There are some hard-to-die (kill) and outdated theories about why we are Autistic. These have largely been developed from an outside perspective – they are developed by non-autistic, neuro-typical people. The way to determine if a theory is non-autistic developed is to discern if it merely describes observable behaviour – ignoring the Autistic experience, emotions, and thought processes. If it sounds like a theory is guessing about the internal life of Autistic people, and/or focusses wholly on observable behaviour, then it is non-autistic driven, and consequently ignores the complex nature of our internal and external Autistic world.
It is also a giveaway that a theory of our Autistic experience is not Autistic led if its underlying premise, and consequently focus, is on “deficit” and “disorder” – the medical model.
Theories and classification by non-autistics about us Autistics – not in detail, and I would suggest avoiding if possible:
There are a number of neurotypical derived and led theories about what makes us Autistic and why we exist, all with major flaws, heavily critiqued, and some debunked (but sadly once an idea is out there it’s hard to combat or retract, e.g. the “male brain” theory).
The key theories fall under the following cateogories, and we provide a little detail of some of the most significantly damaging further down, and you can watch a longer presentation on all the theories in detail toward the very end of the page.
Neurotypical theories of autism fall under three categories:
- Behavioural
- i.e., the diagnostic checklists of observable, distress behaviour, ignorant of our inner world or Autistic joy
- Biological
- i.e., neurology (Pua et al., 2017, conclude: there are NO definitive neuroimaging markers found, as did Waterstone, 2016)
- Vaccines
- Original paper retracted for falsifying data, with only a mere 12 children, and even stated in the debunked paper that they found no association between MMR and autism – but a dangerous myth was born
- A Danish study with 650,000 children proved no relationship between MMR and being Autistic.
- Heritability
- We know that if you have close relatives who are Autistic, it is highly probable that children/parents will be Autistic – this is the statistical likelihood – the heritability – of being Autistic.
- DSM V: “heritability estimates for autism …range from 37% to 90% based on twin concordance rates…”
- Genes/genetic/epigenetic/polygenetic
- “As many as 15% of cases of autism appear to be associated with a known genetic mutation…
- However, even when autism is associated with a known genetic mutation, it does not appear to be fully penetrant” – meaning that having the gene doesn’t mean someone will be Autistic.
- Appears to be polygenic, with perhaps hundreds of genetic loci making relatively small contributions.”
- So, while we know the likelihood, the statistical probability of having an Autistic child or close relative, we do not know what is inherited, meaning we don’t know the gene or genes.
- Cognitive
- Primary deficit models
- Theory of mind (more detail further down the page) – debunked
- Executive dysfunction – assumes that there is an optimal way of thinking/brain, which is a fallacy – see Holmes and Patrick’s “the myth of optimality in clinical neuroscience”
- Domain-general information processing models
- Weak central coherence theory – framed as “weak central coherence”, but could easily be perceived as strong attention to detail, which non-autistic people lack. Can be combatted with humanising, Autistic led theory of monotropism – Murray et al. – detailed further down the page.
- Empathizing–systemizing and extreme male brain theories
- Contributed to the myth that Autistic people lack empathy
- There is no empirical evidence for biological sex or gendered brains – i.e., Fine, 2005
- Bayesian predictive coding model – constantly “surprised”
- Primary deficit models
Some non-autistic theories in detail…
The Triad of Impairments (dated, and became the “dyad of impairment” in 2013): insulting as it sounds, and assumes that we have deficits/impairments in social interaction, social communication, and imagination abilities. This (and other neuro-typical theories) have led to the erroneous assumption that to be Autistic is to be un-empathetic; to be impaired in interactions with others socially and in how we communicate – when it is that we struggle with non-autistic people, but less so other Autistic people (see double empathy problem and pragmatic language hypothesis below). This has meant that many Autistic people are not discovered as they and those around them have this narrow view of what Autistic experience is.
It is assumed that we have “problems in social communication and social interaction, and restricted, repetitive patterns of behaviour, interests or activities”. Of course this appears the case when comparing non-autistic people with Autistic people, as though non-autistic people are the standard for communication and social interaction. This makes the perspective reductive of an extremely diverse Autistic community, and makes erroneous assumptions about what constitutes social communication and interaction, and assumes that being focussed (“restricted”) is a deficit and a problem. This is an example of neuronormative privilege, perpetuating the myth of “normal”, and denies Autistic culture.
