[...] Read More: wrongplanet.net/interview-henry-and-kamila-markram-about-the-intense-world-theory-for-autism/ [...]

How wonderful to find that these wonderful, intelligent, observant people have been researching the very same topic that I’m so interested in, and with such a lot of lovely scientific data too…

I’m in the process of seeking a new country to live in, because I have determined the one I was born into is not the best fit for me. I studied evolution from the angles of anthropology, geology, and biology. I learned that slight changes/adaptations in organisms has pros and cons.

If the changes are significant (has a high impact on survival and/or quality of life), those organisms can become an asset or a burden on the environment, depending on available resources.

For example: the proboscis length of an insect can allow or hinder the ability to extract food from a flower, depending on how deep the sucrose well is within that environment’s available flowers. If there was a drought, and increase in temperatures that wiped out a specific food source, the insects with specialized proboscis particular to those unavailable flowers will need to find alternate food source. It may not be the best for their development, and might alter numbers and structures of their offspring, but allows them to survive — even though that climate isn’t the best suited for their current structures.

Insert a chain reaction to the above scenario — the environment/climate keeps getting worse, and insects have to find <>, then <>, and that list gets longer until they either become extinct, or evolve into a new species better suited to the current climate.

I believe this is happening with humans, on a more complex level. The difference is the collective human culture is causing the alterations — this is not occurring naturally. I believe myself to be part of the generation(s) of offspring that is not suited to our current environment — the limits of social culture.

There are too many sensory sensitivities hindering the ability to focus my concerns on extraneous activities beyond <>. It over-stretches my personal resources (energy, time) to include social responses in my daily activities. I can do it, and want to do it on occasion, but it isn’t sustainable.

Because of the instability of social inclusion in my life, and not consistently being emotionally available to others, it places me outside the desirable limits of the human collective. If I find a country where socializing is not quite as important to survival, then I will thrive, even though I lack the available resources within my self.

You see? I believe it is the environment I live in that hinders my success — it isn’t me by myself. Yes, I lack consistent personal resources to socialize, and have sensory sensitivities, but take the importance of social networking out of the equation and I would be much better off.

It is the difference between celebrating the holidays every year, verses celebrating every Leap Year. I would thrive in an environment that celebrates every Leap Year — and enjoy it. The bombardment and expectations of social interactions steal energy from my preferred survival efforts and focus.