(Yes, the entry is back-dated. I'm trying to write a blog-a-day, even if I have to lie about it.)

As scout said, let my Aspie flag fly free.

Here's how it looks from where I stand. This isn't to say all Aspies see it this way. This isn't even to say most. All I can say is "at least one."

This reminds me of a logic exercise:

Two mathematicians were riding a train through the countryside and they pass a flock of sheep. One sheep is black, so one mathematician remarks to the other, "I see where black wool comes from: black sheep."

The other replies, "No, only one appears black."

The first ripostes, "But only on this side."

The other, "At this time of day."

Do you see? It's a matter of logic and ... well, being nit-picky. For me, that's part of the Aspie world-view. Everything is pattern and logic.

I attended a conference on Aspergers. One of the guest speakers was Temple Grandin, who posited four types of Aspies: verbal, visual, pattern and music. For those who think music is just pattern, you may be right, but you don't want to be locked in the same room with me and a music instrument trying to (dis)prove it.

For me, the world is filled with object, each with a list of properties. Some of these properties are how they work, others is what they do. Physical dimension: weight, size, shape. Logistics: availability, cost, reliability, re-usability. Interfaces: can work with, can't work with, must work with (other objects, other conditions.) Etc.

From this, I'm able to assemble large and complex systems.

Humans have properties, but many of the key ones (how they work, how they interface) are not consistent. Worse, they're not easily tested to see the conditions under which they're inconsistent. To quote SpouseKitty, "Humans hate to be debugged."

I would love to be a people person. I would love to have some magic book of rules. Dale Carnegie's How to Win Friends and Influence People is a start. (I should get around to reading it something, I guess.) At current time, I'm rather blind around people. I don't know what to say, when to say it. Most importantly, I don't know when to stop!

This is why I like online. One of the frustration we all share with online communications is that of "bandwidth." When in face-to-face interaction, we see other's eyes, body language; we hear inflection and pauses. Words themselves only convey part of the message.

The other parts of the message are where I'm blind. Thus, online communication puts us at equal footing. You can try to imply inflection ;), but it's a rough hammer at best. Most of the time, all we have are words, and the emotion we load into them. What we say, not how we say it.

I'm also very process-oriented. However, this is such an innate part of me, I have a hard time teaching it to others. Just imagine being a physical therapist: how do you teach someone how to walk?

I accumulate trivia. No, not the Trivial Pursuit type. Usually only stuff what interests me. Tech. Power dynamics and its psychology. Autism data. I'm sure there are others, but I can't think of them right now. It's that "blind to the innate" limitation again.

"Walk a mile in another's shoes" is layman's terms for what Aspie and their psychs call "theory of mind." At the base, it's that simple realization that others are not just random, but separate and sentient. Random is just that, random. (No, not you rando.) Individual sentience means they're still random, but random like I'm random.

But not exactly like me. Do you see?

At the next level, it's not just the awareness and recognition of others' respective uniqueness, it's also the ability to "walk that mile." For me, the first level is a given. The second level often takes conscious effort. That's the 'patterning' I mention often. It's a matter of condition, of training and learning.

I'm not sure what the third level is, or if there are any beyond. All I know is that I'm not there yet. It could be to embed the theory of mind so deep that it becomes innate. If that's the case, what'll be the difference between Aspie and NT?