I read it as being particularly good at it, since everybody does indeed do pattern matching and can spot details.

That format of presentation - especially when the choice was clearly made to go for more points rather than more depth per point - is unsuitable for precise, detailed explanations, so expecting otherwise isn’t exactly logic.

As somebody who, judging by everything else in there matches that particular part of the spectrum (though never formally diagnosed) I’ve always had an eye for details and am big at figuring things out via pattern matching (I.e. notice that certain combinations of things tend to go along with certain other combinations of things or outcomes) which is also what powers the “skip” thinking (you can jump directly to a list of possibly explanations by recognizing that it shares a pattern with something else whose explanation I already have and then work backwards from there to confirm if indeed one of those possible explanations is the correct one).

I’ve studied and worked in highly intellectual areas (Science and Technology) and have seldom come across others with a similar style of thinking so to me it makes sense that in that graph those things are there in the sense of more/better than most.