EPTSo if the world is like a poker game then the world won't accept your answers strictly because they're the best answer. On the other hand, your answers aren't necessarily the best answer but simply represent a capacity to discover a very thinly defined answer to very infrequently asked questions.
Do we really believe this?
I think that typically people with Asperger's autism don't have an IQ higher than other people who don't necessarily have an Asperger's autism. So why do people with Asperger's autism appear more intelligent than colleagues and peers who don't have this "mental disorder".
The obvious answer of course is the world is discriminating. Each and everyone could answer extremely obtuse, obscure, unusual questions and this isn't strictly relegated to people with Asperger's. On the contrary, people with Asperger's are simply exploring an area of human knowledge that is in some sense unpopular with the world at large who either isn't interested in the questions or isn't interested in the answers, or simply isn't smart enough to be interested at all.
On the other hand the alternative explanation and the one that I prefer and find to be probably more productive is that there is a real communication disorder and either represents economics of intelligence (which I don't believe). Or, instead it represents economics of communication and information transfer which often is not a phenomenon that unfolds ordinarily with respect to time.
In other words and in other cultures people with Asperger's autism are jokingly called "old" because their response time is slow in some peculiar contexts. So what questions are these people with Asperger's asking? Maybe they're the "really deep" questions that other people don't ask or else the tendency for people with Asperger's is to ask the really deep question in a context so specific that the answer only aids them and doesn't aid other people.
Which typically is why no one with Asperger's autism has a normal social life. If you are exclusively interested in things that can't help other people or aren't of interest to other people outside a very narrow philosophical community then other people don't stand to gain anything by talking to you. This in short leads of course to a sort of recursive problem where we can't escape the cycle of isolation (which does in fact tend to reinforce itself).
It's hard to tell whether someone who is really articulate like Barrack Obama could lose his charisma if he just didn't talk to other people for a long time. On the other hand it's possible like in the case of meditative yogi who do nothing but smoke weed that isolation from other people can be just as expedient to developing communication as otherwise.
The concluding thought is that sometimes humans develop very idiosyncratic or sort of apparently idiotic communication that isn't in fact stupid but on the contrary simply very difficult to completely comprehend. This also bears some semblance to strategy in that you can manipulate your environment for better or worse by simply not revealing particular answers or questions sometimes about yourself and sometimes more like insights about other people.
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/guzE0FY.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/3bv6FDU.jpg)
