Take a photo of a barcode or cover
3.47 AVERAGE
3.47 AVERAGE
There were so many times in this book that I thought, “That is exactly what it feels like inside my brain.” If you have any neurodivergent people in your life, read this. If you don’t, read it anyway.
informative
inspiring
reflective
slow-paced
I loved this book, although I'm probably quite biased, being at the centre of the target audience (same diagnoses + a science student). An interesting collection of parallels between scientific theory and human behaviour, written through a neurodivergent-positive and highly personal lens.
In response to many of the 1-star reviews I've seen, I can see how the title/description is somewhat misleading. This book is not trying to be a scientific exploration of human behaviour, it's a memoir consisting of how Camilla uses what she knows well (science) to help understand less objective topics such as cognition, emotional regulation, and the intricacies of social interaction.
In response to many of the 1-star reviews I've seen, I can see how the title/description is somewhat misleading. This book is not trying to be a scientific exploration of human behaviour, it's a memoir consisting of how Camilla uses what she knows well (science) to help understand less objective topics such as cognition, emotional regulation, and the intricacies of social interaction.
3.5 stars. A fascinating perspective on how aspects of scientific theory and principles (outside of behavioural sciences) can be applied to the workings of the human mind. The author's passion for science shines through and she uses her extensive knowledge to explain many of her own fears, reactions and responses, specifically in the context of autism.
What didn't work was the evident connection between the scientific principles and related behaviours. A gap that could easily have been filled with tangible examples. My sense is that the author intuitively understood those links but failed to grasp how best to enable others to do so. I'm disappointed because I hoped to learn much more from this book.
I'm also not convinced the author was the best person to narrate it; on the one hand it's her personal experience but on the other a professional narrator can transform the listening experience.
What didn't work was the evident connection between the scientific principles and related behaviours. A gap that could easily have been filled with tangible examples. My sense is that the author intuitively understood those links but failed to grasp how best to enable others to do so. I'm disappointed because I hoped to learn much more from this book.
I'm also not convinced the author was the best person to narrate it; on the one hand it's her personal experience but on the other a professional narrator can transform the listening experience.
Funny and fun -- an interesting read that gave me a new way to look at the world and contextualize my neurodivergencies
informative
medium-paced
My expectations were too high I think. I related to the idea of the book so much -- as a fellow autistic woman, I too have wished there was a manual for how to be a person -- but I didn't connect with much of the book itself. In hindsight, this is to be expected. I've never been a hard science person.
Maybe it's just because I'm not familiar with most of the scientific topics discussed, but there also seemed to be some minor contradictions that bothered me in an admittedly nitpicky way. There were mind maps/diagrams to illustrate some concepts, which I usually love, but these ones were mostly incomprehensible to me, both because I can't read her handwriting and because I had trouble following the images themselves.
One thing I did get out of this is the idea of treating aspects of daily life as an experiment and in that context reframing failure as new data that will make future experiments run smoother. I enjoyed/related to some other parts of the book, such as how the section on thermodynamics explained perfectly why I have trouble with repeated/routine tasks, but nothing stuck out to me as new and useful concepts for me personally.
Maybe it's just because I'm not familiar with most of the scientific topics discussed, but there also seemed to be some minor contradictions that bothered me in an admittedly nitpicky way. There were mind maps/diagrams to illustrate some concepts, which I usually love, but these ones were mostly incomprehensible to me, both because I can't read her handwriting and because I had trouble following the images themselves.
One thing I did get out of this is the idea of treating aspects of daily life as an experiment and in that context reframing failure as new data that will make future experiments run smoother. I enjoyed/related to some other parts of the book, such as how the section on thermodynamics explained perfectly why I have trouble with repeated/routine tasks, but nothing stuck out to me as new and useful concepts for me personally.
A collection of self-discovered science-human relationship analogues which at times are too forced. There are some parts that I like though, such as the one about being a prism and refracting our fears and anxiety, I kinda like that one.
Flimsy, Extended Metaphors and Tone-Deaf Social Prescriptions or
Reversing the Value Scale is No Salve: Problems for Neurodivergent Perscriptivism
The promise of Pang’s book is a neurodivergent perspective on seemingly natural and mundane aspects of social life—and the possible advantages that such a perspective might offer if neurotypicals were to alter their behaviors.
