I have chosen to focus on Chapter 3 for my post because to me it starts out the most interesting. It is describing a person, but in a way that most people would not normally describe another individual. For example,”Cavendish’s great wealth, his preference for solitude was often confused with arrogance, selfishness, or disdain” this way of describing Cavendish intrigued me because it gives the impression that because a person has money instead of lacking feelings instead they are seen as prudish and stuck up which to me is a bit unfair.

In another light it can be seen that because he lacked human interaction he was able to apply all his focus solely on his work and science in many ways allowing for him to succeed at all the things he had set out to do. This makes me think of my discussion question yesterday in which I had to find key differences among Aspergers and Kanners and how they would later become Autism though they shared a few differences it seems that they shared things in common as well such as communicating with individuals outside of their mental sphere (meaning their thoughts) and the idea was that while with Aspergers a person can communicate they do find others “illogical and annoying” and I then questioned is that cause we meaning Neurotypical individuals do not share the same interest or cannot express our interest broken down to the smallest component?

In conclusion I have always thought of human interaction and communication as a great way to share ideas and get a better opinion on a topic, but thinking of it now I wonder does it also hold us back as well? So by sharing ideas or communicating do you ever find that you change your mind to fit another persons idea on the same topic if so why? It is difficult to think of an answer to these questions of course, but it is becoming more common for me to ask and apply them to my everyday life and I in many ways am not surprised.

(This was my post for Monday, I do apologize for it being put up today)