The way to gain control over a system is to think in if-and-then patterns.
If-and-then thinking results in observing patterns in the universe, ratifying them, and therefore making discoveries and inventions. The author calls it systemizing. He believes the urge to systemize took root in the human brain around 70,000 to 100,000 years ago, and suggests only humans have been proven capable to think in a manner that leads with a curious impulse.
I'm inclined more towards Grandin's postulation in this regard, that animals are innately curious creatures and don't rely on language like we do to answer basic questions about the universe's patterns that apply to them or are essential to their survival and thriving.
The 4 steps of systemizing:
1. Why did X happen? How can we solve a problem? What's the rule?
2. Hypothesize (if and then)
3. Test and confirm the if-and-then pattern. If confirmed and new, it's an invention/ discovery
4. Modify if and/or and (and repeat n times through steps 3 & 4 for multiple discoveries/ subtle changes to existing discovery)
The other big product of evolution that resulted in the cognitive revolution was the development of what the author refers to as the Empathy Circuit. It is the human brain's ability to understand other people's feelings and thoughts in a dynamic social context.
The Systemizing Mechanism and the Empathy Circuit are the two main functions of the developed, cognitively enhanced modern-day brain.
Empathy Circuit:
1. Cognitive Empathy: theory of mind
2. Affective Empathy: the response element; how to respond to someone else's emotions/ thoughts/ feelings/ beliefs
Theory of mind:
1. Flexible deception: how to deceive another mind into believing in something to your advantage, changed basis context
2. Flexible teaching: how to pass on this knowledge to offspring/ students/ next of kin
The Systemizing Mechanism and Empathy Circuit form the two primary mechanisms of the human brain. In each brain, these two mechanisms work in differing quantities, and they chiefly define the personality, talents and skills of the person.
Types of brain:
1. E Type: high empathy low systemizing
2. S Type: high systemizing low empathy
3. B Type: balanced type
4. Extreme E type: very high empathy very low systemizing
5. Extreme S type: very high systemizing very low empathy
Would be interesting to parallel this postulation with Grandin's categorization of brain types.
The author's research found that prenatal exposure to testosterone in the mother's womb wound up dictating whether the child grew up to be an E type or an S type. As a result, typically more men are inclined to be the S type and more women the E type. But not only hormones, the author found that genes have a role to play in personality type as well, but only to a certain extent, before life experiences and learnings start playing a part in personality development.
The author gave some of the test subjects a picture of human eyes to identify emotions, called the Eyes test. Aditi and I took the test, and neither of us was able to figure out what the woman in the picture was feeling based on her eyes alone. Maybe we're both the Hyper S type, or definitely the S type, with a somewhat compromised Empathy Circuit. But what's definitely interesting is the correlation between high levels of prenatal testosterone (and oestrogen) in the womb and the child's personality type.
Satisficing: making do with the first solution to a problem. Most of us supposedly are like this, we 'cut corners' in that the first solution that seems to work is the one we typically go with. Hyper systemizers are prone to more obsession, they search for the most optimal solution instead, even if it takes way longer.
Inventions started with the Homo Habilis, over 1 million years ago, and have continued through the centuries of the Homo Erectus, Neanderthals, and finally the Homo Sapiens. Around 70,000 to 100,000 years ago, the author says there seemed to be a cognitive revolution where invention spiked. The first needle, bow and arrow, tools and other equipment, and even sculptures and cave paintings were made in relative quick succession of each other. This, for the first time in human history, points to a generative capacity of the mind to invent, which is one of the two essential things (the other being the if-and-then reasoning capacity) to start creating using the Systemizing Mechanism.
A cognitive revolution, as the author describes it, seems to be an abrupt change in the thinking and perceiving patterns of the human mind, which leads to a sudden spike in the creation of something that accelerates the speed of evolution of the species. There seemed to be such a spike around 2014-2015 with the sudden shift in social media trends and the rise of the influencer culture, through to now (the post-pandemic world) when there seems to be a growing interest in mental health, mental disorders, overall wellbeing and neural diversity. Only hypothesising about that, but what might be the truth is that the rate at which cognitive revolutions occur has also increased dramatically since the first one.
The shift to the NeurodiVenture may be a natural result of a cognitive revolution, involving a change in perception, feeling, understanding and knowledge. The NeurodiVenture embraces an inclusive, egalitarian, transparent and non-exploitative style of for-profit working with an unwavering focus on the creative collective as an integrated means of uncompromisingly original output.
