I have issues with the "top-down ( purported to be most NTs)" and "bottom-up (purported to be most autistics)" thinking binary.
I don't think these labels identify the differences as I believe this is an issue of motivation and value judgement.
Let's take the common example of essay writing for school. The story goes "when they asked us to write an outline, the NT students got right on it while the ND kids were bewildered because how could they write a bullet point version of an essay that didn't exist yet."
This makes intuitive sense to everyone who experienced the frustration of being asked to write that outline so we connect over this and give this as an example of our "thinking style" difference from the NT population.
If we actually think about this a little, though, the example, while a common experience, doesn't actually demonstrate how our thinking differs.
First, NTs and NDs both need to acknowledge the concept of an essay. If we then say "the NTs get right on writing the outline when asked to do so, which means their brain started from the concept of an essay, then automagically filled it out with a list of section titles, then guided their person through the acts necessary to fill out those sections," does this sufficiently explain what is happening? After all, the ND people can write research essays, and without coming up with an outline first too!
I think there's something deeper going on here. I think, the main difference is priorities, not the method of thinking.
In my opinion, when asked to write an essay, most NT people respond by asking "why" or even "what's in it for me" first, and since the school structure pre-answers that question for them, move onto "how," which is also formalized for their convenience: "start by thinking of possible questions and reword them as titles, put them in a list. This way, you won't have to experience the inconvenience of being curious for once." The entire process is optimized for form over substance.
In the same situation, putting the curiosity first, most ND people respond by "<insert every question possible>", and concluding "I'm going to start looking into it." No instruction necessary because the ND brain here optimized the question asking part of the endeavor. The information will be gathered and new questions will form and then more information will be gathered until there's too much of it and..." Yeah... "why are we doing this again?" Notice the "how" isn't very important here, even though it's included in the "every question possible" because after all, what can be more natural than making observations and learning other people's observations and then putting them into a report of facts? Substance rules, and form will emerge as a necessity.
So, I like thinking about "substantial (substance first)" and "formal (form first)" modes of thinking rather than "bottom-up" vs "top-down".
If you're still reading, thanks!
I'm curious as to what everyone else thinks about this issue :)
