Neurodiversity

[Pieter Boelen]

I always wondered why George Lucas (who, ever since hearing him talk in an interview, I always felt was autistic by his thinking and speaking patterns) and Steven Spielberg were such close friends. Now it makes perfect sense. Not only do they come from a similar cultural background, but they are also both neurodivergent/disabled.

Heh; whaddayaknow!
And I really connect with their work.

Not just me though; they got quuuiiite some success!

 

[Cerez]

 

[Cerez]

(Heh... I see you changed the thread title. Oops; got derailed from the original subject again, didn't it? That seems to happen a lot...)

Conversations generally usually tend to derail a bit, but the reason this happens so much when talking with me is that, as an autistic person, all these things are almost inseparably interconnected in my mind/brain: the moon, human nature, dinosaurs, other animals -- these topics all have links, bridges, that connect them in my head. So it's very hard for me to stay "on topic" -- it feels like suppressing to mention key information/details that lie on those bridges, like I'm consciously and heavily restraining myself from sharing (which is in fact what I would be doing).

Neurotypical people, from what I can tell, tend to think more in separate topics -- one thing at a time -- and the emotional interaction/experience plays a much larger role in their conversation, takes up more of the activity in their brain. This is why they can go on with a social chit-chat that contains basically no academic/meaningul information and still get something out of it (emotional bonding, information about the other person). Autistic people generally can't do this. We get nothing out of chit-chat, except being considerate to the neurotypical person's needs.

This is also why many neurotypical people get fed up with autistic infodumping in speech or writing -- they just can't seem to follow our logic, and easily get tired of trying to. Autistic people, on the other hand, get to know each other through the nature of these links, by our interests. For us (or at least most of us), the world is generally interconnected. (Which is more than a little ironic, given that being autistic means being less self-centred in this regard than a neurotypical person. The word "autistic" means retreating into the self, being closed off in the self -- but this is more a reflection of how neurotypical researchers see us, and our social circumstances as a minority, than how we really are by nature. In 'retreating into ourselves' we are actually connecting with our environment and its details -- bonding with the world we are living in, making observations and connections.)

 

[Cerez]

So far as I've learned -- if I can sum it up in a few sentences -- the main difference between autistic and neurotypical thinking is this:

Autistic people are prone to seeing the world objectively first: they relate things to one another, evaluate, and compare them -- eventually finding universal patterns that shape their worldview. This is why autistic people tend to have a more realistic and balanced, uncanny insight into how things in nature and the world work (except as it pertains to one-on-one and group social interaction and related societal structure/conventions), and to be more accepting of differences in general.

Neurotypical people are prone to seeing the world subjectively first: they relate everything to themselves, to their own and others' feelings -- eventually developing a stronger ego and sense of group/community, as well as great personal social skills and (to us) uncanny social insight.

 

[Cerez]

Jim Henson was autistic. Note the social awkwardness, the raw honesty, the stimming (pressure stimming by pressing behind his ear), the lack of body awareness/co-ordination, and just how genuinely impressed he was with the social/acting skills of the neurotypical host:

 

[Cerez]

And here's neurotypical genius:

Orson Welles is about as neurotypical as it gets -- and yet with a uniquely original, deep wit and creative perspective.

 

[Cerez]

Another good contrast -- and two people in fame who were both friends and rivals in their working field -- are Elvis Presley and Roy Orbison.

Elvis was largely neurotypical:

While Roy was completely neurodivergent (and I would heavily venture to say autistic):

Most people these days know about Elvis, and not so much about Roy. This is mostly thanks to Elvis' outstanding charm and personality (neurotypical social skills). Yet most people will recognise Roy's classic, prolific work, spanning decades, the moment they hear it -- they just mostly either don't know who the artist is or wrongly attribute it to Elvis.

Spoiler: More of Roy's famous and influential songs

 

[Pieter Boelen]

Most people these days know about Elvis, and not so much about Roy. This is mostly thanks to Elvis' outstanding charm and personality (neurotypical social skills). Yet most people will recognise Roy's classic, prolific work, spanning decades, the moment they hear it -- they just mostly either don't know who the artist is or wrongly attribute it to Elvis.

At first listen, indeed that Roy does sound quite Elvis-ey.
Or perhaps Elvis sounds quite Roy-ey.

