Aspergers Theory.

Post Reply New Topic

I have been thinking for the last few days, especially yesterday, to go more into the intense world theory on my Autistic Encapsulation thread, and was just now going to do that when I saw this. The first time I saw that theory I kind of dismissed it, but after reading the complete theory as presented in by the scientists who originated it, at this point that theory seems to me to be pristine. It makes perfect sense. I have already begun to talk about this on that thread a while back. The 'problem' with this theory, as I mentioned there, is that it does not approach from a psychological angle, as if they did present this theory from such an angle it would muddy the waters of what is intended to be an objective scientific presentation.

However, human biological responses are interwoven with various subjective interpretations, which relate back to and amplify certain biological responses, and the intense mind theory does explain how human responses are built upon at certain biological/psychological junctures..I have coined a term, "the autistic amplification effect, which means, in short, that thinking about being autistic amplifies the affect of being autistic. I have observed this in myself which is how I found out about it:-) Moreover, it is not really necessary for the material to be presented from a psychological angle in order for an individual to be able apply it to his own functioning or the functioning of someone else from a psychological angle. It took me quite a while to realize this, as I am kind of dim.

Actually for some reason the way the op worded his message seemed to suggest just saying no. I was actually going to simply write that one word after reading it and then saw that some others had done so, and then read your response. The thing is that the way the message was worded they were just responding to the last sentence, but there also was probably a perceived practical value in responding in doing that, as it would be all too difficult to sort out if the entire conclusion arrived at is built upon a false premise. Why not rather start with an entirely different premise and proceed from that angle and build upon it.
This is what they were saying no to, and possibly that statement kind of is his basic premise behind the thinking.. I can see how believing that could create the autistic amplification effect, actually.

The thing with the intense mind theory is that it demonstrates how everything is built upon this one pattern of not being able to make a certain kind of biochemical connection and new material gets factored in there, so the pattern is constantly being amplified and built upon as new material enters. I have seen working in myself as I have been living in terror and anxiety most of my life and everything is very intense. There is a big difference between everything feeling very intense and feeling very alive but balanced. Now I do not see that one should blame ones panic on other people's wrong thinking. That is what it seems to me these people were saying no to.Why get into a long dialogue about it if it makes no sense. it would involve factoring in some many extra steps that do not even need to be there and which are probably a factor in rationalizing, amplifying and supporting the panic.

The thrilling:-) thing is that because of the fight-flight response, which is constantly being triggered and has become a pattern, the brain is not making a certain connection within itself that would lead to the release of different hormones that would stablize the functioning. Once one realizes this, it can change the brain (though I do not mean to make it sound so easy), as the brain is very flexible.So the thrill becomes less thrilling, but life becomes much more rewarding and everything is still very interesting.

I think there are ways to work with autistic children that are very simple which people have not thought about.The way I have seen people working with these children and teenagers seems to me kind of primitive. One example is you see a lot of teachers and parents doing this exaggerated high five response with very low functioning autistics when they have completed a task. I think this kind of thing probably amplifies the intensity of their experience. It is givng approval but it does not really help to develop individuality and an inner feeling of self worth. It is kind of treating them like dogs. A better approach would be to engage these children and teens in more self directed activity.

I said no, because I don't have the perceptions and emotions that the op describes, and my traits throughout my life are inconsistent with the descriptions. I am more of the low reaction type, and that is not because I am not displaying outwards signs, but feeling something intensely inside. It is more like there is no or low reaction inside, not more than most people around me.

The sensory processing hypotheses don't really work for me, because my brain can handle large amounts of sensory stimuli and make sense of it fast, but I still have the social/communication traits, so a hypothesis of autism that makes sense for me must have specific social component in which social deficits are not caused by sensory processing, but there really are social brain deficits.

Yep, that's it for me too. little bee was right though, I just thought saying anything more than No would be muddled and unnecessary (OMG!).

littlebee, I think that was actually a thoughtful post, but my problem with your posts is often that you get generalizations confused with solutions. For instance you say that thinking about Autism amplifies the effect of it, and then you generically connect that idea to functioning without explaining what you mean, as though by thinking about Autism, one will ALWAYS mess up their functioning. As if it is impossible to learn about oneself by thinking about or talking about Autism. That seems to be your overall general idea but it's too vague to have any real meaning and does not take the give and take that is involved when confusion + thinking + talking + experience = learning.

If you could allow yourself to take the personal aspect out of your ideas, - in other words - don't try to decide what is correct thinking for other people on an individual basis - but instead look at like a sociologist might - directed to a SAMPLE (not an actual person or group of people) - then you could really come up with something. This is really the key to credibility.