Isochrony - the quality of evenness (in music). While animals are able to communicate through sounds and able to make noises, there's no isochrony in their patterns of sound-based communication, like rhythm, harmony or melody in human music. And therefore while dogs and other mammals are shown to become relaxed listening to certain kinds of music, and parrots and other birds will ape human speech and repeat words verbatim, they cannot be said to have a theory of music.
How do you do something new - you take an existing thing, examine an if-and-then pattern intrinsic to it, change or add a couple of variables and the end result will be something new.
Wheel, writing, mathematics and religion - the inventions of these four if-and-then systems over the course of human history have changed the world, and advanced human thought.
Doing things differently leads to a change in the anatomy of a system. For example, the early humans ate uncooked meat, because of which they had larger guts. Once fire was discovered and they started to cook their meat, the body took lesser energy to digest the food, and the human gut became smaller, using the surplus body energy to maximise the size of the brain. The system here was everything that aided in human digestion, and the changing variable was how the food was consumed (cooking).
Super interesting fact. The Neanderthals and Homo Sapiens co-existed for about 5,000 years. The Homo Sapiens demonstrated a better understanding of the Systemizing Mechanism, and were able to generatively invent. The Neanderthals, on the other hand, showed no deception capabilities and were using rudimentary tools at a time when Homo Sapiens were using far more advanced tools.
If this exact situation were to be hypothesized in a present day context, we seem like at least two - perhaps many more - different species of humans co-existing, some of whom are more adeptly able to swindle others to have a better existence and access to resources while others aren't.
Of course humans are different in that there's a far more complex system scaffolding our existence (such as banks, currencies, institutions where wealth and resources can be stored and passed on from generation to generation, indefinitely, and of course our capitalist system). But I'm wondering whether the use of other resources available to us - digital, even (and how we wind up finding innovative use for each of them) - will decide which side of the evolutionary fence each of us finds themself on.
The more innovative you're able to get with everything that's available, the better (and quicker) your chances of advancing the social hierarchy and therefore finding easier access to food and the other comforts of life. Better get good at social media and Web 3.0 and AI and the metaverse.
Begs the question - what is the new-age Systemizing Mechanism and what has the Empathy Circuitry evolved to? What are humans currently doing to outsmart those on a lower plane of evolution than them, so the latter will eventually fade out? Because the inequality now is more widespread than ever.
Or are humans today better placed than they were all those years ago to use social media and the other modern tools and fight for their own species, disallowing evolution from taking a sordid nosedive and wiping out all humanity from the face of the Earth, leaving it to the tech entrepreneurs, the entertainment moguls, oil-rich middle Easterners, war-hungry oligarchs and the blood-thirsty, corruption-mongering politicians?
They have all the resources, wealth, engineering, and systems at their command. Plus great Empathy Circuits, and money to buy off those with great Systemizing Mechanisms. We have good intent and positive energy. Is that enough for the universe to side with us? Lol.
System blindness - the inability to recognise the if-and-then patterns inherent to a system. Animals otherwise smart, are thought to have this if they do not demonstrate the urge to experiment and are unable to think on a causal level and establish connections between simple daily activities and an innovative use of everyday tools. Are governments making us system blind by complicating systems more and more, and making the if-and-then patterns more and more redundant?
In a similar vein, can humans (such as myself?) who despite being well informed about the large-scale destructive intent of the hypercompetitive, modern-day cronyist construct be called system blind to its zero-sum workings? That one (less advantaged) person must necessarily lose in order for another (more advantaged) to win? While the NeurodiVenture at this present moment is not too well placed to revise this complex, age-old institution, maybe it can advocate for change that allows for creativity, originality, good intent and the capacity for/ frequency of past demonstration of hard work to take precedence over high-rung relationships and expensive capital. Is it too simplistic, too reductive? ...yes. Or does it only seem so because we as a species are evolving in a manner that makes this behaviour the status quo? Are we all, together, becoming shrill, obnoxious, insensitive copycats that are happy co-existing in little bubbles on the Internet, circle jerking each other until we're dry of original thought? Or is this how humanity has always been, and atypicals just never noticed it?
And what if there are bigger, invisible systems present in the universe whose inherent patterns we don't understand? I mean even the sharpest among us doesn't understand it? What if there's an if-and-then pattern like karma, which determines the consequences your energy will have. What if we don't get it, but other animals just get that system, much like what the author says primates and chimps don't such as an apple falling from a tree because of the wind?
