Live fast Die young Vs. Autistic sensory overload

[fluffy]

Autism most salient feature is that people with it get overwhelmed by sensory stimulation.

It used to be that autism was categorized as a deficit in theory of mind but since it became a spectrum it's had to be defined in a different way which mostly has to do with neuroplasticity.

In persons that are not sensitive they are more likely to take physical risks. And do more drugs. People with autism have many genes that affect where in the brain you become sensitive as they affect the plastic of the brain chemistry. Some kids don't like playing in mud or touching grass or their shirt made of the wrong materials become itchy.

Those with lower sensitivity have higher pain thresholds. They do activities that increase sensory arousal. This includes social arousal. Because it's less costly to them. They can take it thus making mistakes is fine, they can get past it. But if your neuroplasticity hampers your ability to get past it then you don't take risks you don't get into social drama or do drugs or get dirty. It's too much for the system.

This doesn't mean autism is a lack of theory of mind. It is a bodily system that blocks out pain. Some people don't care about pain and have a greater range in physical activity they can do. Then they don't care if it is a risky activity because they can do it. But the consequences are that if they misjudged or miscalculated they get heavily injured or die.

A typical person neither craves sensory arousal nor is adverse to it. They can do normal activities that don't get them hurt and without avoiding tasks that require tolerating daily conditions of the senses. It's in the plastic of their system.

The instances where social deficit occurs in autism is when the plastic in particular locations in the brain are affected. Face recognition or just being unable to detect eye motions or sounds early. But since it is a spectrum this can be extreme or not.

 

[Hadoblado]

I don't think you're necessarily super wrong, but I do think you tend to bring a lot of your own emphasis.

For example, you say "Autism most salient feature is that people with it get overwhelmed by sensory stimulation." While this is common in autism, you'd expect the most salient feature to be part of diagnostic criteria, but that's barely the case at all:

Social deficits and repetitive behaviour are the key indicators, and I'm not sure where "bodily system that blocks out pain" comes from.

I'm not sure, but I think you make these sorts of posts as an exploration, but you phrase it as a statement rather than a question. I feel like you're curious by nature and these posts are an expression of that but this is being lost in translation? Correct me if wrong.

 

[fluffy]

Symptoms are not causes so I don't likely get what you mean by saying that I might be emphasizing on myself as too authoritative where mostly people never get at what is truly and really going on.

Like I asked Gemini what the cause of autism is an it said puppies and rainbows.

Or I saw videos on YouTube where many autistic people say they do have theory of mind and that when load noise happens in grocery store it hurts bad.

So maybe I am wrong but I don't think puppies and rainbows cause autism.

No one really knows so as I said to Gemini if you don't have evidence of the cause then it cannot be science and is more like MBTI - in fact without real science how do you know it exists, MBTI is scientific in some ways from brain scans and Gemini got really upset because it could not provide evidence at all what causes it or why it exists.

Calling it a Spectrum is not answering the questions? But maybe I am ignorant of something? I could ask Gemini specifically about theory of mind and autism but I doubt I will get much evidential support for it as it will or might start fighting with me and classify me as politically incorrect and thus block me as a bad person.

 

[Hadoblado]

I'm trying to engage with you and your thoughts, but I want to do so honestly and part of that is acknowledging how we think differently about this and maybe figuring out how and why.

I want to make it really clear that I'm not fighting you for narrative control. I'm trying to describe how your written thoughts defer from my own and from the common. A common language of understanding is necessary for communication and coconstruction of knowledge.

In terms of this common language:
No, symptoms are not causes, but for psychological phenomenon they are diagnostic and they are the best way we have to describe something in objective language.

You can have science without understanding of causes, it's just weaker science in which we should be less confident. Science is the process, not the product. Modern psychology follows the scientific process, but is "weak" or "soft" in that the underlying processes are often poorly understood (and the process needs refining for sure).

I want you to feel safe to explore ideas, but I also want this to be a place where people have access to each others ideas. ATM you're using the language of psychology in contrast to the canonical intent of those concepts. It's not the thoughts that are the obstacle to engagement, but the language. I'm okay with deviations on how language is used, but if there's no acknowledgement of this deviation, then it becomes confusing for all involved.

So are you just using these terms differently, or are you claiming that the DSMV is wrong (which is also okay). I suspect the former but it's not entirely clear and I've been known to be wrong.

