How does the 'Intense World Theory' make sense?

Page 2 of 3 [ 39 posts ] Go to page Previous 1, 2, 3 Next

Previous topic | Next topic

Rocket123
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 15 Dec 2012
Age: 63
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,203
Location: Lost in Space

03 Jan 2015, 6:59 pm

r2d2 – Thanks for sharing the article.

r2d2 wrote:

...At least one study has confirmed that alternative explanations of the face processing “dysfunctions” in autism may be on the right track. Autistic and nonautistic individuals were scanned using fMRI while they looked at pictures of faces that were either emotionally neutral or emotionally charged. Crucially, using eye-tracking technology, the researchers also monitored which parts of the images their participants were looking at during the experiment. Overall, autistic participants activated their fusiform face region less vigorously than nonautistic controls, replicating previous work. But the eye-tracking data showed that this was simply because they spent less time looking at the most informative region of the faces, the eyes. In fact, when the researchers looked at fusiform activation as a function of time spent fixating on the eyes in the photos, they found a strong positive correlation in the autistic group. This means that the autistic brain is responding quite well to face stimuli, if one takes into account the amount of time spent looking at them.

This notion (that the eyes are the “most informative region of the face”) is a “foreign” concept to me. I suppose I accept it (based upon the articles and books I have read). But, I would have never guessed it otherwise. With the exception of crying (where tears are emitted), I would have never associated eyes with anything but vision.

r2d2 wrote:

...
My lack of eye contact sometimes makes people, especially my teachers and professors, think that I’m not paying attention to them.

—Matthew Ward, student, University of Wisconsin

I usually look at the mouth area. It was my understanding, based upon comments in other threads, that others would not notice that I typically do not make eye contact (by “locking” eyes). Now I am confused.

As a note, I am quite interested in understanding why I don’t make eye contact. Likewise, I am interesting in understanding the “why’s” behind my other quirky behavior.

Sometimes, I think I am an Aspie who has developed a personality disorder.

Ganondox
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 7 Oct 2011
Age: 30
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,791
Location: USA

03 Jan 2015, 7:39 pm

Norny wrote:

To me it feels more like a pleasurable piece of fiction rather than something real. It provides generalized statements and ideas that appear to suggest connections without actually having any solid scientific basis. It's like they grabbed a prominent feature of autism and decided it could be causing all the differences, and I don't really see it as being any different to other theories or ideas like autism as a 'predictive disorder' etc.

The theory presumes that the autistic brain is too hyper (in almost every way) to maintain itself, and that's all there seems to be to it, from what I've seen.

I brought up hyposensitivity in the OP in part because the name is 'Intense World', where it would actually seem to be the opposite for a person with the relevant hypo sensory/emotional issues. Though I am open to the idea of 'autisms' rather than a singular diagnosis, this makes it feel like a niche description in a time where there is a lack of evidence.

The one thing I like about the theory is that it doesn't revolve around deficits, as all the others do.

A lot of apparent hyposensitivity can be explained by the intense world theory, it get's tuned out because it's undesirable to deal with it rather then because it's not sensed at all. Keep in mind that most autistic people display both hyposensitivity and hypersensitivity, not just one or the other. Anyway, while I do like intense world more than most autism theories, I think it's incomplete like all the rest, it certainly doesn't explain all of my experiences.

_________________
Cinnamon and sugary
Softly Spoken lies
You never know just how you look
Through other people's eyes

Autism FAQs http://www.wrongplanet.net/postt186115.html

zoidbreezy
Tufted Titmouse

Joined: 31 May 2014
Age: 41
Gender: Female
Posts: 34

03 Jan 2015, 9:32 pm

kraftiekortie wrote:

I believe it will be concluded that there are, indeed, "autisms."

yes...
http://www.uctv.tv/shows/Detection-of-C ... rder-25984

Norny
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 31 Dec 2013
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,488

03 Jan 2015, 9:36 pm

Ganondox wrote:

Is there any actual proof of that or is it just a presumption made by those who developed the theory?

_________________
Unapologetically, Norny. :rambo:

-chronically drunk

Ganondox
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 7 Oct 2011
Age: 30
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,791
Location: USA

03 Jan 2015, 9:42 pm

Norny wrote:

Ganondox wrote:

Is there any actual proof of that or is it just a presumption made by those who developed the theory?

A theory is an explanation that has not been proven, but fits to evidence.