Unfortunately, the form and tone of Pang’s work detract severely from her insights. Pang’s formula for each chapter is to take an aspect of social life that seems cryptic or irrational to her, apply a science concept as a loose metaphor to gain understanding, extend the metaphor in unsustainable and arbitrary ways, and then unreflectively prescribe unrealistic behaviors for neurotypical people.
Pang's application of scientific metaphors starts off poorly by relying on outdated theories or unquestioned folk psychology. Two examples:
(1) Pang is fine with a straightforward comparison of the brain and a computer, even though researchers across relevant disciplines have largely derided and abandoned such a simple comparison. She even admonishes the reader "to admit that your computer thinks outside the box more readily than you do.” But of course, anyone that has looked into machine learning and AI concepts she uses for these claims would see that computer are absolute failures when it comes to domain-general thinking: They can't think outside of the domain “box” that they have been designed to address (think self-driving cars which have excellent visual perspicacity but no way of adapting to new ways of driving like drifting or stunt car driving, let alone how to play chess or create an artwork).
(2) Pang is also fine using the Myers-Briggs personality test, even though the Big Five test is a better, more functional test of personality. Throughout, there is no critical discussion of science concepts, just quick adoption and overapplication to unrelated social domains. This misapplication could be why so many of the analogies quickly become disanalogous and arbitrary:
Even assuming the metaphors are correctly chosen in the first place, she extends them too far. Pang concludes chapter 1 by drawing on her metaphors of box-like and tree-like thinking. Box-like thinking is deductive and constrained whereas tree-like thinking is inductive and expansive.
"Like a mighty-oak that has stood for hundreds of years, a decision tree can stand up to all weathers, long after a box has been jumped on, broken, and cast aside for error.”
First, the imagery is completely arbitrary. There’s nothing analogous about an oak tree or some kind of flimsy box and the long-term usefulness of inductive and deductive modes of reasoning Pang compares them to. Early in the chapter, the metaphor works on simple level to give a sense of how inductive and deductive reasoning differ, but there’s no reason why the box needs to be flimsy or the tree sturdy. Indeed, inductive and deductive reasoning both have their place depending on the domain; and more often than not, the most useful mode of thinking combines the two.
Another reviewer has remarked more generally on this disappointing pattern:
While the scientific analogies prove personally useful to Pang and could be generative for a group discussion on alternative ways of considering social life, Pang’s overloaded analogies and prescriptions serve poorly as generalized guides to humans—even for other people with neurodivergent profiles. Moreover, Pang unnecessarily repeats many of these prescriptions within and across chapters.
While I’m not on the spectrum and am not as neurodivergent as Pang, I do have clinical depression, atypical social behaviors, and experience some common emotions differently or not at all compared to the general population. And so my own criticisms and prescriptions come in part from my own experience trying to situate myself in neurotypical settings. I have never found moralizing to be helpful.
Pang moralizes endlessly about the way that social life and human life in general would be much better if people did things her way. Namely, she decries the ambiguity of social cues, human’s desire for social belonging and conformity, and the irrational, intuitive sense that people use to make decisions and organize their lives. She never considers the evolutionary function or possible pragmatic advantages of these behaviors. Even assuming that it would be good to get rid of these evolved, neurotypical behaviors, why take the tone-deaf approach of prescribing that people be different without acknowledging the difficulty in doing so? Ironically, this is the very kind of tone-deaf approach which gets applied to autism far too often and which Pang is hoping to abate.
A wider audience could have been reached more effectively if Pang had focused primarily on her own subjective experience, rather than general prescriptions. Of course part of the subjective experience for many is a judgmental temperament; we can’t fault someone for a personality trait. Indeed, it is a beneficial trait insofar as it hones a critical eye. However, it does not make for good general discourse, and that along with her disanalogous supporting arguments ruin the message of this otherwise promising project.
Reversing the Value Scale is No Salve: Problems for Neurodivergent Perscriptivism
The promise of Pang’s book is a neurodivergent perspective on seemingly natural and mundane aspects of social life—and the possible advantages that such a perspective might offer if neurotypicals were to alter their behaviors.
