Here are yet more results. As before, the number is the alpha parameter of a stable distribution model of paragraph lengths. I've refined my estimation procedure somewhat (but two decimal places of accuracy is still almost certainly excessive).
1.01 j d salinger catcher in the rye 1.24 c s lewis last battle 1.33 c s lewis dawn treader 1.33 c s lewis lion witch wardrobe 1.35 john steinbeck mice and men 1.37 charles dickens christmas carol 1.40 charles dickens oliver twist 1.40 lewis carol alice 1.43 mark twain huckleberry finn 1.43 jane austen pride and prejudice 1.45 charles dickens two cities 1.47 mark twain yankee in king arthurs 1.49 scott fitzgerald the great gatsby 1.50 jane austen emma 1.51 jane austen sense and sensibility 1.52 lewis carol looking glass 1.55 thomas hardy far from the madding crowd 1.56 lewis carol sylvie 1.58 jules verne around the world 1.58 h g wells men in the moon 1.60 orson scott card seventh son 1.60 jules verne 20000 leagues under the sea 1.62 orson scott card xenocide 1.65 orson scott card enders game 1.69 paul harrison overclocking 1.71 cory doctorow down and out 1.73 h g wells invisible man 1.76 thomas hardy tess of the dUrbervilles 1.76 michael crichton jurassic park 1.79 j r r tolkien lord of the rings 1 1.80 h g wells war of the worlds 1.80 robert m pirsig motorcycle maintenance 1.81 j r r tolkien lord of the rings 3 1.84 g k chesterton all things considered 1.84 margaret mitchell gone with the wind 1.85 thomas jefferson state of the union 1.85 h g wells doctor moreau 1.87 cory doctorow the super man and the bugout 1.91 j r r tolkien lord of the rings 2 1.96 charles darwin origin of species 2.00 cory doctorow craphound 2.00 cory doctorow drm talk 2.00 cory doctorow return to pleasure island 2.00 michelle dawson misbehaviour of behaviourists 2.00 michelle dawson no autistics allowed 2.00 paul harrison finity 2.00 richard stalmann should be free 2.00 temple grandin inside view 2.00 temple grandin my experiences 2.00 temple grandin thinking in pictures
It's pretty clear that authors produce documents with moderately consistent alpha. Sci-fi/fantasy authors generally seem to have greater alpha than authors of "literature". I had suspected the sci-fi/fantasy genre might be linked to autism in some way, and this would seem to be some confirmation of that. It is a genre that has failed to be classified by any more obvious metric, such as the presence of spaceships or dragons, and yet seems clearly distinct from the mainstream.
As I said earlier, I was expecting alpha values to be lower for autistic people. This would not seem to be the case. I can think of reasons why this might be so, but bear in mind I am inventing a model to fit the data, not making a prediction...
My guess would be that although autistic people write paragraphs of more even length, the topics they discuss are more peculiar than normal. If paragraph length is a measure of excitement, people towards the autistic end of the spectrum may get less excited about unusual ideas -- unusual ideas don't blow them away and set them to babbling. This would then allow them to explore more unusual ideas without freaking out.
For example, the sentences "I went to Chadstone to do some shopping and have a look around Borders, but they didn't have any good new stuff." and "He was ambassador to 1975, but back home in 1898, in New Jerusalem, Utah, they all thought he was ambassador to France." contain the exact same number of words.
A computational model of this i am not sure about. Either a difference in priors or a difference in search strategy. I would be quite upset if it were a difference in priors, but this may turn out to be the case.
Theory aside, assuming this alpha value is a useful measurement, what are the implications?
I can't help but imagine an AUTOEDITOR program:
Author: I have written a new fantasy novel. It has elves and magic and stuff. Will you publish it?
AUTOEDITOR: YOUR BOOK HAS AN ALPHA OF 1.03. IT IS UNREFINED CRAP SUITABLE ONLY FOR MORONS.
Author: Now hang on, that's not very nice....
AUTOEDITOR: WE WILL PUBLISH IT IMMEDIATELY.
AUTOEDITOR: HOW ABOUT A TRILOGY?
... though of course discrimination can go either way.
The other worry about a measure like this (again, assuming it's a useful measurement) is that dysfunctional forms of autism are clearly just the extreme end of a spectrum. Autism isn't just an unfortunate disease confined to a few individuals, but rather an omnipresent parameter that influences the whole structure of society, intimately caught up in institutions such as churches and monasteries, academia, geeks vs jocks, muggles vs wizards, and so on.
It might even be the case that dysfunctional autism represents the failure to converge of an algorithmic extreme that, when it does converge, is very useful in social-evolutionary terms. There are plenty of examples of evolution making such bets. See for example plants that sow many seeds, only a few of which survive.
In any case, a genetically based caste system as in a bee-hive or ant-nest. Why not? There are clear evolutionary advantages to such a thing. The expression of a certain phenotype dependant on the presence of certain recessive genes, thus ensuring their expression at the correct rate even if that phenotype does not itself tend to breed or survive at the same rate. How would society deal with such a thing? Well, obviously, our current society couldn't without some ugly upheavals. It's just not a nice scenario.