Not with autism... what about unrecognized factors, odds, exceptions, etc.? We have to consider all of these, virtually all the time.

The mathematics/logic/calculus of autism is one that seems to have a lot of checkpoints in it. Neurotypical processing of social stuff seems to take place along several parallel processes, with the “execution thread” weaving between them and subproducts (like subtotals on a balance sheet) taken into account. And the processes can be doing contradictory things!

It might be useful to draw up a list of social objects and tabulate neurotypical and autistic values regarding them...

Elsewhere I referred to a decision-making matrix in the context of autistic folks’ social navigation, and how areas of it are apt to be sparsely populated. My point there was that the matrix, meant to emulate more-intuitive NT functioning, didn’t capture subtleties well. Here, another problem becomes apparent: this matrix tends to become gigantic because every non-impossible condition is apt to appear, since likelihoods and probabilities are not guarantees of specific cases. What if A happens? What if B happens? and so forth, extending through not just the Roman alphabet and into the Greek (as with tropical storms) but out into casespace that most people would simply dismiss: “That’d never happen!” To which I reply: but what if it does? What do I do then? And up ratchets the anxiety/stress level.

And excluding the “impossible” has risks as well, since the designation may be the result of our incomplete or faulty understanding. One of the “nonstarters” could suddenly race out of the gate, resulting in who-knows-what consequences... so maybe we’d be safer leaving the “impossible” in the matrix as well.

Last revised: June 22, 2007
(c)2007 Dave Spicer
(back to project main page)