Spectrums: Deciding upon a number along a long list of numbers does not define us.

     It is very rare that a person can use one particular set of pigeonholes to categorize a person — probably isn’t possible at all. But most measuring devices will come up with “answers”. Looking at those answers more closely, we find that the answers all end up “kind of”.

     I have a result for the Myers-Briggs Type Inventory of INT/FJ. The “/” indicates that I “balance” between the aspects of “Thinking” and “Feeling”. The reality is that the T to F scale is a spectrum. I test out at the very middle. It is my understanding that there is now a refinement that breaks the type-casting into smaller gradations. It also seems to be true that we shift based on relationships. My wife is strong on the Process-oriented side of the MBTI while I am moderate on the Judicious side. When I am with her, my "J” aspect becomes stronger as I counter-balance her “P” tendencies.

     There are many areas that can be measured — with an arbitrary division that says one endpoint or the other (for weight; overweight versus underweight). Some are known to have large “loopholes” but are used anyway for convenience. One such is BMI. For most people (about 90%), this ratio of height to weight works — but for those who have either a lot of muscle mass (such as athletes or other heavy exercisers) or truly “large boned” it does not work well. The measurement of height seems straight-forward but we are all shorter at the end of the day (the older, the greater the difference) and whether we are “short” or “tall” depends within what pool of people we are measured. When I was visiting castles in Wales, I (at 5’ 7” tall) had to duck under every door arch and watch my head within rooms. The suits of armor appeared to be made for junior high school children.

     One of the areas that end up being categorized the most is “race”. Most people would think that this would be definitive but it is actually composed of many gradations and very arbitrary divisions. The concept of race was created to give apparently rational excuses for distinguishing between different pools of people. Thus, one pool could be considered “superior” to others and justified colonialism and slavery. But, if you break down the qualities that are measured, we can quickly see that such classification is balderdash.

     At our sons’ elementary school, there were a variety of genetic backgrounds. I believe there were about 800 students. If, on a particular day (it would be different on another day because of tanning or season of the year), you lined all 800 students up from the most pigment to the least, you would probably have around 50 or so clumps where the pigment level would be difficult to discern between individuals. According to the “race” aspect, however, somewhere between two clumps, the children would be classified as “white” or “non-white”.

     The same set of methods could be applied to hair texture, nose proportions, eye color, cuticle shapes, and so forth. With each spread and grouping, the concept of “race” becomes more and more ludicrous.

     This is not meant to negate personal histories, ethnic commonalities, and other aspects which can tend to group people and may coincide with the categories of “race”. Such identification may be very important to a person, their history, and their perspectives on the rest of the world — but the outside envelope is incidental.

     We have four sons, two of which are on the Autistic spectrum. Before a change in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM), they were considered to have Asperger’s Syndrome. Autism is not a disease but it is a change in brain structure that creates challenges for people to deal with inside a “neurotypical” (or “normal”) population. The changes happen before birth and, therefore, nothing that happens after birth has any relevance.

     From a “techie” point of view, you can say that their I/O (Input/Output) connections to the world are wired differently. With this difference in “wiring”, interactions with the outside world do not work the same as others. Hearing, speaking, touching, tasting, seeing, smelling and other bodily interactions with the general population can sometimes be like speaking different languages.

     But our two sons are considered “high functioning”. They have strong verbal skills and are able to do most things that others do. But they do them differently — and one of them includes an aspect of “sensory issues” where the volume of the outside world can vary, in his perception, from moment to moment. As a child, this caused him great distress so he would scream to drown out the outside world with something “he could control”. It continues to affect him about what foods he can tolerate.

     The grandson of a friend is towards the other “end” of the spectrum. His “I/O circuitry” does not allow verbal output. He is not fully at the “end” (where there is NO interaction with the outside world) as he is still able to interact with others and can be an enormous pleasure to be around. It is impossible for those around him to know just what/how/how much/why he processes information.

     Our society has a terrible habit of assuming that those with sensory challenges also have intellectual challenges but such aspects are quite independent. From all points within the autistic spectrum, the goal is have them be able to interact well with others who do not have their particular configurations.

     Another famous spectrum issue is that of the Intelligence Quotient (IQ). It has been proposed that IQ is only one of a number of different types of intelligence with all of them having their own “score” or place upon the spectrum. Often a “100” means “average”. Half of the population is meant to be below 100 and the other half above 100. But there are also scales (or spectrums) for emotional intelligence (EQ) and physical intelligence (PQ) and a couple of others. Alas, there is no such thing as a “common sense” quotient — because that term is primarily used as a comparison between those setting the ideal and those either following along or diverting from that ideal.

     Score, scale, spectrum — we are all of more this way than that and the combination of all such comparisons, or evaluations. The array of results, as expressed in lists of numbers, emphasize how unique we each are rather than allowing a single number to pigeonhole us.

     We are one species, one people and our differences all form a part of the population as a whole.

Ideas & Interpretations is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

Evolution: Change, Mutations, and Leaps

 

     Organisms change. They may be living or a business but they do change. The word "evolution" has a rocky history and is certainly not approved by all people. But I don't know of a better word which encapsulates the process of continuous change to fit the environment. So, evolution it is.

     Since the period of time that Charles Darwin took his journey in the Beagle and Gregor Mendel worked with his peas (and others unrecognized before, and after, them), people have noticed that things change. Not just geological change with volcanoes, floods, earthquakes, and other changes to the earth -- but changes to life. Moths change color to adapt to pollution in the air. Birds change their migration paths due to changes in the Gulf Stream current or whether El Niño is in effect. Foxes start having white fur when their range is pushed up into colder, snowier, territories.