 

[fluffy]

I don't know exactly how to convey ideas without some authority on what I think those ideas involve them being.

So if you don't think I am coming from a place against your beliefs then it has to do with what autism is physically not what we describe it to be on an outside contrivency.

I think that since many genes are involved they will be in the pureview of neuroplasticity. And if so then sensitive people have one phenotype. And eye motion tracking another. And ect.

Autism as development has genes that will block or delay certain aspects of growth. And if this is true then where in the body and particular in the brain can become important in determining the spectrum of such phenotype.

Not all autistic phenotypes are going to have deficit in their theory of mind, I take it that most definitely don't lack theory of mind or have a good theory of mind. But lumping all autistic features into this world be wrong as it's now a spectrum and as a spectrum we would need to specify what lacking a theory of mind would be like that excluded other physical autistic features if they were not involved in theory of mind.

If we have features in autism that includes sensory sensitivity then on the other end of a normal distribution we will have people with extreme thrill seeking of sensory arousal. This is my premise. And if correct then you do get people who are likelier to get hurt because they don't avoid dangerous activities. Those that need to be extremely aroused will "live fast and die young".

Autism might have its own reasons to have problems with survival but as a tendency towards the middle of the population phenotype might have confounding variables that eliminate most threats to survival. I don't know for sure, I don't speculate on that. A hypothesis is that in the past autistic people created technology, I did not come up with it, some British guy did. But in my premise with those that seek dangerous situations you need to be stronger and more intelligent than others or you would be weeded out. Mostly I think in the past half dies as a consequence of risk taking where they were not smart or strong.

 

[fluffy]

There is a case to be made that autism is a physical phenomena and I believe mbti as Jung described it to be is also a physical phenomena. Psychology is maybe something else, I don't understand it as a part science entirely but as philosophy or spiritual things. Because you need experience with it and even then you get strange disagreement within the field such as free will debates on quantum physics where they say intelligence is nonphysical. Thus I cannot take half of psychology seriously as a science. Jungian type is different because it is philosophy not notions of naive empiricist thinking. Empiricism rejects all wisdom older people have gained because scientism is a real psychological phenomena in persons that reject consciousness colors smell and everything else about it.

Energy moves inside a person and just because we don't have the measurements currently doesn't mean it's not there. Like it means we're ignoring a part of reality because our own deficits not because the phenomena isn't real. This is not to say consciousness is quantum because that's a naive view as well. Mechanisms exist to produce intelligence. They are only misinterpreted as woo woo as a cargo cult would do. But airplane do exist not in the way people think they do. Jung was not describing something about cargo but of auto dynamics and gas piston engines in the psyche. But then people look at mbti and say it's cargo. That's not the smartest thing to say about it.

 

[Hadoblado]

From what I understand, research indicates children with autism pass theory of mind tasks 5 years later than children without. That is, what is typical of the ToM functioning of a 3-5yo neurotypical is achieved around 8-10 on average for children with ASD.

Autistic adults will pass the test, but the way in which they do it suggests a compensatory mechanism. That is, they never actually caught up, they figured out a different route. I think this basically matches my own development as a child, where I was socially behind while cognitively ahead, and my day-to-day adult social processing is more akin to calculation than empathy or anything automatic. In fact, going over some of my mafia games, I think there are parts of my social processing that only really came online after my early 20s. Whether or not that means I'm autistic I'm not sure. Screeners indicate no, but I'm still uncertain.

I guess I feel that when you downplay the social element which is used for diagnosis and affect most people with ASD, and emphasise elements like reducing pain and sensory sensitivity which are diagnostically secondary, you're making it difficult to navigate back to that shared space (where shared language and the framework of interpretation for accumulated evidence reside).

I like psychology. You like psychology. We have a shared interest in psychology. But somehow we can't ever really progress a conversation and I guess I'm trying to figure out why. You obviously put a lot of thought into what you say, but it's really hard to follow or bounce off, often with divergent assumptions and conclusions. Unlike some other users here, this isn't the result of an external ideology acting on you. The difference is bottom up.

 

[fluffy]

I guess that it was for a long time people would call me autistic on the Internet. I did not know why so I watched a whole lot of videos, hundreds of them. Not all at the same time but I got a sense of the way people were in those videos and they all made me feel that the way people were presenting themselves that half the time they would be mad at people that did not understand them.

