An engineer's mind?

[Judge]

Too many ambiguities in play.

Perhaps best to simply not attempt to overthink such things, or to attempt to pigeonhole engineers altogether.

My father was an engineer. Whatever thought processes he employed professionally speaking, he was still very much a neurotypical. I never thought I had what it took to be an engineer...though I am on the spectrum of autism. Go figure...

 

[Darkkin]

Problem solving, predicitive reasoning, statistics, are all aspects of logic. (Left side dominant.) Music with its universal language and translative, transpositional properties and artistic interpretation is a global process (Both hemispheres of the brain working in tandem to meet a desired goal.) Poetry is a similar process.

But trying to illustrate any of this is like trying to explain how a raven is like a writing desk. The idioms, axioms, and similes are not effectively conveying the congruencies of the idea. Simile congruencies are how the nature of one thing is like a nature of another. As with the tortoise and the hare. The tortiose (a steady, predictable pace) and the hare (unchallenged, rapid but erratic pace).

Spock by his very nature, (a Vulcan), is an iconic embodiment of the logical side of human nature. (Left side brain dominance). His character is designed as a linear contrast to the more emotional natures of his comrades.

Comparing the brain to a computer is more concise, but the language of each brain is unique to the individual. Some skills can come installed and we don't know how or why they work, they just do. I've always been scarily hyperlexic, (talking in complete sentences at seven months), reading at 18 months. It is a skill I always had, but it has an inherent flaw because my system is based in rote, contextual memorization. Basically, I hear it I know it. I read it, I know it. (This is why I have such recall with book titles, their content, and placements at work.)

Flipside of this is I cannot sound out words or read syllables. Absolutely, flatout cannot do it. Yet I can read and write comprehensively. I can operate the macro (the system as a whole) setting of the system, but I have no micro (individual components) settings because my brain bypassed learning the foundational skills. It is the same with how I read and play piano. Once I learned how to read music and the key placement, I did better on my own than with traditional methods. I played because I liked to.

Each brain is unique. It doesn't matter if it is left side, right side, or center. It is the only one of its kind. Let it work as it will and don't be concerned about trying to categorize it into left, right, center.

 

[Richelle-H]

instruction set?

Pardon me for being oblique. An instruction set is a reference to values that produce specific results. In human terms it would relate to what you know, believe, and act upon without undo external pressure.

I relate to what you are saying about Aesthetics. I have always had a creative/artistic bent that has played its part in my facility in understanding and programming machines. I believe it was as much a part of my engineering/ programming abilities as my engineering training and my ease in solving puzzles of various types.

I grew up reading books and was introduced to film at a very early age, having been taken to many drive-ins from the age of six onward and that created something of a film fanatic in me before I was out of my teens.

I guess what I am saying is that I see no divide between the artistic/creative side of my personality and that which aided me in my life as an engineer/programmer. I feel they have always been partners in who I am.

Underscoring this, at least to me, is the fact the hemisphere of my brain where logic skills reside has atrophied a bit in comparison to the creative side. I base this on numerous MRIs and CAT scans of my brain over the last two-and-a-half decades and the assessment of same by medical professionals. It may mean nothing, but I interpret it as my mind moving away from my engineering training and early ease with mathematics as I have grown older and entered retirement (use it or lose it? ).

I think it all merely shows passion and understanding of something as well as the way we implement and deal with our individual talents.

 

[harrietjansson]

Problem solving, predicitive reasoning, statistics, are all aspects of logic. (Left side dominant.) Music with its universal language and translative, transpositional properties and artistic interpretation is a global process (Both hemispheres of the brain working in tandem to meet a desired goal.) Poetry is a similar process.

But trying to illustrate any of this is like trying to explain how a raven is like a writing desk. The idioms, axioms, and similes are not effectively conveying the congruencies of the idea. Simile congruencies are how the nature of one thing is like a nature of another. As with the tortoise and the hare. The tortiose (a steady, predictable pace) and the hare (unchallenged, rapid but erratic pace).

Spock by his very nature, (a Vulcan), is an iconic embodiment of the logical side of human nature. (Left side brain dominance). His character is designed as a linear contrast to the more emotional natures of his comrades.

Comparing the brain to a computer is more concise, but the language of each brain is unique to the individual. Some skills can come installed and we don't know how or why they work, they just do. I've always been scarily hyperlexic, (talking in complete sentences at seven months), reading at 18 months. It is a skill I always had, but it has an inherent flaw because my system is based in rote, contextual memorization. Basically, I hear it I know it. I read it, I know it. (This is why I have such recall with book titles, their content, and placements at work.)

