Can't See The Forest For The Trees (Bottom-Up Thinking)

Looking down a supermarket isle is a natural single point perspective visually speaking and because the shelves are so tightly packed I think it can easily create a visual illusion because it's too much to take in the detail and identify every individual item on the shelves without directly looking at them so it's like the glaze-over effect. You're seeing these things mostly pass you by in your peripheral vision so it's hard to focus on everything in your immediate field of vision, and I believe that creates a kind of shut down effect. Unless what I'm looking for has a very distinct shape or colour not common among other products of its type it is too easy for me to just walk past its place on the shelf in a daze.
The contrast to this is driving, even on the busiest motorway I can keep track of the location and speed of every vehicle in my vision because they are not packed into 100-300 cars per 10 meters.
It's another reason I find the "high functioning" vs "low functioning" labels unhelpful. I can happily drive many miles to get to the supermarket but once there I fall apart, I end up having to get a worker to walk me around to where the stuff on my list is, and I got the feeling a few times that they see me with my car keys and think "but you drove here, how come you can't do this on your own".
Sometimes I think I want supermarkets to be like the olden days where I could just give a worker my list and they'd go get it all for me, and you can do that online now but once it's already in your home is too late to tell someone that the bag of veg that got delivered is already out of date. :/

I find it hard to reconcile how some things are so easy, yet others that should also be simple, just seem too complicated. 

Well I guess to difference is that the more exposed you are to a topic or interest, the more simple it is to weave and shift your thoughts into something, it’s not really about reconciliation it’s about manifestation. Temple Grandin talks about autism as thinking in pictures, the neutrotypical world likes to summaries and pattern, but autistic individuals just do. Back before the time of standardisation, there just used to be engineers and specialist that just did a thing, like ‘the lift-man’ or the ‘handyman’ or the ‘man-in-the-van’. Autistic people learn through exposure to interest, if you expose yourself to your interest, in day you will just be able to comprehend a thing better..

I do. I’d say that from a neurotypical-standpoint you memorise, you absorb and after you absorb you understand.  
Sometimes it’s the other way around and you cannot learn it until you understand it.. that has been my experience. Sometimes I just need to wait until it clicks and I download and memorise, other times, I just find myself cluelessly floating along (you don’t wanna see me drive..).

DeSpereaux said:

A person fails maths at school, but becomes a masterful mechanic, and working with precision. 
I think that the gateway to mechanics for some, can be through a textbook or lecture, but for others it is a question of exposure and understanding a solution. 

Ah you mean to say the difference is learning is not just academic vs non academic but also visual, audio, and tactile etc?

Hmm.. I think that the point I’m trying to hit is one of, what the gateway to competency is for certain individuals, for example:    
A person fails maths at school, but becomes a masterful mechanic, and working with precision. 
I think that the gateway to mechanics for some, can be through a textbook or lecture, but for others it is a question of exposure and understanding a solution. 

If two engineers with two different means of competency engage each other, they may not understand each other, but still be masters of their craft.  
So if a person with a typical-cognition is taught by one with an atypical-cognition (or vice versa). A student may walk-away unaware that there was a master within him, so I believe that learning can be made easier, and that it is easier when you have learnt.

So I think my point is , less about a problem being easy, and more about how a person goes about making a problem look-easy. They are masters of that problem, having mapped the problem, as they have used the correct means of absorbing information for them.

I think the problem is that easier does not always equal easy. There's lots of things I want to do, (I've also wanted to be a mountaneer since I was a child) but some of them even if technically not impossible will still remain a challenge regardless of interest, training, or experience level.

I think the problem is that easier does not always equal easy. There's lots of things I want to do, (I've also wanted to be a mountaneer since I was a child) but some of them even if technically not impossible will still remain a challenge regardless of interest, training, or experience level.

I do. I’d say that from a neurotypical-standpoint you memorise, you absorb and after you absorb you understand.  
Sometimes it’s the other way around and you cannot learn it until you understand it.. that has been my experience. Sometimes I just need to wait until it clicks and I download and memorise, other times, I just find myself cluelessly floating along (you don’t wanna see me drive..).

DeSpereaux said:

A person fails maths at school, but becomes a masterful mechanic, and working with precision. 
I think that the gateway to mechanics for some, can be through a textbook or lecture, but for others it is a question of exposure and understanding a solution. 

Ah you mean to say the difference is learning is not just academic vs non academic but also visual, audio, and tactile etc?

Hmm.. I think that the point I’m trying to hit is one of, what the gateway to competency is for certain individuals, for example:    
A person fails maths at school, but becomes a masterful mechanic, and working with precision. 
I think that the gateway to mechanics for some, can be through a textbook or lecture, but for others it is a question of exposure and understanding a solution. 

If two engineers with two different means of competency engage each other, they may not understand each other, but still be masters of their craft.  
So if a person with a typical-cognition is taught by one with an atypical-cognition (or vice versa). A student may walk-away unaware that there was a master within him, so I believe that learning can be made easier, and that it is easier when you have learnt.

So I think my point is , less about a problem being easy, and more about how a person goes about making a problem look-easy. They are masters of that problem, having mapped the problem, as they have used the correct means of absorbing information for them.