_________________
Cinnamon and sugary
Softly Spoken lies
You never know just how you look
Through other people's eyes

Autism FAQs http://www.wrongplanet.net/postt186115.html

mpe
Deinonychus

Joined: 26 Oct 2014
Gender: Male
Posts: 379
Location: Exeter

03 Jan 2015, 10:08 pm

jbw wrote:

I have never understood the supposed ToM issues associated with AS. Some autistics can be experts at recursion and games such as Chess. As far as I can see, ToM issues in AS are limited to social and emotional reasoning.

One thing I have noticed is that the NT definition of "social" appears much wider than my own. e.g. including the likes of buying goods.

Quote:

These issues may result from a lack of desire to conform with cultural norms, and a significant underestimation of the role that social status plays in typical society. Ian Ford's book "A Field Guide To Earthlings" explores the topic of social status in society in depth, and it allowed me for the first time to understand the "logic" of neurotypical reasoning.

It appears more common for AS people to identify a lack of understanding of either the rules or underlying paradigms though.

Quote:

A while back I conducted a poll on WP on the perceived need for hierarchical forms of social organisation. More than 40% of respondents did not believe that a social hierarchy is an essential structural element in the operation of a large scale society. It makes perfect sense that ToM reasoning by people who ignore social hierarchies differs from ToM reasoning by people for whom social hierarchies and social status are essential parts of their identity. Furthermore, corresponding differences in establishing and maintaining social relationships provide a good explanation for recurring frustrations on both sides, and for otherwise unexplainable perceptions/accusations of "rudeness".

Unfortunatly you don't have any control as what the figure is for the general population. There could be a difference in paradigm between those who regardered social hierarchy as important and those who did not. Though that's not to say that all of the former would apply the same social hierarchical structure.
There's also the complication that someone may apply the rules of social hierarchy even if they don't personally believe them important. Possibly this is more where NT and AS differ.

Norny
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 31 Dec 2013
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,488

03 Jan 2015, 10:18 pm

Ganondox wrote:

Norny wrote:

Ganondox wrote:

Is there any actual proof of that or is it just a presumption made by those who developed the theory?

A theory is an explanation that has not been proven, but fits to evidence.

Is there evidence that supports this idea?

I haven't seen any, only the stipulation that it must occur this way based on supposed logic.

_________________
Unapologetically, Norny. :rambo:

-chronically drunk

r2d2
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 14 Jul 2014
Age: 71
Gender: Male
Posts: 539
Location: Northern Mariana Islands

03 Jan 2015, 11:04 pm

Norny wrote:

Is there evidence that supports this idea?

I haven't seen any, only the stipulation that it must occur this way based on supposed logic.

For me hypersensitivity or intense theory is not simply a theory or hypothesis it is the description of what happens to me and I suspect happens to many if not most people on the Spectrum.

If I walk into a new work situation full of alarms, noises and distraction - my learning skills and functioning skills are immediately compromised. My social skills at a loud an noisy party are equally compromised. Being overwhelmed is an experience of many people and I would dare say almost everyone on the Spectrum experiences it profoundly. Simple observation and life experience tells us that interferes with our social skills and compromises our ability to understand others.

You ask if there is any evidence that this this "theory" is the case? Well is there any evidence that people who are of homosexual orientation are actually attracted to the same sex? Well, they say they are and simple observation would reveal that they are. So, thus is there any evidence that many - if not most people on the Spectrum experience compromised social interaction ability from being hypersensitive and encountering a world that seems intense? Again many - probably most of us would say that we do and simple observation would reveal that to be the case.

_________________
"Everyone is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid."

- Albert Einstein

Apple_in_my_Eye
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 7 May 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,420
Location: in my brain

05 Jan 2015, 7:48 am

The relevant question would be, "does it have any more evidence for it than any other theory of autism?"

kraftiekortie
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 4 Feb 2014
Gender: Male
Posts: 87,510
Location: Queens, NYC

05 Jan 2015, 8:40 am

Another question to consider: does this theory of autism apply to YOUR autism?

I believe it applies, at least somewhat, to mine.

Norny
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 31 Dec 2013
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,488

05 Jan 2015, 3:58 pm

r2d2 wrote:

You ask if there is any evidence that this this "theory" is the case? Well is there any evidence that people who are of homosexual orientation are actually attracted to the same sex? Well, they say they are and simple observation would reveal that they are. So, thus is there any evidence that many - if not most people on the Spectrum experience compromised social interaction ability from being hypersensitive and encountering a world that seems intense? Again many - probably most of us would say that we do and simple observation would reveal that to be the case.