Flipside of this is I cannot sound out words or read syllables. Absolutely, flatout cannot do it. Yet I can read and write comprehensively. I can operate the macro (the system as a whole) setting of the system, but I have no micro (individual components) settings because my brain bypassed learning the foundational skills. It is the same with how I read and play piano. Once I learned how to read music and the key placement, I did better on my own than with traditional methods. I played because I liked to.

Each brain is unique. It doesn't matter if it is left side, right side, or center. It is the only one of its kind. Let it work as it will and don't be concerned about trying to categorize it into left, right, center.

Micro and macro?
What does this have to do with playing the piano?? I am confused?
Are you a person who only see the bigger picture rather than details? Isn't that what NTs do?

You are saying that music require the full/whole brain so you need to be good at many skillsin order to play the piano or sing?
I was told that piano is a lot about being intellectual (at least for me with no "mental retardation") and coordination. What do you say?

 

[Darkkin]

Piano has nothing to do with intellect. People learn to play by ear and are just as good if not better than those who have had years of formal training. Look into the origins of music and composition at the number of innovators who were 'classically' trained. It is the outliers who paved the way for 'classical' education.

Which segues to education classification: And according to science I have dyscalculia and also have profound dysphonentic dyslexia, both measurable learning disabilities.

But I know how to play piano, I know how to read music, I can transpose to different keys, (I can switch treble and bass clef runs, bass line played by right, treble with left).

I can also tessellate between multiple forms of poetry with very few if any edits. Nobody showed or taught me how to do this. Does that make my knowledge on these subject less? How much weight does one's learning process carry?

Because according to definition I have significant learning disabilities. Do those define the limits of my abilities? According to definition, I should not be able to do the things I do.

And if we are going by definition, average IQ in the US is between 80 - 100. Mine according to their tests and definitions is nearly twice that. Yet by classical education standards I should not be able to write this because I don't read 'correctly'.

There is no 'right' way to learn. Every brain is unique and to pigeon hole skills like musicality based on intellect is profoundly inaccurate.

Musicality has a lot to do with one's innate ability or 'feel' for music. It is a medium that is not bound by mental ability.

Just as someone can be technically trained in singing, but still have an awful voice. You can have someone with a mental disability who is an amazing singer. There are the skills accrued through hours of practice and then there are those who can just pick up and play without formal training.

It is the same way with my language skills, I just picked it up and kept going. That specific process is unique to my brain to expect someone else to do it the same way is improbable. Why? Simply because the wiring of their brain is going to be completely different than mine.

There are a lot of people who meet the textbook definition of 'smart' but are among the most clueless people one can encounter because they are so mired in their definition of what 'smart' is. True intelligence just like autism is a spectrum of strength and weaknesses.

These lines are still just as apt.

Kirk: Spock,these cadets of yours, how good are they? How will they respond under real pressure?

Spock: As with all living things, each according to his gifts.

 

[harrietjansson]

Piano has nothing to do with intellect. People learn to play by ear and are just as good if not better than those who have had years of formal training. Look into the origins of music and composition at the number of innovators who were 'classically' trained. It is the outliers who paved the way for 'classical' education.

Which segues to education classification: And according to science I have dyscalculia and also have profound dysphonentic dyslexia both measurable learning disabilities.

But I know how to play, I know how to read music, I can transpose to different keys, (I can switch treble and bass clef runs, bass line played by right, treble with left). I can also tessellate between multiple forms of poetry with very few if any edits. Nobody showed or taught me how to do this. Does that make my knowledge on these subject less? Because according to definition I have significant learning disabilities. Do those define the limits of my abilities? According to definition, I should not be able to do the things I do.

If we are going by definition, average IQ in the US is between 80 - 100. Mine according to their tests and definitions is nearly twice that. If we go by definition and what I should be able to do, I should not be where I am in life. I should not be able to write this because I don't read 'correctly'.

There is no 'right' way to learn. Every brain is unique and to pigeon hole skills like musicality based on intellect is profoundly inaccurate. Musicality has a lot to do with one's innate ability or 'feel' for music. It is a medium that is not bound by mental ability. Just as someone can be technically trained in singing, but still have an awful voice. You can have someone with a mental disability who is an amazing singer. There are the skills accrued through hours of practice and then there are those who can just pick up and play without formal training.

It is the same way with my language skills, I just picked it up and kept going. That specific process is unique to my brain to expect someone else to do it the same way is improbable. Why? Simply because the wiring of their brain is going to be completely different than mine.

There are a lot of people who meet the textbook definition of 'smart' but are among the most clueless people one can encounter because they are so mired in their definition of what 'smart' is. True intelligence just like autism is a spectrum of strength and weaknesses.