The problem is just that people will speak about and think about their autism and so they should. But there would be instances when thinking about it might be creating stress that exacerbates the problem, but there will also be instances where thinking about it allows people to prepare for, or mitigate and thereby actually prevent amplification. Other times they have to experience what you call the amplification effect before they can work through and get to a less stressful place. When you generalize that away, it kills your argument which may actually have some helpful thoughts underneath it all.

I had to laugh at the dog analogy - I don't agree with that either, but i see what you are saying. Don't you like it when people sort of celebrate a small victory with you? We do that at work all the time when one of has gotten over a hurdle of some kind. It's fun to give and get.

Not sure what you mean by "self directed activities." Do you mean they should be working alone to solve their problems? Are you sure that they never do that? I would think that they do - but the teachers are around and helping too, for a healthy mix.

Also, what kind of self directed activities have you come up with - that sounds interesting.

Bttynyr, yes, sorry...it does seem like I was telling people why you said no, but that was my interpretation, admittedly, a guess. And also, on the toe-walking thread you responded to it does sound as if I think I really know, and I admit I think I am really onto something important there. I did and do intend to come back and explain more about the intense world theory from my own limited understanding of it and reply to your comments about some criticisms of it, but no time right now. Also, I still have to study that theory more and have been balking, as for me that is rather hard work:-), but in short, what I like about this theory after kind of dismissing it in the beginning, is that it explains very explicitly and articulately, even eloquently how biological responses can be affected in a certain way and at a certain stage of development (and I think for many different reasons and combinations of reasons--genetic, shock from drugs or chemicals, parenting and other environmental factors) and how everything that comes after that the initial overt trauma kind of both intersects into and at the same time built upon it the biological/psychological functioning to create a specific affect--it would not even necessarily have to be result in overt intensity of sensation ---it could be a lack of affect so there is a flat affect, perhaps as a protective device and behind that is terror (the fight or flight mechanism)---or this might not even be the reason---just speculating and not even applying to you, as I would have no idea....there is much to enquire into about this and other theories, but I am particularly drawn to this one, as to be it presents much practical possibility in terms of directly making changes in ones behavior. And an obvious prerequisite would be observing ones own responses, as each person is so individual.

I may not be the best person to answer, since I am undiagnosed. But I think it is possible, not that Aspergers IS a form of social savantism, but that SOME people with Aspergers could have a type social savantism and others don't. The key here being that savantism generally means having uneven abilities, being unnaturally good at one thing at the expense of something else.



This does sound like me. I tend to over-identify with the perspective of the other person. I may or may not interpret correctly how they are perceiving things, I can't always verify that. I don't know if I can accurately pick up all the cues and signals another person is giving me. Sometimes I am surprised by the way people act/react and I feel like I must have been oblivious to something.

BUT a lot of the time I also pick up on subtle things that other people don't notice at all. And I can be a very keen observer of people when I am not interacting with them directly. I can get strong first impressions about people when I meet them and those always prove to be right over time. But in the meantime I can end up doubting myself or be swayed by the person into thinking I am wrong.

I am highly sensitive to verbal subtext. This is one reason why I still question whether or not I am actually autistic, because I haven't seen anyone else here mention this. I pick up on subtle undercurrents in the things people SAY more so than I can read their body language or facial expressions. All the descriptions I have read about autism say that autists take language very literally and have trouble with non-literal language. I feel like I am the opposite of that, I find multiple layers of meanings and "hints" in almost everything people (NTs) say. I feel like other people are constantly hinting and implying things they don't say directly and I can't find a way to confront them on it. This is one reason why I find it such a relief to come to this forum, because most people here say what they mean, and I can also spot an NT super fast here because they use very language differently.

I think because I have high verbal intelligence and literary ability, maybe sometimes I OVER read social situations because I am aware of the subtle inflections of language in a way that most people are not. It may be accurate at times because people can reveal things about themselves in those subtleties...but, on the other hand, I notice that other people will make assumptions based on the most common or obvious meaning of the words that have been used, and they seem to miss the deeper implications. I mean for example, if an apparent Freudian slip was made in a conversation, other people will move forward on the assumption that it was just a slip and it means nothing, whereas I tend to file it away as meaningful.

BUT...let me qualify this by mentioning that all of that depends on whether or not I can actually hear what people are saying in the first place. I have trouble understanding what people say due to my sound processing issues and my tendency to space out, so it's like I only get broken pieces of conversation and I have to piece them back together and figure out what is going on.

Now when it comes to written communication, I feel totally overwhelmed by the amount of information I take in via words. So that is where I can totally identify with the scenario you described, of becoming panicked by what is happening and having things explode because of it. I would say that I personally read WRITTEN communication far more precisely than NTs do, for sure. But when it comes to face-to-face communication, I don't know. I tend to miss huge chunks of information due to sensory issues and my wandering attention span.

