How does the 'Intense World Theory' make sense?

Post Reply New Topic

That is kind of what I meant by the theory having no real scientific backing. There are only assumptions that it makes sense, and judgements of personal experience.

It's like if you had a problem playing a video game, and the cause could be internet, poor wires, damaged hardware, software bugs etc. and somebody made a case for it being the internet. It would appear to make great sense, and may be the case, but there's no reason to believe that rather than something else (without proper testing), and that's like 1000000000 times less complex than the human brain.



Personally I doubt that social cognition stems from not focusing on the right things. There's no evidence that I've read to suggest this.

If social cognition deficits come from not focusing on social stimuli, then not focusing on social stimuli is itself a social cognition deficit, since activity of social cognition networks in brain are likely causing neurotypicals to focus on social stimuli spontaneously from young age.

The question isn't if the theory is right, it's if it makes sense.

Eye contact. Start with that. There have been studies that have shown huge differences when autistic people are instructed to make eye contact.

Eye contact being intense for some autistic individuals does not bring sense to the theory.

I don't get how it 'makes sense' that a hyper brain causes all autistic problems. The theory feels to me like pleasurable psychological fiction, similar to religion, where I am tasked to disprove something I cannot because there's nothing to disprove in the first place. The burden is on the creators of the theory to establish a sound scientific backing, which they have not. Things like conspiracy theories can also arguably 'make sense', but to me they don't, just as this theory doesn't - again, not that I don't find parts of it positive.

"Eye contact being intense for some autistic individuals does not bring sense to the theory. " NO. That's not what I was saying. That was in response to second part, attention and how it effects social cognition. You were asking for evidence, I gave it to you.

You don't need evidence directly in support of theory, you just need it to not contradict the evidence which is there. Theories can't be proven, just disproven.

It's not the "hyper brain," it's the "hyper" reaction to stimuli of "normal" intensity.

This theory fits my experience of autism too. I can be so overwhelmed by someone's emotions, it can take me hours to recover.

This has probably been linked before:

A RADICAL NEW AUTISM THEORY - Daily Beast link

I think it's worth investigation. Also, it is a similar experience to sensory overload for me.