These lines are still just as apt.

Kirk: Spock,these cadets of yours, how good are they? How will they respond under real pressure?

Spock: As with all living things, each according to his gifts.

You are saying that I am saying things that I am not saying.
I say that for many people piano is something intellectual. Those with what has been refered to as "mental retardation" in the past may use different abilities when learning to play the piano. I use a lot of breaking down of skills (which is something intellectual) when I learn piano. I am not sure I would be good at something too theoretical and academic. Ot is another thing.

 

[Judge]

Interesting article to ponder such things...

10 legendary musicians who never learned to read music - Classic FM

 

[Darkkin]

You are saying that I am saying things that I am not saying.
I say that for many people piano is something intellectual. Those with what has been refered to as "mental retardation" in the past may use different abilities when learning to play the piano. I use a lot of breaking down of skills (which is something intellectual) when I learn piano. I am not sure I would be good at something too theoretical and academic. Ot is another thing.

Nobody said you said something you didn't say. You presented a specific perspective on learning a specific skill. I just pointed out alternatives and that intellect is not causational to musicality.

You were told one thing. A single perspective. It isn't wrong, but is not the only method of learning a skill. Any skill. Different brains learn in different ways. Some by rote, technical practice. Some by experimenting with aspects of the skill.

Consider what you as an individual, yourself, think about that particular skill. How you as an individual learn and how you process new information. How active is the learning process for you. Think about the questions and your answers. It is surprising what one can learn from introspection.

Just something to try.

 

[harrietjansson]

You presented a specific perspective on learning a specific ski

And that's how many people learn. Thay's what I'm saying.
I often break down tasks into smaller tasks. This is something intellectual. Just because something is intellectual it doesn't have to be theoretical. It's more about feeling and thinking about eg piano technique. I don't know people who don't feel and think when learning something. You may do it more or less conscious but people do feel and think at some point.

When you're trying to understand the system (the details and the whole picture) you are using what some people call the engineer's mind. I say that most people don't use that way of thinking when dealing with music. It might be more common in people with ASD.
Breaking down skills and then learning to coordinate skills is very important for many of us with ASD. People with NT might need it less.

 

[Darkkin]

Breaking a task down into smaller steps is not 'intellectual', hyperspecifically it is the 'linear' or straightforward approach to learn something. Linear by definition is progressing from one stage to another in a single series of steps. (Oxford English Dictionary, definition 2). e.g. Step A - Z, repeat. Nothing more, nothing less.

It has absolutely nothing to do with one's intelligence. It is a learning process every person on the planet whether ASD or NT uses at most points in their lives. It is how everybody learns a majority of things like chores, care tasks, everything.

It is how toddlers learn to talk. And children to tie their shoes. It is how you learn how to cook. Ride a bike or drive a car. It is practiced motion and the forging of neural pathways in the brain itself. It creates muscle memory on how to place one's fingers over piano keys.

Science and engineering tend to be very straightforward or linearly progressive fields. Very black and white. Is and is not approach. The root words of the terms have no bearing on intellect.

Intelligence is defined as the ability to acquire and apply knowledge and skills. (Oxford dictionary, definition 1). Key word here being knowledge, not just skill.

You learn to play an instrument in a linear way. Logical, rational, or sensible could also be used because it is describing the learning process, not the consciousness itself.

Consider the examples:

Mary Sue was taught to play the piano using a linear approach.

Mary Sue was taught to play the piano using an intelligent approach.

One highlights the aspects of the left-side dominant learning approach. The other discounts all other learning processes, for which no context or parameters have been established.

Throughout this entire conversation the term 'intellectual' or some derivative of has been incorrectly wielded as a categorizing criteria, which is highly inaccurate.

One can be intellegent and musically inclined. This is accepted. However, the two are not mutually exclusive and do not even have to be within the same consciouness. Music like poetry is one of the most polarized spectrums in terms of learning in that it is a global process of technical aspects and intrepertation. It is not dominated by a hemisphere.

It takes a linear approach to things like chess and logic puzzles, reading, writing, composition, history, mechanical engineering, computer programming, medicine, math. The list goes on. These are all areas where intelligence is very much a tangible aspect. It isn't all theoretical physics and long winded philosophy.

Skills are their own type of knowledge and without them, yikes. But knowledge itself does have an element to creation to it. Think about the difference between reading and writing. Most reading is a passive process. How often do we really think about a story? As a reader, not as often as we would like to admit. Writing, however, is an active process because we are drawing on knowledge and testing skills.