It could be that as a peer group they don't have people understand them as they would need to go to school 6 years behind there peer group. But I guess then the delay in developing means they do more calculation than acting naturally. And if you need to always be calculating and not be acting natural then that will change they way you think I do suppose?

For me I never had any friends and I never hanged out with a peer group. I don't know why. It wasn't that I didn't understand but I was bullied and people just didn't like me.

My sister had lots of friends and did lots of drugs. That's all I really saw from people. My mother might have an IQ of 70 because she doesn't talk as a normal person would and she is not autistic or she doesn't tell me so it must be something else? People to me that are normal drink alcohol but I don't. My mom doesn't drink alcohol either. And we don't hurt ourselves like those who do.

I don't have much to do in life but read books and do research but the difficulty it in not having anyone around. I don't go to parties and I don't socialize. I don't practice doing anything like that.

I remember a TED talk video where a kid gets called a psychopath because he said he has no empathy as an autistic person. I felt sorry for him but it's why people in videos who are autistic don't like it how they are treated. One time I tried to tell the foster parents that I liked mental puzzles but I used the word mind games. They got really pissed off.

I cannot have normal discussions with people because most of the time they are not logical. My therapist said I believe everything on my phone as gospel. This means she is irrational stupid and just dumb. She does that not me. But that's the way people are. Emotional stupid and offended.

Until like a year ago I tried to not think about people in certain ways but I have come to some resolution in that I just ignore them even more and not think about them. Less and less I think about people. It's a better way to cope than telling them the truth of how things actually are.

 

[Hadoblado]

I think your therapist is mistaken but probably not entirely stupid. You do have a way of communicating that implies naivete about what you say (I'm not saying you're naive - I'm saying it's a communication thing). You sort of "dump" an experience and a conclusion in a way that implies you believe it even if your understanding is more nuanced. Like you're extrapolating from a rule from a single point of date. e.g:

I remember a TED talk video where a kid gets called a psychopath because he said he has no empathy as an autistic person. I felt sorry for him but it's why people in videos who are autistic don't like it how they are treated.

If you hadn't just told me you'd watched hundreds of videos five paragraphs back I'd interpret this as you watching one video and then assuming no autistic person likes how they're treated because they get called psychopaths. Many of your claims come across like this, like the context is missing leaving an anemic assertion.

But you don't believe everything you're told. You're more balanced than that, weighing various factors. You communicate a simpler reality than you experience.

 

[Puffy]

I don’t know if I’d call it the most salient feature, but @fluffy is right @Hadoblado that sensory sensitivity is a common aspect of autism. It’s part of the diagnostic criteria and was factored into my own diagnosis, though I’m not sure how heavily it’s weighted.

That said, we need to acknowledge that psychiatry's construct of autism is ever evolving and I'm not sure psychiatry can be trusted to always reflect scientific rigor. Diagnosis often relies on self-reporting, which leaves plenty of room for confirmation bias: if you think you have a condition, you can present for it and get diagnosed. Many conditions overlap, and the distinctions aren’t always clear. Medications help some people and harm others, and prescribing is trial and error.

I’m not saying autism isn’t real, or that psychiatry is useless. But I do see psychiatry as an immature field, and its constructs of autism and neurodiversity as still evolving.

For example, one of my “symptoms” is constant electrical sensations in my body. When I explained this to two psychiatrists, they had no idea what I meant and dismissed it as it wasn't what they expected to hear. But I’ve met a surprising number of other neurodiverse people who describe the same thing. Even just in this forum community, I could name many [names redacted for privacy] who have mentioned similar experiences. I personally suspect that this is related to sensitivities or differences in the nervous system.

Mainstream psychiatry doesn’t currently capture this in diagnostic criteria for neurodiversity, but that doesn’t mean it isn’t a real or meaningful correlation or a salient feature for some. To me, it suggests there are aspects of neurodiversity that psychiatry hasn’t examined as deeply, and probably will in time. I'd just be a bit cautious about dismissing what is a salient feature or not on the basis of the DSM.

 

[Hadoblado]

I don’t know if I’d call it the most salient feature, but @fluffy is right @Hadoblado that sensory sensitivity is a common aspect of autism. It’s part of the diagnostic criteria and was factored into my own diagnosis, though I’m not sure how heavily it’s weighted.

