Thinking in Pictures

 The Temple Grandin autobiography Thinking In Pictures kind of picks up around the same time period as NeuroTribes leaves off. 

Among other things, it helps validate a lot of speculations made by earlier scientists about the different neural makeup of autistic brains. For starters, the white matter in the frontal cortex of the brain (which kind of functions like the main command centre where all neurons come and converge) actually isn't wired up like it is in NT brains. 

Some wires are mixed up and some are just not connected to the right parts of the brain. Which actually manifests in chaos because unusual parts of the brain get fired up for things they have nothing to do with. Really explains a lot. I'll read through those specific parts once again and draw up a simple image of the brain with its different parts so that the neurology is easier to explain. 

Next she talks about three very broad types of autistic brains: 

1. Design/ visual: this is Grandin's type 

2. Music/ math/ pattern: 

3. Verbal/ logical: this I suspect is me, although I might be a little bit of a mix of all types.  

She clarifies that the continuum is actually more of a circle and not linear as perceived normally. This is quite a commonly held belief, but it remains to be seen until when considering Grandin also says very soon in the future we're going to be able to determine exactly what kind of autistic brain a person has through MRI scans alone. 

Grandin says the autism continuum comprises two extremes - cognitive deficit and sensory deficit. On this continuum, the cognitive deficit end is the high-functioning one and the sensory-deficit end is the low-functioning one. This is by no means a measure of the level of potential improvement that a young person with autism can demonstrate, as that can happen to people at any point on the spectrum. 

Different neural clusters in the brain are responsible for different functions. Even with a cognitive function like recognition, the neural cluster that helps recognise people's faces is different from the one that helps in the recognition of objects. This is what makes brain wiring so complicated to understand. Simon Baron-Cohen of Cambridge University has identified two types of emotional brain types: empathisers and systemizers. NTs are typically empathisers and ASDs are systemizers. 

The whole thing really comes down to cognition and sensory differences. Autistics are sensorily predisposed to sensitivities and other abnormalities that make them respond differently to situations than neurotypical people. Also, atypical neurological wiring usually means they don't experience the full gamut of human emotion that NTs do. For me, too, an absurd kind of fear was the most pervasive emotion around 2009 when I started working my first job. Still remember being so lost at the office, and thinking it was the job I hated when in reality it was just maybe the sudden change in atmosphere (new office, new people, new responsibilities), or the fact that the job didn't only involve writing (which I loved) but interacting with all kinds of people (which I'm way more comfortable with now). Grandin also recalls a specific time in her life when an intense fear and anger gripped her every time she anticipated being bullied. She talks about feeling an intense fear walking through college hallways thinking someone would call her names or tease her. I have had the exact same fears at various points, although I might have got over them in college, I think. 

So anyway, fear, anger and sadness are the only emotions experienced by one of the autistic people Grandin talks about. Some emotions they feel are an overlap of these three emotions, but nothing more than this, or even slightly more nuanced. Empathy is tricky too, because there's different kinds such as emotional empathy and visual empathy, and some autistics are better at visual empathy (me) while NTs typically have emotional empathy. Autistics - especially Asperger's - are also known to have a deficiency of mirror circuits, which help you relate to other people's experiences. This is why they may have trouble putting themselves into someone else's shoes. NTs connect through emotions, which autistics cannot relate to as their strong suit is logic and intellect. Even then, through therapy, physical pressure (to treat sensitive touch) and patience, autistics can be rehabilitated if therapy is introduced in the right time window. I also find myself kind of relating with not understanding very complex relationships - Grandin says she's never been able to grasp how people live with the whole "love-hate" dynamic. It's quite strange to me as well. 

The application of physical pressure as a means to work on the oversensitivity of sensory faculties is another big revelation. Always wondered why I like it when someone sits or sleeps on my hand (or applies pressure to my extremities). Helps ease the brain into becoming more comfortable with touch and physical contact. It's not like the autistic brain is averse to touch, it's that the brain hasn't had much of it and doesn't know what to make of it, and so perceives it as a threat. 

Fixations - things/ subjects that autistics latch on to with an obsessive interest. In my case: cameras, music equipment (MIDI synthesisers, DJ consoles, plug-ins), editing & grading software, trains and cars (formerly). I could've really done something in trains, if I'd pursued it. 