I think I have a pretty good verbal subtext ability too, but it comes and goes! Your point about spacing out is excellent, I do that sometimes. It can be because the conversation goes on too long for my ability to hold on to it, or maybe I'm getting instructions and trying to split my attention between my boss and taking notes - that one's a killer - he can never understand why have such a hard time when he tells me and he sees me write it down.

I don't always take things literally at all, sometimes I have to question somebody on whether they meant something literally or not because I'm not sure.

But the thing is we just can't know what we're getting right or wrong (you touched on that), unless it comes back to us and we find out somehow.

I don't believe that I am a savant at reading social skills at all. Taking in too much information, such as searching someone's face desperately for a clue as to what they are thinking - I don't think that's savant (if that's what the OP was getting at). Bringing in information incorrectly is not the same thing as being good at something.

Edit - btw, I'm not diagnosed either.

Thank you for your reply wozeree. I am really curious to know how other people here are with reading verbal subtext.

In face-to-face conversations I can still have trouble with pragmatics, like recognizing when someone is teasing me rather than being serious. I think maybe I miss something about the tone of voice, or the facial expression(?) People can really screw with me sometimes by telling me things in a serious tone of voice, when they are just joking.

By verbal subtext, you mean things that people say or write, and you pick up implied meanings, or assign more meaning to them than the words themselves? Are you accurate getting these meanings?

I don't understand verbal subtext. Ackshuly, I am bester at non-verbal cues than verbal subtext.

I am totally bad at non verbal cues. I really can't get them unless they are obvious, like rolling eyes at me or something.

When I say verbal subtext I mean, people say things that have different meanings then what they actually say. A very broad example would be - to say to somebody something like, "Oh yeah, you're good at picking up girls," and meaning they suck at it. But sometimes it's not that obvious, but I can still pick up on it (but as I say, unless it comes back to us and we find out, we don't know for sure, I could just THINK I'm good at it). Where me and social skills are concerned, I take everything I think with a grain of salt!

Dianthus. My experience correlates to virtually everything you said.

Last edited by Stannis on 20 Jan 2014, 6:54 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Yes that's what I mean...implied meanings, or double meanings.

I don't know if I am always accurate at getting these meanings. To me, it's just that the meanings are there, because language can be used that way, but I don't always know if the person deliberately intends to imply something, or if they have let something slip without meaning to (something they are trying to hide, or not aware or, like their real feelings about something), or if the person means exactly what they said in a literal way.

In my experience most people don't literally mean what they say, but they are not necessarily aware of everything they are implying in their words either. I am trying to think of a good example but I can't think of one right now. It is more complex than just using sarcasm.

I was having the exact same problem because it goes way deeper then just sarcasm. I couldn't think of a better example either, but you are right, it happens so much and I find that very often speech has layers of meaning beyond what is gong on on the surface.

I'm glad I'm not the only one!

I really identified with this in your first post:



Sometimes I am well aware that a conversation has taken a wrong turn, and the other person is misinterpreting or twisting around something I said and judging me negatively, but I don't know how to address that or do anything about it. So I just go into total panic mode. Usually I feel like I expressed myself very clearly the first time so I don't know how I could possibly say or do things any differently to get them to understand. This is why a lot of NTs come across to me as dense.

I was thinking of some better examples, but this reminded me of one - when someone intentionally twists your words around and pretends like they don't understand - usually in an argument.

Or if somebody is saying something really hostile to you, but they want to make so they can claim it's not hostile, they will say it in a covert way - another broad example - I thought you were well versed in this subject, my mistake, I'll try to talk so you can understand.

One time I had this boss who was a real witch to everyone - I was talking to her and she dropped a napkin and then said to me - "Pick that up."

It can happen when people are saying good things too - for instance say you are in love with somebody but you don't want them to know, so just about everything you say to them screams I LOVE YOU, but you never say it.

Or say you have a secret that you want somebody to know, but you don't want to come out and say it, so you give hints.

Ok, I'l stop now. Anyway btbnnyr is really smart, I'm sure she got it by now and probably mostly knew what we were talking about anyway.

Do any of you overread people? I noticed that some people I know overread me and others often, and I can tell that they are doing more reading of people than most from them frequently eggsplaining what they meant by what they said like "oh, I didn't mean _____________" or "I meant that _______________", and these people seem more concerned than normal about how other people are interpreting their words, and it seems like they think that other people are assigning as much implied meaning to their words as they are assigning to their words and other people's words, and it seems like most neurotypical people are not assigning that much meaning, and I am assigning much less. Most of them are not as "normal" as other neurotypical people, but they might be what are commonly called "sensitive" types, like highly sensitive person.

Yep I do something like this, and to be honest I think that's due to been misunderstood/misinterpreted over a lifetime. I also tend to be very verbose especially when I type.