<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 2013-10-31 12:15, KPJ wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote cite="mid:0eb6f01259fc7bbf12d9ee77ea761976@sics.se"
type="cite">Wed, 30 Oct 2013 16:35:58 +0000, Anders Sandberg
<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:anders@aleph.se"><anders@aleph.se></a> scripsit:
<br>
|OCD is great for science, as long as it is not extreme enough to
prevent
<br>
|you from finishing. Just like Aspergers the right pinch of
<br>
|non-neurotypicalness can be very useful in the right context.
<br>
<br>
Explain.
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
Yes.<br>
<br>
The classic example is how the systematizing approach of autism
works well with programming - it is a domain where the approach
works well, and traditionally at least, programmers did not have to
interact much socially with co-workers. But I suspect it is great
for plenty of other domains, whether it is taxonomy or mathematics.<br>
<br>
The detail orientedness of some people on the spectrum works well
with many reductionistic domains, since it makes people try to
understand parts and underlying principles of sameness:<br>
<a
href="http://www.ucp.pt/site/resources/documents/ics/gnc/artigosgnc/anamariaabreu/d_hafr06.pdf">http://www.ucp.pt/site/resources/documents/ics/gnc/artigosgnc/anamariaabreu/d_hafr06.pdf</a><br>
<br>
And autism is overrepresented among *professional* scientists:<br>
<a
href="http://docs.autismresearchcentre.com/papers/2001_BCetal_AQ.pdf">http://docs.autismresearchcentre.com/papers/2001_BCetal_AQ.pdf</a><br>
From the abstract:<br>
<blockquote type="cite"><span style="color: rgb(51, 51, 51);
font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;
font-size: 13px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal;
font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: 20px;
orphans: auto; text-align: start; text-indent: 0px;
text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: auto;
word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px;
background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); display: inline
!important; float: none;">... Four groups of subjects were
assessed: Group 1: 58 adults with Asperger syndrome (AS) or
high-functioning autism (HFA); Group 2: 174 randomly selected
controls. Group 3: 840 students in Cambridge University; and
Group 4: 16 winners of the UK Mathematics Olympiad. The adults
with AS/HFA had a mean AQ score of 35.8 (SD = 6.5),
significantly higher than Group 2 controls (M = 16.4, SD = 6.3).
80% of the adults with AS/HFA scored 32+, versus 2% of controls.
... The students in Cambridge University did not differ from the
randomly selected control group, but scientists (including
mathematicians) scored significantly higher than both humanities
and social sciences students, confirming an earlier study that
autistic conditions are associated with scientific skills.
Within the sciences, mathematicians scored highest. This was
replicated in Group 4, the Mathematics Olympiad winners scoring
significantly higher than the male Cambridge humanities
students. 6% of the student sample scored 327plus; on the AQ. On
interview, 11 out of 11 of these met three or more DSM-IV
criteria for AS/HFA, and all were studying sciences/mathematics,
and 7 of the 11 met threshold on these criteria. ...</span></blockquote>
<br>
See also <a
href="http://docs.autismresearchcentre.com/papers/2007_BC_etal_maths.pdf">http://docs.autismresearchcentre.com/papers/2007_BC_etal_maths.pdf</a><br>
<br>
I doubt you become autistic from doing science (besides learning how
to fit in), but people with an autistic mode likely have better
chances of success in the domain.<br>
<br>
<br>
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">--
Dr Anders Sandberg
Future of Humanity Institute
Oxford Martin School
Oxford University
</pre>
</body>
</html>