Grandin has had a moral upbringing (much like mine) and, because she doesn't have a strong social intuition, she splits up rules into three broad categories: 

1. Really bad: objectively bad

2. Sins of the system: harsh consequences, as bad within a particular framework (smoking & sex in school)

3. Illegal but not bad: speeding, illegal parking

I think this is such a smart way of categorizing what rules are okay to break and what aren't, because some rules are invariably going to be (and are) broken. So instead of treating all rules similarly, a smarter (possibly NT) way would be to figure out what's okay to do and what isn't. Now that I think about it, rule setters expect you to be breaking some of the more minor rules, and when you don't do it, that's weird. 

Autistics have a hard time finding work because companies are "turned off by our odd speech patterns, direct manner and funny mannerisms." A big 4 company rejected me twice in a span of three years. Both times in the final rounds. Some interviews seemed to go really well, where the interviewees seemed to be decent people, but some interviewees were just grade A assholes. It seemed they weren't even looking for an answer to their questions, it was more just a power play tactic to confuse you so you seem clueless. Makes sense why there's so many qualified autistics but very few that have jobs. How are they even expected to rise up the corporate ladder? 

Having a hypervigilant nervous system. Fear is the default emotion in autistics. 

The limbic system processes feelings and emotions. The cortex makes sense of those emotions and figures out how to express them. Usually the size of the cortex will determine how intelligently a mammal is able to express themselves. 

Why is the autistic such a threat to society? Because mediocrity is passed off as awesome and people are bullied by the media into either buying it or being the odd ones out. Autistics will never encourage mediocrity due to their high standards and attention to detail. Plus their disregard for social acceptance and conformity will never make them want to become part of a mass movement they don't identify with. 

Biochemistry works in some cases, but meds need to be carefully administered and progress constantly monitored. The types of neurotransmitters: norepinephrine, dopamine, serotonin, endorphins and GABA. 

Most great thinkers with Asperger's - Einstein, Darwin and Wagner included - were mediocre students. According to Grandin, Einstein - also a visual thinker like her - was able to put himself in the path of light (literally envisioning himself as a photon) and translate his findings into mathematical equations. That was his genius. As a student, he was poor at basic math and quite prone to sensory jumbling (as per firsthand reports from some of his students, he would drift off into lengthy segues midway through proving one theorem during his lectures). Another thing they had in common was complete absence of speech until age three or four. 

It is quite common to see autistics (Asperger's) excel in one field while their skills may seem particularly compromised in a few others. Also, Grandin hypothesizes that quite literally, the size of the different areas of the human brain play a huge role in determining which skill a person may have since birth (talent) or what general area a person is more predisposed toward. 

Grandin's concept of a God. 

The last chapter of Thinking In Pictures deals with Grandin's concept of God. It's unique, because her logic-centered mind demands a logical explanation for abstract concepts. On a side note - through some of my recent readings (the writings of Tony Attwood that I came across in an article on Autcollab) I've found that some autistics/ schizophrenics are more inclined towards the abstract rather than the concrete. That there's a 'quasi-philosophical' quality to the writings of autistics and an abstract mode of talking, which he calls 'pseudo-philosophical thought disorder'. I don't agree with him one bit, and in fact find Grandin's concept of God quite similar to mine. She likens the concept to quantum theory. To her, it's an energy, an assimilation of subatomic particles that mesh together to form an energy consciousness that controls or rather defines all visible and invisible order. 

This concept assimilates with the Hindu concept of karma (the power of human deed, which I find to be one of the most absolute truths of the universe). Early on in the book Grandin mentions how a lot of autistics are inherently inclined to believe in an afterlife, their egos or the way they perceive energy intuitively tells them that life passes on over into another form after human death. Grandin says that bad deeds have the capacity to disturb the mesh of particles in a way that one set connected to another through that very mesh - at some other point in time though - stand to get disturbed by that action and present a negative outcome at another time. This is a far more complex (and undoubtedly visual) way of imagining this concept. But I like the sound of it. 

I have always believed that we're way too young as a species to be able to explain some of the things that happen in this world. While science has many explanations, it doesn't have all of them. Religion must evolve exactly as science does, to a point where the two find a point to merge and our understanding of things reaches its zenith. 

Lovely book overall.