Original post made May 23, 2016 on WordPress

Have you ever wondered why people process information or emotional content differently? Why is it that some people are more logically-centered; focused on systems and rules, where others are more emotionally-centered; tuned in with the emotional reactions of others? Even further, “logical” and “emotional” personalities have their own subsets, as well.

Last Friday, I had the opportunity to see Temple Grandin present at an annual lecture series at a private university. Temple Grandin is a speaker, inventor, professor, and animal rights advocate, and she is also on the autism spectrum. I first learned about her life watching the HBO movie starring Claire Danes as Temple Grandin several years ago. I have admired and been interested in her ever since. Grandin speaks highly of the film adaptation of her life and how it accurately portrays how she views the world in pictures. Grandin has also inspired my interest in understanding the autism spectrum, particularly higher-functioning persons and persons with Asperger’s Syndrome (now Autism Spectrum Disorder). Mozart and the Whale, a story of a couple with Asperger’s, is also another story that inspired me along the way to consume research on and the experiences of high-functioning persons with ASD.

Temple’s theory on the three types of thinkers on the spectrum stems from her personal experience and her understanding of other persons with ASD. You can watch her TedTalk to hear her explanation. Essentially, there are three types of thinkers: photorealistic, math/music thinkers, and pattern thinkers.

Temple’s main message was clear throughout her presentation and in her Q&A: kids with ASD need to be encouraged to pursue their interests based on their thinking style. For example, if the child is a pattern thinker, introduce them to coding and computer programming. For visual thinkers, get them interested in constructing models or creating art. Temple’s advocacy is geared toward getting kids to pursue their talents and interests and market themselves towards meaningful careers.

In addition to theories on different thinking styles, there are also theories in different ways of emotional processing. Richard Davidson’s research inspired his theory of six emotional styles, each on a continuum: resilience, outlook, social intuition, self-awareness, sensitivity to context, and attention. Davidson posits that each person has each style in some degree. For example, those with low resilience take more time to recover from an adverse event, while an individual higher on the resilience scale is faster to recover.

Davidson’s book

People do not fit neatly into categories. However, I believe that the majority of us lean more towards the empathizer or systematizer categories, supported by Simon Baron-Cohen’s research on autism and the brain (Baron-Cohen’s research supports that autism is actually an extreme form of the male brain). Some people (like me) are much more empathizers than systematizers. Other folks (computer programmers, engineers, etc.) are more likely to be systematizers. These differences make us great in our line of work. Where sitting at a monitor eight hours a day developing software or designing code would crush my soul, some people find it to be invigorating and rewarding work.

Added to the mix of personality differences is gender difference. Typically, women are more likely to be empathizers, and men systematizers. That being said, there are men who are empathizers and women who are systematizers. My mom is more of a systematizer: she enjoys building, creating, and fixing hand-built wood structures, appliances, you name it. She is the first person I would ask to help me assemble IKEA furniture (and I would end up watching her do it). I also know men who are more empathizers;  more inclined to have a heartfelt chat over diagnosing an engine issue.

What I love about hearing theories on different styles of thinking, personality, and emotional processing is the various ways we can think about neurodiversity, compassion, and working together. Grandin posits that in order for a project to be successful, there has to be all three types of thinkers on the team. I would go further to posit that we need both empathizers and systematizers working together in society. This is not to say it’s always easy to collaborate with different thinking and feeling styles! Being an empathizer, I find myself frustrated at times when holding a conversation or even maintaining a friendship with a systematizer. As an empathizer, I make snap judgements about my systematizer friends: “Wow, s/he’s so rude!” or “What a harsh thing to say!” I have also been told by systematizers that I am “too sensitive”.

Perspective is key here. I understand that I am not going to get along with everybody, systematizer or empathizer. But, I know that collaborating with different- and like-minded people can yield wonderful results:  thriving schools and businesses, strong families, and diverse communities. I also believe that it is in our best interest to nurture both our empathizing and systematizing qualities. Balance always seems to be a theme in our lives, and how we process the world is no exception. While I spend a lot of my energy connecting emotionally with others, I also actively engage in systematizing tasks through reading up on current events and understanding the systemic underlying issues, playing Solitaire, and posing philosophical conversations (side note: I’ve found that systematizers are more likely to argue their point, while empathizers will say, “Interesting point! I never thought of it that way!”). Balance, to me, is wellness, and I try my best to incorporate both emotional fullness and logical processing into my daily life.