     Changes in life take place at the genetic level. With the Human Genome Project, CRISPR, and other continued understanding, and manipulation, of the genetic code, exploring the mysteries gives us more answers. (Although, like almost every other area of knowledge, each answer generates multiple new questions.) One thing that has been found is that the genetic code has duplications, or redundancies, that appear to each facilitate the same growth process (often protein creation). Another thing found is that there are dormant sections that don't appear to do anything. How both of those work, and why they exist, are part of the continuing set of new questions.

     We recognize change when it affects behavior, or appearance, or some other quality that we can notice. Before it reaches that stage there are probably changes to the genetic code that are NOT observable. The only thing we can really say about such changes is that they are not immediately fatal. If the changes were fatal, then they would not propagate to the next generations. Once these non-fatal changes accumulate to the point of being noticeable, then the next step of winnowing is how it affects survival in the environment.

     Note that human technology has changed, and continues to change, how this survival mechanism works. We have more people needing glasses, or other physical aids, because we now have the technology that allows people to use their other attributes and still survive with their challenges of birth. Being severely myopic in the 16th century while living in the forest was likely soon fatal. It isn't a big thing in modern society.

     Each change in the genetic code is an aspect of mutation -- having something appear which was not there before. We also have changes in the individual genetic pools due to haploid combinations -- receiving different genetic material from the female and from the male and combining the material.

     When changes accumulated to start showing blue eyes rather than brown, they were noticeable. But sometimes the changes are VERY noticeable and these are leaps -- or quantum jumps in evolution. The changes were proceeding under the surface but now they surface. Although it is rarely (if ever) as dramatic as those presented within the "X-Men", once noticeable it can be considered a small change or a large leap.

     As a parent of two children on the autistic spectrum, I have read a lot of the (often) contradictory information that exists. One thing that appears to be (often) true is a change in the neurological configuration of the brain. Some groups call this, and the behavioral challenges often associated with it, a "disease" but I don't look at it that way at all. It might be an evolutionary jump -- such as suggested in the books "Darwin's Radio" and "Darwin's Children" by Greg Bear. Certainly, advances pushed forward by people of history who are thought (perhaps erroneously) to be on the autistic spectrum lend weight to that theory. These are people such as Albert Einstein, Anthony Hopkins, Isaac Newton, and Nikola Tesla.

     As for business. Changes can be deliberately encouraged or the result of smaller changes under the surface. Just as in genetics, smaller changes (which are non-fatal) can accumulate until something very different shows up.

Invisible Maladies: What you see is not necessarily what you get

 

     I have two children who are on the autistic spectrum -- high-functioning. At one time, they would have been said to have "Asperger's Syndrome" but the latest edition of the specification manual (DSM-5) no longer uses that term. They are great people, and I am proud of them, and it is only when they are actively interacting with others that one notices that they don't interact quite the same as others. The chances are excellent that I am also "on the spectrum" though I am undiagnosed and have succeeded in training myself so that I only occasionally get into communications difficulties.

     Some groups look at being on the autistic spectrum as a disease for which one can find a cure. For many other people, being on the autistic spectrum is not considered a "malady". It is a different configuration, and organization, of the brain and it has advantages as well as disadvantages. I have occasional thoughts as to whether this change of brain function might be part of a quantum "jump" in human behavior -- the next step in human evolution such as described by Greg Bear in his book Darwin's Radio. That would explain why the diagnosis is happening in greater numbers. 

     My sons are in good company with many others (for some historical figures, it is only a likely diagnosis based on behaviors) who are considered to have been on the autistic spectrum -- people like Dan Ackroyd, Charles Darwin, Emily Dickinson, Bill Gates, Steve Jobs, Barbara McClintock, Michelangelo, Andy Warhol, and Mozart -- just to name a few of many.

     One may notice that these folks have a couple of things obviously in common. They are very creative and they are capable of great focus. (For some individuals, these aspects are so strong that it renders them almost incapable of interacting with others -- this is why it is considered to be a "spectrum" of behavior.) They also had great difficulties in interacting with others (which can be overcome with work -- replacing "instinctual", or "innate",  responses with learned responses). And this difficulty interacting with others is the aspect that can be considered an "invisible malady".

     Unlike a Down's Syndrome person or a mobility challenged person or someone who has some other externally observable difference -- you cannot tell a person is on the autistic spectrum by just looking at them (with the caveat that you might interpret based on behaviors). There have been times I have wondered -- would it be better to have an "A" on the forehead as an advance indication or not? Would that carry with it extra preconceptions prior to even directly interacting with the person or would it reset the expectations of the "neurotypical" (non autistic-spectrum person)? In either case, the effect would still depend on the adequate education of the "neurotypical" person (which often still needs considerable improvement).

     I also have mild narcolepsy. My family has considered it quite hilarious to take photos of me nodding off at the circus, or the middle of a movie. I have also been known to fall asleep in the middle of a sentence while reading. It normally only lasts a few minutes. There are some medications that help with the condition but not everyone can deal with the side-effects. Midday naps can help as can regular nights of sleep. The primary time to be particularly careful is while driving. However, at work, this can also be an embarrassment to managers when they don't want to deal with medical conditions. Once again, it is an "invisible malady".

     There are many other "invisible maladies". Some are recognized by, and accepted by, others because of their prevalence. Migraines are one such -- enough people have migraines -- or directly know someone with migraines -- that people say "oh, yes, I understand". There are others -- kidney stones, hemorrhoids, ingrown nails, and so forth -- that are also known, and accepted, because of prevalence.

     It is those differences, and ailments, which are NOT prevalent that cause the greatest difficulty because it is harder for others to empathize and take behaviors into account. Many psychiatric conditions may fall into this category. Sometimes, the "malady" might be acceptable to others but it is too embarrassing for the person to tell others about it affecting them. In any case, the "invisible maladies" become acceptable by others only through experience and education.