Are you more cognitively oriented toward perceiving patterns or feelings?

 Or both, more often?

About "cognitive orientation"

If you are more oriented toward perceiving patterns, this may indicate a greater rational capacity. To think more objectively and impartially, prioritizing factual information and differentiating it from non-factual information, it is important to first pay attention to patterns. These are constitutive traits that repeat themselves and make elements, phenomena, behaviors, or events potentially recognizable, especially those of an abstract nature, which are most relevant to rationality. A negative correlation with this type of cognitive orientation is a tendency toward emotional insensitivity. Pathologically, certain conditions such as autism* and psychopathy may be more common in this group.

Men and scientists are two examples of groups more likely to exhibit this more logical type of cognitive orientation.

However, I believe that there are highly rational individuals who exhibit a more balanced orientation, directed toward both pattern perception and feelings. I even wonder if they might be the most rational of the most rational, since this more balanced cognitive orientation can further enhance one's ability to reflect...

However, if you are more oriented toward perceiving feelings, this may indicate a greater tendency to be more sympathetic, to feel more affection and compassion for others. A negative correlation of this type of cognitive orientation is an increased risk of distorting factual perception by prioritizing feelings, and doing so systematically. Another negative correlation is presenting a higher level of Machiavellianism, giving little importance to honesty and truth...

Women and artists are two examples of groups more likely to exhibit this more emotive or intuitive type of orientation.

Finally, there are those who exhibit a more random orientation, and they may represent a significant % of the population, as is typical of a trait distribution in which less extreme expressions are more common. But if both types of cognitive orientation also express differences between the sexes, then, due to more pronounced human sexual dimorphism, this more balanced type may not correspond to the majority...

* Still on this topic, another text

Autism and pattern recognition ability: myth or reality??

That a compensatory and generalized effect of autism would be a significant improvement in pattern recognition ability, compared to the neurotypical level...

Okay. But about true patterns?? And in relation to which domain? Specific or global??

Because if they were truly better at this ability in a more general sense, then the vast majority of them, for example, would end up perceiving patterns related to one of the most basic realities from a human perspective: the intrinsic differences between individuals and human groups, and that would force them to share this perception with individuals who declare themselves or are declared "far right." But the correlations between autism and political affiliation tend to show us a relatively different pattern, with a disproportion of them identifying with the "left," precisely "where" this reality has been systematically denied and demonized, and for non-rational reasons: emotional and ideological... So, would this disproportion of autistics who ally themselves politically with the "left" do so, on average, knowing that they are defending untruths that, as a rule, are based on false patterns?? And would they ally themselves simply because it is the "left" that has fought for their rights?? Or would they be as vulnerable to ideological indoctrination as left-wing "neurotypicals"?? Well, the positive correlation between autism and social contagion with transgender ideology is yet another demonstration of the psychological and cognitive vulnerability of several individuals within the spectrum...

It may be that this alleged superior pattern recognition ability of most autistic individuals is true, but especially for specific domains, if, from a more general perspective, the contrary evidence seems to be predominant...

It may be that autistic individuals are indeed more cognitively oriented toward pattern perception, but in a psychopathological sense, toward perceiving primarily irrelevant patterns, especially from a more social perspective, just as individuals within the psychotic spectrum, considered the opposite of autism in some comparative aspects, would be more oriented toward perceiving an excess of patterns, especially those that do not exist or express perceptual distortions.

Still regarding the correlation between autism and political orientation, the same disproportion of autistic individuals on one side of the political-ideological spectrum also seems to be perceived on the other side, which, in any case, continues to corroborate the thesis that denies a practically causal relationship between being autistic and presenting an increased capacity for pattern recognition, especially in a more global sense.

Sobre evolução cognitiva, espécie humana e ateísmo/On cognitive evolution, the human species and atheism

 Se considerarmos como marcos evolutivos as diferenças entre as espécies, quanto à capacidade de compreensão da realidade, diga-se quanto ao que é mais essencial à inteligência, a percepção, então, a percepção humana, que consegue ir muito além de uma perspectiva primária de adaptação e sobrevivência, por exemplo, prestando atenção ou tendo curiosidade sobre tópicos, a priori, não-essenciais, tal como as estrelas no céu, pode ser considerada um grande marco na escala evolutiva da cognição, e isso é particularmente verdadeiro para certas perspectivas, como a realidade da finitude, sobre "tudo" que existe, incluindo a vida, se se trata de perceber algo que parece impossível de ser notado e, especialmente, compreendido por outras espécies e que também apresenta uma importância suprema, justamente nesse sentido, de compreensão de mundo, da própria existência... 