Conversations generally usually tend to derail a bit, but the reason this happens so much when talking with me is that, as an autistic person, all these things are almost inseparably interconnected in my mind/brain: the moon, human nature, dinosaurs, other animals -- these topics all have links, bridges, that connect them in my head. So it's very hard for me to stay "on topic" -- it feels like suppressing to mention key information/details that lie on those bridges, like I'm consciously and heavily restraining myself from sharing (which is in fact what I would be doing).

I wholly approve of seeing links between seemingly unrelated things.
There are more similarities in life than some people seem to think.

Truth be told, I was feeling a bit bad about not saying much about the original subject there.
And it turning quite a different way because of that.

Normally on a forum, I like keeping things grouped by subject; also because then it's easier to find stuff back.
But it never really works...

So far as I've learned -- if I can sum it up in a few sentences -- the main difference between autistic and neurotypical thinking is this:

Autistic people are prone to seeing the world objectively first: they relate things to one another, evaluate, and compare them -- eventually finding universal patterns that shape their worldview. This is why autistic people tend to have a more realistic and balanced, uncanny insight into how things in nature and the world work (except as it pertains to one-on-one and group social interaction and related societal structure/conventions), and to be more accepting of differences in general.

Neurotypical people are prone to seeing the world subjectively first: they relate everything to themselves, to their own and others' feelings -- eventually developing a stronger ego and sense of group/community, as well as great personal social skills and (to us) uncanny social insight.

Such a shame that "subjective" seems to win over "objective".
It really scares me when facts don't matter.
Ends up feeling like humanity lives in a world of make-believe...

 

[Cerez]

It really scares me when facts don't matter.
Ends up feeling like humanity lives in a world of make-believe...

I can fully empathise with this, and, in practice, our societal lives really are much like a make-believe: lives constructed around a fictional reality that's sustained by (certain) people's selfish interests.

The only truth is nature itself -- the intuitive balance in nature that serves and connects all life (much like the explanation for Lucas' "Force" in Star Wars). I've come to realise that when I was banished to the outskirts of the human social structure. Human society is very imbalanced, actually: built on imaginary deception, lies (for the most part).

Truth be told, I was feeling a bit bad about not saying much about the original subject there.
And it turning quite a different way because of that.

I see. Not to worry. And, yeah, it's quite hard for people to stay on topic. We all try in forums, but it doesn't always come natural. It's easier to do so in an academic, non-conversational environment.

As soon as we are talking/conversing, we're bound to deviate from speaking directly about the subject.

At first listen, indeed that Roy does sound quite Elvis-ey.
Or perhaps Elvis sounds quite Roy-ey.

They sound quite similar to our "untrained", modern-day ears. But in fact their "voice" is representative of an era. Orbison and Elvis sounded quite different in their time, and if you pay close attention to their vocal training/quality, you'll notice that Orbison is ten-times more flexible a singer than Elvis. They were friends, and Elvis was actually afraid to appear on the same stage as Orbison, fearing that people will discount his talent as a singer in direct comparison. He also praised Orbison's skills as a singer on a number of occasions, as Roy inspired him, made him push to new creative heights.

But, at the same time, it was Elvis who inspired Orbison to take down this path as a popular musician, and introduced him into Rockabilly music (the beginnings of Rock'n'Roll). Orbison was a classic singer by upbringing/background, while Elvis was a white person who grew up listening to Blues and Soul music since childhood, and sang in Black community choires -- therefore learning Rhythm and Blues (which directly inspired Rockabilly music).

 

[Pieter Boelen]

They sound quite similar to our "untrained", modern-day ears. But in fact their "voice" is representative of an era. Orbison and Elvis sounded quite different in their time

The more familiar with something you are; the more differences you can spot, I think.
I'm reminded about how some people complain "all John Williams music sounds the same" when I myself feel that "all Hans Zimmer music just blends together".
It all depends on what you're used to. And where your interests lie.

if you pay close attention to their vocal training/quality, you'll notice that Orbison is ten-times more flexible a singer than Elvis.

I don't think I have what it takes to tell that difference.
I don't know much about music. I just know what I hear.

As an example, this from The Witcher struck me as particularly good:

But this version sounds MUCH less powerful:

Haven't the foggiest why.
It just does.

