S = Why / N = Why Not
Extended Notes
⸻
1. Introduction
A recurring observation among historical and contemporary figures with Asperger-like traits is that they tend to excel in two major but distinct domains of creativity:
1. Invention – tangible, detail-oriented, mechanical or technical breakthroughs.
2. Theory-building – abstract, conceptual frameworks that reshape how we understand reality.
This divide may correlate with the Sensing (S) and Intuitive (N) cognitive preferences described in the Myers–Briggs model:
• Sensing (S) = Why → seeks logical detail, step-by-step precision, mechanical refinement.
• Intuition (N) = Why Not → leaps into abstraction, asks counterfactuals, imagines alternative systems.
Asperger’s traits—monotropism, hyperfocus, systemizing, reduced conformity to social norms—appear to amplify both pathways, depending on whether the person’s cognition is more S- or N-oriented.
⸻
2. Core Hypothesis
Inventing Aspies are more often S → Why.
Theory-building Aspies are more often N → Why Not.
This does not mean exclusivity—both pathways overlap—but the primary mode of thinking strongly influences the form of output.
⸻
3. Asperger’s Traits in Context
• Monotropism: Tendency to focus intensely on a single interest at the expense of other signals (e.g., food, time).
• Hyperfocus: Ability to remain immersed in systems or problems for long stretches.
• Systemizing: Drive to analyze, construct, and refine rule-based structures.
• Reduced Social Conformity: Less concern for social approval allows pursuing idiosyncratic ideas.
These traits naturally support both invention and theory—but how they manifest depends on whether the mind is more concrete-detail oriented (S) or abstract-pattern oriented (N).
⸻
4. The Inventor Pathway (S = Why)
• Characteristics
• Precision-driven.
• Obsessed with mechanisms and details.
• Asks: Why does this part fit here? Why does this break? Why does this work this way?
• Works through iteration and refinement.
• Examples
• Thomas Edison – tested thousands of filaments, refining step-by-step.
• Wright brothers – endless wind tunnel experiments, micro-adjusting designs.
• Carl Friedrich Gauss – rigorous, methodical approach to mathematics.
• Creative Role
• Stabilizes reality.
• Brings theory into tangible form.
• Produces technologies, machines, and systems of practical use.
⸻
5. The Theory-Builder Pathway (N = Why Not)
• Characteristics
• Pattern-seeking and abstract.
• Leaps beyond current data into new frameworks.
• Asks: Why not imagine this differently? Why not flip the assumption?
• Prefers thought experiments and conceptual synthesis.
• Examples
• Albert Einstein – relativity through thought experiments.
• Srinivasa Ramanujan – intuitive mathematical insights, often without proofs.
• Charles Darwin – evolutionary theory reframing biology.
• Kurt Gödel – incompleteness theorems, redefining logic.
• Creative Role
• Redraws the map.
• Expands conceptual possibility.
• Creates frameworks within which inventors then operate.
⸻
6. Symbiotic Relationship
Both styles are essential:
• The S = Why minds build the roads of precision and invention.
• The N = Why Not minds chart the maps of theory and abstraction.
History often remembers the N-types more (their frameworks ripple widely), but the S-types quietly transform daily life (their inventions change how we live).
⸻
7. Implications
• Educational: Autistic children should be nurtured along whichever pathway they lean toward—whether detail invention (S) or abstract theory (N)—instead of being forced into one mold.
• Historical: Many eccentric geniuses might be better understood by distinguishing whether they were “why” detailers or “why not” leapers.
• Philosophical: Human progress depends on the tension between these two modes—precision and imagination, stability and expansion.
⸻
8. Conclusion
Asperger’s traits amplify both invention and theory-building. But the form this creativity takes may hinge on whether the individual’s cognitive style is rooted in:
• Sensing (S) = Why → logical, precise, detail-driven invention.
• Intuition (N) = Why Not → abstract, pattern-driven, theory creation.
This framework offers a potential refinement to the existing “systemizing” model, splitting it into two complementary but distinct modes.