It is the difference between a musician and a composser. One has immense skill who intreperts what is written. One contributes to the knowledge base by actively writing and creating something new. Though their roles are different the musician and the composer are not defined or ranked by their intellect. The success of one, will benefit the success of the other.

It isn't about an IQ score or ranks in a standardized test it is about the lessons we learn and knowledge we gain from the world around us not matter how we learn.

 

[harrietjansson]

Breaking a task down into smaller steps is not 'intellectual', hyperspecifically it is the 'linear' or straightforward approach to learn something. Linear by definition is progressing from one stage to another in a single series of steps. (Oxford English Dictionary, definition 2). e.g. Step A - Z, repeat. Nothing more, nothing less.

It has absolutely nothing to do with one's intelligence. It is a learning process every person on the planet whether ASD or NT uses at most points in their lives. It is how everybody learns a majority of things like chores, care tasks, everything.

It is how toddlers learn to talk. And children to tie their shoes. It is how you learn how to cook. Ride a bike or drive a car. It is practiced motion and the forging of neural pathways in the brain itself. It creates muscle memory on how to place one's fingers over piano keys.

Science and engineering tend to be very straightforward or linearly progressive fields. Very black and white. Is and is not approach. The root words of the terms have no bearing on intellect.

Intelligence is defined as the ability to acquire and apply knowledge and skills. (Oxford dictionary, definition 1). Key word here being knowledge, not just skill.

You learn to play an instrument in a linear way. Logical, rational, or sensible could also be used because it is describing the learning process, not the consciousness itself.

Consider the examples:

Mary Sue was taught to play the piano using a linear approach.

Mary Sue was taught to play the piano using an intelligent approach.

One highlights the aspects of the left-side dominant learning approach. The other discounts all other learning processes, for which no context or parameters have been established.

Throughout this entire conversation the term 'intellectual' or some derivative of has been incorrectly wielded as a categorizing criteria, which is highly inaccurate.

One can be intellegent and musically inclined. This is accepted. However, the two are not mutually exclusive and do not even have to be within the same consciouness. Music like poetry is one of the most polarized spectrums in terms of learning in that it is a global process of technical aspects and intrepertation. It is not dominated by a hemisphere.

It takes a linear approach to things like chess and logic puzzles, reading, writing, composition, history, mechanical engineering, computer programming, medicine, math. The list goes on. These are all areas where intelligence is very much a tangible aspect. It isn't all theoretical physics and long winded philosophy.

Skills are their own type of knowledge and without them, yikes. But knowledge itself does have an element to creation to it. Think about the difference between reading and writing. Most reading is a passive process. How often do we really think about a story? As a reader, not as often as we would like to admit. Writing, however, is an active process because we are drawing on knowledge and testing skills.

It is the difference between a musician and a composser. One has immense skill who intreperts what is written. One contributes to the knowledge base by actively writing and creating something new. Though their roles are different the musician and the composer are not defined or ranked by their intellect. The success of one, will benefit the success of the other.

It isn't about an IQ score or ranks in a standardized test it is about the lessons we learn and knowledge we gain from the world around us not matter how we learn.

That's the way you see it but it is not how I see it!
It is intellectual for me no matter what you say!

 

[Darkkin]

That's the way you see it but it is not how I see it!
It is intellectual for me no matter what you say!

Everybody defines their own context. It isn't wrong, but it also is not accurate.

 

[harrietjansson]

Linear by definition is progressing from one stage to another in a single series of steps. (Oxford English Dictionary, definition 2). e.g. Step A - Z, repeat. Nothing more, nothing less.

And that is not how I learn to play the piano!
Breaking down is not always linnear for me.

 

[harrietjansson]

Everybody defines their own context. It isn't wrong, but it also is not accurate.

You dont know me but tell me that you do!
You sound very rude!

 

[Darkkin]

You dont know me but tell me that you do!
You sound very rude!

Nobody told you to do anything. You have autonomy over you. You speak and do as works for you. I just pointed out a difference of linguistic context for consideration, with examples.

There are no instructions saying, do this this way. Merely food for thought.

 

[harrietjansson]

Nobody told you to do anything. You have autonomy over you. You speak and do as works for you. I just pointed out a difference of linguistic context for consideration, with examples.

There are no instructions saying, do this this way. Merely food for thought.

Do we perhaps have different definitions of "intellectual"? I am not sure we are talking about the same thing.
When we say "break dowm" we must define what we refer to.
Breaking down tasks can be intellectual in that you try to say exactly as it is and that you try to figure out what is going on. This is how I use the term. You reason about what you experience.
People who are intellectual mght be very bad at doing something academic.
My piano teachers say that we need to think alot when practicing.
Are we defininf the terms differently?