Consequentemente, o ateísmo pode ser considerado uma expressão particular desta evolução cognitiva, de expansão do escopo perceptivo para muito além de uma perspectiva imediata ou limitada à adaptação e sobrevivência. Até porque, se, de acordo com o que tenho pensado e escrito sobre esse tópico, parece que existe uma relação intrínseca entre as crenças humanas que se baseiam em pensamento mágico, principalmente a crença religiosa, e o modus operandi de percepção de todas as outras espécies não-humanas, que eu denominei de autocentrismo, se se consiste em um nível muito básico de percepção de mundo, em que o ser vivo o percebe de maneira muito centrada em si mesmo, em suas próprias impressões (instintivas, emotivas...), ou de maneira definitivamente menos objetiva ou "impessoal". 

No entanto, essa superioridade cognitivo-evolutiva seria apenas específica ao ateísmo em si e não necessariamente a todos os ateus, se existem muitos que apresentam outros tipos, mais discretos ou não, de crenças baseadas em pensamento mágico. Pois essa superioridade é mais provável de ser plenamente verdadeira, pelo menos com base nessa linha de pensamento que tracei, para os ateus mais racionais e que também são os seres humanos mais racionais, por serem os mais realistas, que conseguem construir sistemas de crenças predominantemente baseados em evidências (fatos ou verdades objetivas) e ponderação analítica. Seria tal como comparar a evolução gradual de uma capacidade ao longo de uma linha evolutiva, desde se movimentar até a andar ereto ou voar, por exemplo. Então, teríamos, desde as formas de vida mais primitivas, dotadas de um nível muito primário de alcance perceptivo, até nós (e especialmente os mais racionais ou realistas), que podemos pensar e aprender sobre fatos ou verdades que estão muito além das nossas perspectivas mais primárias e imediatas de sobrevivência e adaptação, incluindo os mais derradeiros, como a igualdade da vida por sua essência e finitude. 

If we consider as evolutionary milestones the differences between species, in terms of the capacity to understand reality, that is, in terms of what is most essential to intelligence, perception, then human perception, which can go far beyond a primary perspective of adaptation and survival, for example, paying attention or being curious about topics that are, a priori, non-essential, such as the stars in the sky, can be considered a major milestone in the evolutionary scale of cognition, and this is particularly true for certain perspectives, such as the reality of finitude, about "everything" that exists, including life, if it is a matter of perceiving something that seems impossible to be noticed and, especially, understood by other species and that also presents a supreme importance, precisely in this sense, of understanding the world, of existence itself...

Consequently, atheism can be considered a particular expression of this cognitive evolution, of expanding the perceptive scope far beyond an immediate or limited perspective of adaptation and survival. Even because, according to what I have thought and written about this topic, it seems that there is an intrinsic relationship between human beliefs that are based on magical thinking, especially religious belief, and the modus operandi of perception of all other non-human species, which I have called self-centrism, if it consists of a very basic level of perception of the world, in which the living being perceives it in a very self-centered way, in its own impressions (instinctive, emotional...), or in a definitely less objective or "impersonal" way.

However, this cognitive-evolutionary superiority would only be specific to atheism itself and not necessarily to all atheists, if there are many who present other types, more discreet or not, of beliefs based on magical thinking. For this superiority is more likely to be fully true, at least based on this line of thought that I have outlined, for the most rational atheists, who are also the most rational human beings, because they are the most realistic, who can build belief systems predominantly based on evidence (facts or objective truths) and analytical consideration. It would be like comparing the gradual evolution of a capacity along an evolutionary line, from moving to walking upright or flying, for example. Then, we would have, from the most primitive life forms, endowed with a very primary level of perceptive range, to us (and especially the most rational or realistic ones), who can think and learn about facts or truths that are far beyond our most primary and immediate perspectives of survival and adaptation, including the most ultimate ones, such as the equality of life by its essence and finitude.