Some people with autism, like myself, aren't very logical.
We might care less for "who's right and who's wrong" and simply respect each other's differences of belief. We ally with each other, rather than warring; the former can result in great mutualism.
Sure, we could nitpick each other to pieces, but I'd rather: put down my sword, and give someone a hug.
I've managed to befriend multifarious types of people, simply by: respecting their perspectives, and giving them the space and support to voice them. I ask questions that encourage them to elaborate their beliefs and deepen the conversation. I always try to: find value in what they say, and see the positives behind it. Some people get hated, for their beliefs, and I can offer my ears, as a medium for their catharsis. I never get the urge to carp their differences or quirks.
I had a relative who was proud to announce that she was not logical.
This seemed important to her. It was as if she believed that being
"not logical" meant she had freedom of choice, that she was extra
creative or something.
It looked to me that she was afraid of being controlled.
She's right. Much of the most beautiful art, in our world, wasn't painted with rulers and straight lines; the artists had to speak from their hearts as their brushes danced. From what I've seen, logical analysis can stagnate: creativity and the action of implementing one's designs.
I was once enrolled in an engineering program, and I designed much of our systems. Some people could analyze (which has its own merits, I'll admit), but they couldn't broach any ideas or think of anything new. I imagined new technologies to solve our engineering goals, and the analysts suggested improvements, sprinkling my ideas with the logic needed to shape these mechanical contraptions into functionality. They made the suggestions, but metaphorically, what could they have watered, if I'd not planted the seed?
Someone had to be creative enough to take the risk of broaching the idea, before logic came into play. Logic is conformity, and therefore, it cannot purely constitute innovation. Novelty is speckled with weirdness, and that's why it can exist.
As meat for my point, let's consult Robert J. Sternberg's Triarchic Theory of Intelligence. It consists of three giftedness types: analytical, creative, and practical. You can research them, before or after my rant, if you like.
I'll mention only the relevant components. Each person is said to be strongest, in one of the 3 intelligence types. From Sternberg's research, "Analytical giftedness is influential in being able to take apart problems and being able to see solutions not often seen. Unfortunately, individuals with only this type are not as adept at creating unique ideas of their own [
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triarchic_theory_of_intelligence#Componential_–_analytical_subtheory]."