You're right, there is no evidence that homosexuals are attracted to the same sex, but there's also no evidence that I have a brain in my head, or a heart in my chest - I can only presume that there would be. For all I know I may have a missing section of my frontal lobe. Believing that I have a brain and a heart is far more appropriate than not, based on what is known about genetics and virtually everything relevant to this subject. On the contrary, very little is known about autism, and hence why it isn't exactly a 'theory' that homosexuals are attracted to the same sex, but it is that a hyper brain causes autism. This borders on philosophy, as it could be argued that others' possessing minds is simply a 'theory' etc.

I don't deny all credibility the theory has but it doesn't seem any more than a guess at the moment. I get that it can 'explain' the autism some people have but everybody feels things can explain them, personality types (especially MTBI) being a common example.

This theory feels like a niche to me as my friend most definitely does not fit it. I would doubt the neurology to be simple enough to be pinned down on one singular cause, hence my likening of it to pleasurable psychological fiction.

_________________
Unapologetically, Norny. :rambo:

-chronically drunk

Norny
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 31 Dec 2013
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,488

05 Jan 2015, 4:11 pm

Apple_in_my_Eye wrote:

The relevant question would be, "does it have any more evidence for it than any other theory of autism?"

I'm actually not sure. Personal anecdotes would suggest it is favourable but there isn't any strong science to support it.

_________________
Unapologetically, Norny. :rambo:

-chronically drunk

btbnnyr
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 18 May 2011
Gender: Female
Posts: 7,359
Location: Lost Angleles Carmen Santiago

05 Jan 2015, 4:27 pm

Intense world has little evidence in studies of human cognition, but that is because it is relatively new and not much studied in systems other than VPA-treated rodents.

Even studies of sensory hypersensitivity in autism are mixed, with many studies showing lack of difference from neurotypicals, some showing increased sensitivity by self-report, some showing increased sensitivity by brain responses, some showing decreased sensitivity by detection thresholds.

In autism studies, the most robust, repeated results involve reduced social cognition by brain/behavior. On non-social side, most robust results involve detail-oriented processing as in superior visual search/embedded figures/pitch discrimination kind of studies.

_________________
Drain and plane and grain and blain your brain, and then again,
Propane and butane out of the gas main, your blain shall sustain!

Ganondox
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 7 Oct 2011
Age: 30
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,791
Location: USA

05 Jan 2015, 4:31 pm

btbnnyr wrote:

The detail-oriented processing can be explained as intense world, and it can explain the difficulties with social cognition.

_________________
Cinnamon and sugary
Softly Spoken lies
You never know just how you look
Through other people's eyes

Autism FAQs http://www.wrongplanet.net/postt186115.html

btbnnyr
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 18 May 2011
Gender: Female
Posts: 7,359
Location: Lost Angleles Carmen Santiago

05 Jan 2015, 4:35 pm

Ganondox wrote:

btbnnyr wrote:

The detail-oriented processing can be explained as intense world, and it can explain the difficulties with social cognition.

I am not sure that intense world does eggsplain well either detail-oriented processing or social cognition results.
Its eggsplanations of these don't suffice for me, they seem stretchy and unparsimonious, there must be much more evidence showing that the mechanisms that it proposes are ackshuly acting in the autistic brain.

_________________
Drain and plane and grain and blain your brain, and then again,
Propane and butane out of the gas main, your blain shall sustain!

Ganondox
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 7 Oct 2011
Age: 30
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,791
Location: USA

05 Jan 2015, 7:17 pm

btbnnyr wrote:

Ganondox wrote:

btbnnyr wrote:

The detail-oriented processing can be explained as intense world, and it can explain the difficulties with social cognition.

I see intense world and detail-oriented processing as being two different iterations of the same processing difference. I don't think either explains autism in and of themselves, but reflect the same cognitive style which is oriented differently than that of an NT and focuses on different things, clearly different top-down processing. Social cognition deficits have cognitive roots from not focusing on the right things to develop social skills, and also get lost in the different understanding of pragmatics. I think a lot of alleged lack of theory of mind is just pragmatics as the result of "detail-oriented processing", the picture which was supposed to be projected got lost in communication.

_________________
Cinnamon and sugary
Softly Spoken lies
You never know just how you look
Through other people's eyes

Autism FAQs http://www.wrongplanet.net/postt186115.html

Page 2 of 3 [ 39 posts ] Go to page Previous 1, 2, 3 Next

Jump to:

How does the 'Intense World Theory' make sense? Post Reply New Topic

How does the 'Intense World Theory' make sense?