goes along with a long-time issue where my peers seemed to think that being the smartest person was bad, and they did everything they could to not look smart. People tend to brag about how dumb they are.
Yes, I have Asperger's syndrome which I only began to learn about in 2009 (a couple years ago). Frankly although people who think in depth and not well in the others tend to be diagnosed with this ASD stuff, it will not do much good to focus on labels without understanding the actual cognitive functions which can be done without labels.
No comments:
Post a Comment