Original post made May 23, 2016 on WordPress

Have you ever wondered why people process information or emotional content differently? Why is it that some people are more logically-centered; focused on systems and rules, where others are more emotionally-centered; tuned in with the emotional reactions of others? Even further, “logical” and “emotional” personalities have their own subsets, as well.

Last Friday, I had the opportunity to see Temple Grandin present at an annual lecture series at a private university. Temple Grandin is a speaker, inventor, professor, and animal rights advocate, and she is also on the autism spectrum. I first learned about her life watching the HBO movie starring Claire Danes as Temple Grandin several years ago. I have admired and been interested in her ever since. Grandin speaks highly of the film adaptation of her life and how it accurately portrays how she views the world in pictures. Grandin has also inspired my interest in understanding the autism spectrum, particularly higher-functioning persons and persons with Asperger’s Syndrome (now Autism Spectrum Disorder). Mozart and the Whale, a story of a couple with Asperger’s, is also another story that inspired me along the way to consume research on and the experiences of high-functioning persons with ASD.

Temple’s theory on the three types of thinkers on the spectrum stems from her personal experience and her understanding of other persons with ASD. You can watch her TedTalk to hear her explanation. Essentially, there are three types of thinkers: photorealistic, math/music thinkers, and pattern thinkers.

Temple’s main message was clear throughout her presentation and in her Q&A: kids with ASD need to be encouraged to pursue their interests based on their thinking style. For example, if the child is a pattern thinker, introduce them to coding and computer programming. For visual thinkers, get them interested in constructing models or creating art. Temple’s advocacy is geared toward getting kids to pursue their talents and interests and market themselves towards meaningful careers.

In addition to theories on different thinking styles, there are also theories in different ways of emotional processing. Richard Davidson’s research inspired his theory of six emotional styles, each on a continuum: resilience, outlook, social intuition, self-awareness, sensitivity to context, and attention. Davidson posits that each person has each style in some degree. For example, those with low resilience take more time to recover from an adverse event, while an individual higher on the resilience scale is faster to recover.

Davidson’s book

People do not fit neatly into categories. However, I believe that the majority of us lean more towards the empathizer or systematizer categories, supported by Simon Baron-Cohen’s research on autism and the brain (Baron-Cohen’s research supports that autism is actually an extreme form of the male brain). Some people (like me) are much more empathizers than systematizers. Other folks (computer programmers, engineers, etc.) are more likely to be systematizers. These differences make us great in our line of work. Where sitting at a monitor eight hours a day developing software or designing code would crush my soul, some people find it to be invigorating and rewarding work.

Added to the mix of personality differences is gender difference. Typically, women are more likely to be empathizers, and men systematizers. That being said, there are men who are empathizers and women who are systematizers. My mom is more of a systematizer: she enjoys building, creating, and fixing hand-built wood structures, appliances, you name it. She is the first person I would ask to help me assemble IKEA furniture (and I would end up watching her do it). I also know men who are more empathizers;  more inclined to have a heartfelt chat over diagnosing an engine issue.

What I love about hearing theories on different styles of thinking, personality, and emotional processing is the various ways we can think about neurodiversity, compassion, and working together. Grandin posits that in order for a project to be successful, there has to be all three types of thinkers on the team. I would go further to posit that we need both empathizers and systematizers working together in society. This is not to say it’s always easy to collaborate with different thinking and feeling styles! Being an empathizer, I find myself frustrated at times when holding a conversation or even maintaining a friendship with a systematizer. As an empathizer, I make snap judgements about my systematizer friends: “Wow, s/he’s so rude!” or “What a harsh thing to say!” I have also been told by systematizers that I am “too sensitive”.

Perspective is key here. I understand that I am not going to get along with everybody, systematizer or empathizer. But, I know that collaborating with different- and like-minded people can yield wonderful results:  thriving schools and businesses, strong families, and diverse communities. I also believe that it is in our best interest to nurture both our empathizing and systematizing qualities. Balance always seems to be a theme in our lives, and how we process the world is no exception. While I spend a lot of my energy connecting emotionally with others, I also actively engage in systematizing tasks through reading up on current events and understanding the systemic underlying issues, playing Solitaire, and posing philosophical conversations (side note: I’ve found that systematizers are more likely to argue their point, while empathizers will say, “Interesting point! I never thought of it that way!”). Balance, to me, is wellness, and I try my best to incorporate both emotional fullness and logical processing into my daily life.