If-and-then thinking patterns can also help calculate the uniqueness of an invention, in that the permutation for its invention and the probability for its occurrence. The number of ands in the system make for the number of variables in the pattern. If there's 4 variables in a system, the permutation goes: 4 x 3 x 2 x 1 = 24. Therefore, there's a 1 in 24 chance that someone else might be able to come up with said invention. I think this is a pretty awesome way of figuring out how unique an idea is. Basically add more and more variables to the mix to make it more and more unique. Never thought invention and uniqueness would be a factor of maths and probability.
The author posits that language (and its four components - speech, communication, recursive ability and syntax) might be essential to invention, and then concludes that they're not, which explains nonverbals being gifted musicians and understanding different if-and-then patterns than regular ones.
Four other theories to explain invention:
1. Integrating two ideas into a new one
2. Meta-representation - symbolic thinking (imagining someone else's thoughts & also demonstrating self-awareness)
3. Collective fiction - religion, limited companies, money
4. Working memory - holding something in mind in the face of distractions
Hyper-systemizing parents have been found to have children with autism. There's also a link between hyper systemizers and business acumen. Hyper systemizers need to figure out the if-and-then patterns inherent to their products. Also, STEM parents tend to have autistic children.
What is a plausible content if-and-then pattern:
variables (if): through an inclusive, transparent, non-exploitative framework
causal (and): entertaining, representative, empirical and experiential content is regularly released
effect (then): thoughts take root, minds change, people remain engaged, and brands may pay to get featured
STEM:
• Problem solving skills
• Mathematics skills
• Development of logical thinking
• Greater understanding of the world's functioning
• Tools to create new innovations
Humanities and Social Sciences
• Empathy and understanding for others
• Exploration of personal beliefs
• Critical thinking
• Appreciation for world art, literature, and music
• Discovering (or questioning) the meaning of ethics and morality
• Intentional discussion about uncomfortable ideas
• Investigating humanity's cultural origins
• Analysis skills
• Broader understanding of many subjects
• Asking the big question: "So what?"
Society places far more emphasis on STEM rather than the humanities. Why is that? I think because STEM directly benefits the hypercompetitive capitalist system, and system blindness (which is achieved through an operational jettisoning of studies in the humanities) is essential to perpetuating its zero-sum intent. Naturally, system empathizers will benefit from it and get paid to keep it running this way as opposed to people who empathize with the need to keep the humanities healthy as well.
I think I am a hyper systemizer who realizes that the Empathy Circuit is equally (maybe more) important to thrive in a place like India (which, perhaps, explains Brain Drain). Hyper Systemizers cannot thrive in India because in India, systems don't work. India has an old school way of working, where relationships, families, emotions come before innovation and the sacrifices that need to be made to achieve it. India has a how-much-we-have-is-enough attitude, which is great, but also obviates innovation. Anyway, through my work I'm hyper systemizing my processes and my thinking but essentially working in the humanities to revive anthropological narratives about what makes us the way we are.
Finally, Baron-Cohen goes on to talk about neurodiversity, the present-day concept and definition of it. Says there are diverse pathways in development: verbal, spatial, musical, mathematical, and social. Parallels it with the handedness analogy, which, too, is an alt-wiring eventuality. Some, of course, might have a mix of many, including the five above, in different capacities.
Author believes that when it comes to autism, all the 4 Ds apply: difference, disability, disorder, disease (in that order). The difference between disorder and disease is the cause of the symptoms is not known in the former but known in the latter. Also posits that autism is nature's strategy to ensure human minds can cope with the different challenges presented by the universe.
So I finished the book. It's pretty great, and is the only one I've read so far that really delves into human history and presents an in-depth perspective from the time of previous species of humans. There's a Systemizing Mechanism and EQ test at the end of the book. I scored 12/ 20 on the System Mechanism one and 3 on the EQ test. Overall a score of 9, which puts my brain type at the lower periphery of the Extreme Type S brain type. Which means I'm a hyper-systemizer all right, but not as brainy as the ones above me, and not as empathetic as the general Systemizing S Type. Average, kind of.
Cuz I mean I can do music and write and have a strong passion for filmmaking (editing & interviewing, specifically) but I wasn't able to figure out what other patterns I'm good at identifying. Maybe cameras, editing software, music software... can't really tell. Grammar for sure, though. Maybe should've just stuck to being a copywriter. Lol.