 

[Darkkin]

One can define a word seven ways to Sunday and include examples and unless said word is defined to another's exact specifications it is not going to be exact to the individual and so said definition is a moot point. Further discussion then becomes circular.

 

[harrietjansson]

Science and engineering tend to be very straightforward or linearly progressive fields. Very black and white.

So scientist never experiment?
I am not a scientists so I don't know.

You are saying that a lot of skills are learned in a linnear way. You wish to simplify the learning process. I know too many teachers who say that you learn by following a series of exercises. Well, I rather refrain from listening to such teachers as they simplify too much.

Learning Is Non-Linear. Why Not Curriculum?

But the big issue is this: when you are thinking about how things connect/relate ordoesn't in a system we are doing an intellectual exercise.
I often think about how speaking and singing relate to eachother. I test things, experiment. I try to avoid linnear thinking. It is more about looking at it from different angels. It is never a step-by-step method. I am already showing how wrong you might be.
I never do this unmethodically, ie without beong aware of what I am doing. To me this is very intellectual even if it is not that theoretical.

 

[Darkkin]

Linear is forward progressions as a whole, steps can be nonlinear, but logical. A word by the way that was included in the Mary Sue example post. Why are you so determined to prove someone wrong about something? Black and white. Right and wrong. Straight forward progression. Right there. In a nonlinear format. Imagine that.

People have explained nonlinear learning this entire thread as an workable way of learning, but no matter how one explained it. Because it was not the exact way you learn, exactly related to topic A, it was not right. It was not an 'intellectual' way to learn. Now it is suddenly the reason for being right? Reality: There is no right or wrong way to learn, which was stated in numerous posts, but that information was ignored, and that is a very limiting way to learn.

You have one method for one thing. You call it one thing. That is what an opinion is. An opinion is not intellectual proof of anything. It is merely an individual's perspective on a single point. Not fact based empirical proof. Opinion is not fact. Everybody has an opinion. You define thing one way and it says a specific thing. You have a right that opinion. No one has challenged this. Treating an opinion as fact is factually incorrect.

Steps and problem solving those steps can be nonlinear (logical, but that definition which was provided was bypassed) along a linearly progressive trajectory. Breaking it down to smaller steps to achieve a next goal, is a linear as things can come. Just as life preceeds death and C,D,E,F,G,A,B,C.

People keep explaining, this is how left side dominant problem solving and logic work. Heck we had to explain logic and STEM. You keep following the same circle to nowhere to prove someone wrong. You brought up rude behaviour to call someone wrong based on opinion, consider how that looks and sounds. This specifically:

I am already showing how wrong...

If someone on the street or a teacher said this would you give credence to that opinion? Not cool nor kind.

You talk about bad teachers, not respecting one's intellect. This illustrates that exact point in spades. I am an atypical, nonlinear documented learning disability learner and you want to show me how wrong I am when at no point did I say anything but consider, merely think. And I need to learn this lesson and be proven wrong...

Define intellectual and engineer's mind as you deem correct. No one is going to prove otherwise. You will be right as rain. Always.

Grammatical context tells the real story. Words and how we use them matter. People have said in countless posts, there is no wrong way to learn. Trying to prove others wrong to prove an opinion is not discussion, nor is it learning. It is solely trying to be right for the sake of being right and no one wins in situations like that.

It isn't about objectivity or how a linear or logic based mind works. It is about being right. Sorry, but I will save my spoons for a worthy teacher who doesn't assume a point of consideration is wrong.

If you others want to contribute spoons to this 'intellectual discussion' stop trying to prove a neutral observation 'wrong'.

Lioness of Spoons: Ask the tiger to explain the Scandinavian lore.

 

[harrietjansson]

Breaking it down to smaller steps to achieve a next goal, is a linear as things can come.

No, it doesn't have to be linear!
You are saying that when you break down a task you only have one option: follow a step-by-step process!
I am too messy in order to follow a step-by-step process.
Many teachers would be happy if everything was that way, ie everyone could follow a step-by-step process. It would make things much easier for them. Most aspies I know don't like step-by-step processes. Some do but many hate them.
I use a lot of dialectic thinking in my processes.
People learning in different ways but I don't think learning can be non-messy. It will have to be.
Sometime I follow something that resembles a step-by-step process but it is never like: first I learn this and then I learn this and then....and so on. It never worked for me. I am a person who always failed when teachers tried that method.
You are free to think that it is always linear even if it isn't for many of us.

Breaking down a task for me is all about breaking down in order to focus on less things at once and also a lot about trying to understand the system.