Or here a Williams:

That piece of music gets shortened and repeated in the end title:

But that one second around 3:49 is ever so slightly different in such an exact way that it never fails to send shivers down my spine.
Especially when listening on headphones.

The performances sound basically completely identical to me.
Except for that one tiny little point that REALLY makes the end title stand out as unique in its own right.

Though since this is an example from the same CD... I believe this is somehow completely intentional on Williams' part.
And while I've heard other performances of both the theme and the end title; not a single one manages to replicate what the original version does.

Human society is very imbalanced, actually: built on imaginary deception, lies (for the most part).

And also...

I see. Not to worry. And, yeah, it's quite hard for people to stay on topic. We all try in forums, but it doesn't always come natural. It's easier to do so in an academic, non-conversational environment.

As soon as we are talking/conversing, we're bound to deviate from speaking directly about the subject.

Oh well... there's no harm in that.
Certainly not here.
More fun this way.

 

[Cerez]

I don't think I have what it takes to tell that difference.
I don't know much about music. I just know what I hear.

Whenever you're hearing Elvis hit really high notes in his singing in a sentimental song on the radio, chances are you're actually listening to Roy Orbison. That's the easiest way to tell.

Elvis was simply not capable of singing a song like this one -- he didn't have the voice or professional training for it:

Not to mention something like this:

(Listen until the end of the song. And this is live performance -- being autistic, he performed much better in a private, studio environment.)

Compare that with Elvis at some of his vocal-range best:

While production-wise his songs are on a higher level (he had more production resources at hand, and this can deceive unaware people listening), Elvis heavily relies on backup singers to fill the areas where his vocal skills are lacking. He goes quietly falsetto, and lets the backup singers fill in the silence that his voice is meant to fill. It's all precisely orchestrated to conceal the areas he's lacking in as a singer.

Not saying that either approach is wrong or that one musician is more talented than the other, but rather just pointing out the difference in their quality/training and voice.

You can also compare Elvis' Danny Boy versus Orbison's. They also show the difference in their approach and styles very well:

Elvis has great control over his voice, too, but he simply doesn't have the technique and range that Orbison has. Elvis did have a richer deeper voice, though -- and Orbison kept creatively pushing him to expand his own vocal technique and range.

 

[Cerez]

But this version sounds MUCH less powerful:

Haven't the foggiest why.
It just does.

It's in the performance of the singer. Her delivery is less self-confident/forward, implying powerful emotions (danger), than the first singer's. The smile she keeps on her face (her singing technique) is actually a poor performance choice for this song -- which has serious thematic undertones. (A simple smile on the singer's face can make a huge difference in terms of performance -- but in this case the wrong difference.)

That piece of music gets shortened and repeated in the end title:

But that one second around 3:49 is ever so slightly different in such an exact way that it never fails to send shivers down my spine.
Especially when listening on headphones.

Yep, this is a common musical variation used to heighten the emotional impact. I'm not sure what the technical naming for it is but in effect I believe raises the height of the note and the intensity of the delivery by a notch, giving you the feeling that "this time it matters more, hits emotionally stronger". It has its roots in how people (and animals) express danger/alarm, borrowing from it.

And also...

It's best to just accept it. Not to grieve over what has never existed in the first place -- what was a lie to begin with.

Human beings have the potential for good (the balance) in them, yes, and we could make life wonderful for all living beings and live in peace and harmony with our sorroundings (for the most part). But, in practice, that's not what most people choose to do. People are flawed. Our society is terribly flawed, but it still manages to maintain a semblance of peace and order. (It could be and has been much-much worse throughout human history.)

The greatest deception/lie I was told/implied growing up is that all (or most) adults are somehow inherently wise and responsible. Most adults actually act with about the same level of maturity as children, and many act worse (more imbalanced).

So am I to continue believing this lie I was given and dig my head into the sand, grieving, or am I to wipe the mental slate clean and start perceiving/observing/studying reality for what it really is, focusing on my environment in the present, in my immediate life that's happening and passing me by right this moment?

That's a personal choice we have to make for ourselves. Buddhist monks would tell you to put all expectations aside and embrace the present moment, life, for all it's worth. The simplest of moments are actually some of the most significant in our lives, worth more than anything you could ever put in words.

Breathing! Something we take entirely for granted. We have no idea just how pleasant a feeling/experience and how wonderful this one simple act in life can be. That is until we experience what it means to be without it.