Unfortunately, the form and tone of Pang’s work detract severely from her insights. Pang’s formula for each chapter is to take an aspect of social life that seems cryptic or irrational to her, apply a science concept as a loose metaphor to gain understanding, extend the metaphor in unsustainable and arbitrary ways, and then unreflectively prescribe unrealistic behaviors for neurotypical people.
Pang's application of scientific metaphors starts off poorly by relying on outdated theories or unquestioned folk psychology. Two examples:
(1) Pang is fine with a straightforward comparison of the brain and a computer, even though researchers across relevant disciplines have largely derided and abandoned such a simple comparison. She even admonishes the reader "to admit that your computer thinks outside the box more readily than you do.” But of course, anyone that has looked into machine learning and AI concepts she uses for these claims would see that computer are absolute failures when it comes to domain-general thinking: They can't think outside of the domain “box” that they have been designed to address (think self-driving cars which have excellent visual perspicacity but no way of adapting to new ways of driving like drifting or stunt car driving, let alone how to play chess or create an artwork).
(2) Pang is also fine using the Myers-Briggs personality test, even though the Big Five test is a better, more functional test of personality. Throughout, there is no critical discussion of science concepts, just quick adoption and overapplication to unrelated social domains. This misapplication could be why so many of the analogies quickly become disanalogous and arbitrary:
Even assuming the metaphors are correctly chosen in the first place, she extends them too far. Pang concludes chapter 1 by drawing on her metaphors of box-like and tree-like thinking. Box-like thinking is deductive and constrained whereas tree-like thinking is inductive and expansive.
"Like a mighty-oak that has stood for hundreds of years, a decision tree can stand up to all weathers, long after a box has been jumped on, broken, and cast aside for error.”
First, the imagery is completely arbitrary. There’s nothing analogous about an oak tree or some kind of flimsy box and the long-term usefulness of inductive and deductive modes of reasoning Pang compares them to. Early in the chapter, the metaphor works on simple level to give a sense of how inductive and deductive reasoning differ, but there’s no reason why the box needs to be flimsy or the tree sturdy. Indeed, inductive and deductive reasoning both have their place depending on the domain; and more often than not, the most useful mode of thinking combines the two.
Another reviewer has remarked more generally on this disappointing pattern:
Despite the title, this book has essentially nothing to do with science. At best it's a set of loose metaphors. Some examples - waves can constructively or destructively interfere, which is like how people can jive or clash with each other; the different wavelengths present in white light are like how you can have different overlapping emotions in a situation; the fact that different proteins work together shows that people should embrace their differences; etc.
While the scientific analogies prove personally useful to Pang and could be generative for a group discussion on alternative ways of considering social life, Pang’s overloaded analogies and prescriptions serve poorly as generalized guides to humans—even for other people with neurodivergent profiles. Moreover, Pang unnecessarily repeats many of these prescriptions within and across chapters.
While I’m not on the spectrum and am not as neurodivergent as Pang, I do have clinical depression, atypical social behaviors, and experience some common emotions differently or not at all compared to the general population. And so my own criticisms and prescriptions come in part from my own experience trying to situate myself in neurotypical settings. I have never found moralizing to be helpful.
Pang moralizes endlessly about the way that social life and human life in general would be much better if people did things her way. Namely, she decries the ambiguity of social cues, human’s desire for social belonging and conformity, and the irrational, intuitive sense that people use to make decisions and organize their lives. She never considers the evolutionary function or possible pragmatic advantages of these behaviors. Even assuming that it would be good to get rid of these evolved, neurotypical behaviors, why take the tone-deaf approach of prescribing that people be different without acknowledging the difficulty in doing so? Ironically, this is the very kind of tone-deaf approach which gets applied to autism far too often and which Pang is hoping to abate.
A wider audience could have been reached more effectively if Pang had focused primarily on her own subjective experience, rather than general prescriptions. Of course part of the subjective experience for many is a judgmental temperament; we can’t fault someone for a personality trait. Indeed, it is a beneficial trait insofar as it hones a critical eye. However, it does not make for good general discourse, and that along with her disanalogous supporting arguments ruin the message of this otherwise promising project.
Relatable and honest look at how asd, gad, and adhd can affect someone's life, as well as how neurodiverse views can be helpful to neurotypicals
informative