That said, we need to acknowledge that psychiatry's construct of autism is ever evolving and I'm not sure psychiatry can be trusted to always reflect scientific rigor. Diagnosis often relies on self-reporting, which leaves plenty of room for confirmation bias: if you think you have a condition, you can present for it and get diagnosed. Many conditions overlap, and the distinctions aren’t always clear. Medications help some people and harm others, and prescribing is trial and error.

I’m not saying autism isn’t real, or that psychiatry is useless. But I do see psychiatry as an immature field, and its constructs of autism and neurodiversity as still evolving.

For example, one of my “symptoms” is constant electrical sensations in my body. When I explained this to two psychiatrists, they had no idea what I meant and dismissed it as it wasn't what they expected to hear. But I’ve met a surprising number of other neurodiverse people who describe the same thing. Even just in this forum community, I could name many [names redacted for privacy] who have mentioned similar experiences. I personally suspect that this is related to sensitivities or differences in the nervous system.

Mainstream psychiatry doesn’t currently capture this in diagnostic criteria for neurodiversity, but that doesn’t mean it isn’t a real or meaningful correlation or a salient feature for some. To me, it suggests there are aspects of neurodiversity that psychiatry hasn’t examined as deeply, and probably will in time. I'd just be a bit cautious about dismissing what is a salient feature or not on the basis of the DSM.

Yep. Like I said, he's not wrong, but brings a lot of his own emphasis.

What I'm noticing a lot of is that people here tend to have their own interpretations and that's good. But then it's not visible to others because they're using terminology that looks like a shared language but isn't. This was terrible for discourse here because some of our recently deceased members would take this as a green light to fight over words, instead of what is meant by those words. It still can be confusing without those members, so I'm trying to encourage people to better signpost their divergence from common parlance.

So when I talk about autism, the thing diagnosed by psychologists based on a specific set of symptoms, there's an obstacle between what I'm saying and what Fluffy is hearing (and vice versa) because they've got their own idea of autism that emphasises different symptoms. To converse and build understanding we need to understand how we use the words differently. It's not that I'm insisting my definition is used by everyone, it's that I think if you're not using a common definition you should make that clear, for risk of giving people the impression you're insisting the common idea is something it's not.

TLDR: I'm saying communication is important. I'm not concerned with arguing definitions.

 

[fluffy]

Culture is fluid.

There are not always going to be common understandings of words. I don't think everyone will agree to half of what anyone is saying because even if a shared terminology exists within a circle those out side the circle will not know what that is and then feel excluded from participating.

If anyone wants to know what the topic is about look at the title.

Traits exist for a faster life process vs a slow life process. I tried to explain both processes throughout the thread and in no way was I arguing about definitions but trying to describe underlying phenomena. If I did not use a proper terminology for people then I am sorry but the core of what I am saying is what I wanted to discuss but that doesn't seem to be happening.

 

[Hadoblado]

I moderate this forum. I am invested in cultivating fruitful conversations. You are one of the oldest and most prolific posters (across multiple accounts). Like it or not, the standard of communication you hold yourself to has a disproportionate impact on the level of forum discourse.

If you want people to engage with your ideas, the most salient feature (huehue) of your thread should be the ideas, not navigating the distortion field of your unacknowledged divergent interpretations.

Your thesis statement is:

Autism most salient feature is that people with it get overwhelmed by sensory stimulation.

How people interpret this statement is how they're going to engage with your thread. If you'd said "I think the most important feature of autism is sensory-overstimulation", there's no longer that layer of friction between the idea and the reader where they don't accept your premise, or worse, accept it without realising what you mean.

I want to make it very clear: it's good that you're exploring these ideas. Your interpretation is different? Great. I just want to remove the barriers to other people exploring them too. This is just feedback toward that goal.

 

[fluffy]

Ok, I get that I messed up.

But if no one wants to discuss the topic or trying to see what exactly the core topic is then I have no reason to engage.

Anything other than the topic I will not engage with further.

 

[Hadoblado]

It's not really that you messed up, I'm trying to nudge you toward thinking more about how you communicate in general. This was just an example of it but there are many times where your OP is a non-starter and gets derailed because you start with a contested and/or miscommunicated premise.

But yes fair enough, I won't push you further on it for now.