The “Extreme Male Brain”, and more recently the “Extreme Female Brain” theories: This one is very slow to die. Simon Baron-Cohen (cousin to Sacha Baron-Cohen, of Ali-G fame) has deeply harmed the Autistic community with his theory that Autistics are as such because we have an “extreme male”, systematising brain – as opposed to an empathising brain. With the increase in female (and gender diverse people) discovering they are Autistic, theorists such as Baron-Cohen panicked and theorised that women (ignoring gender diverse people altogether) have more of a male brain too. When that did not explain those who were/are “feminine” – e.g., not the classic male stereotype – Baron-Cohen and others theorised that this was the result of an extreme female brain! This ignores those women, gender diverse people, and some men whose experiences do not fit in the definition assigned to their biological sex. To be clear, there is no such thing, scientifically, as a female or male brain.
Theory of Mind or “mind blindness”: The argument became about us having a “deficit” in the ability to theorise other people’s minds: a deficit in the ability to guess the thought processes and intentions of other people. This is cognitive empathy, or perspective-taking. Again, many of us are actually very good, if not better at this than neurotypicals. It is hypothesised that we merely do it in a different way to neurotypicals. Quite simply, many of us are capable of cognitively and emotionally empathising with others, but more so perhaps with fellow Autistics – because we understand one another! And research shows that many non-autistic people have limited or “impaired” theory of mind.
And so, the “theory of mind” theory and “extreme male systematising brain” theory of Autistic experience fall flat, but worse than that, these theories have deeply harmed Autistic people, in some instances violently, as people have for a long time not seen Autistic people as human. It has also meant that many people – potentially a generation – have been denied discovering their Autistic identity as they did not live up to the male, white stereotype.
Limitations of all neurotypically-derived, deficit-based theories…
- Cis, straight, white boy/male bias: ignored/s women, non-binary, trans, and men who do not present in a narrowly conceived way;
- Circular reasoning;
- Based on observable behaviour (ignorant of our inner workings);
- Theorised by non-autistics “outsiders-looking-in”;
- Ignore context and social norms;
- Ignore cultural differences in social norms;
- Alone, they don’t explain all Autistic experiences and differences to non-autistics;
- They “lack biological and construct validity” Waterhouse et al., (2016), p.302
- Wholly unrealistic and value judgement-based deficit models and pathologising theories.
The REAL reason for viewing Autistic people as disordered…societal perceptions and judgements about what is normal and acceptable.
More accurately representative of the actually Autistic experience of the world – our neurodivergent experience – are theories expressed by actually Autistic researchers such as Damian Milton who theorises about the double empathy problem; Dinah Murray and Fergus Murray who describe the theory of monotropism; Rachel Cullen who hypothesised that we Autistic people have a different pragmatic language to non-autistic people; and Chloe Farahar and Annette Foster who better depicted the variability of Autistic experience (without reducing us to mere end points on a binary continuum) in their three-dimensional Autistic space framework.
Autistic theories of Autistic experience
- Autistic community definition of Autistic experience
- Monotropism – Murray et al., 2005
- Double empathy problem – Milton, 2012
- Pragmatic language hypothesis – Cullen, 2018
- Three-dimensional Autistic space – Farahar & Foster, 2018/2019
1. Autistic community definition of Autistic experience
Autism for Autistic people is a neurodevelopmental difference, where Autistic brains work differently to non-autistic people.There are as many different brains and ways of experiencing the world as there are different bodies.
There is a variety of Autistic people, just as there is a variety of non-autistic people, but all Autistic people share some similarities.
These similarities include:
- differences in experience of the sensory world,
- differences in communication,
- differences in thinking, socialising and moving
Some Autistic people need support with day-to-day living, and ultimately, “there is no one way to be Autistic” (Autistic Self Advocacy Network, 2020).
2. Monotropism
“Monotropism provides a far more comprehensive explanation for Autistic cognition than any of its competitors, so it has been good to see it finally starting to get more recognition among psychologists. In a nutshell, monotropism is the tendency for our interests to pull us in more strongly than most people.
It rests on a model of the mind as an ‘interest system’: we are all interested in many things, and our interests help direct our attention. Different interests are salient at different times. In a monotropic mind, fewer interests tend to be aroused at any time, and they attract more of our processing resources, making it harder to deal with things outside of our current attention tunnel.” Written by the theorist Dinah Murray’s Autistic adult child, Fergus Murray.
Also, see A Better Way to Understand Autism with Fergus Murray explaining monotropism – and here’s a dedicated website on the work surrounding the theory.
Short Monotropism explainer video by Kieran Rose (The Autistic Advocate) 👆🏻
3. Double Empathy Problem
Fundamentally, Autistic people can and do empathise – both cognitively and emotionally. Many of us are very good at theorising others’ minds, and some of us are exceptional at this in our own community. The double empathy problem ultimately relates to us Autistic people not being understood by non-autistics. It is a “breakdown in interaction between Autistic and non-autistic people as not solely located in the mind of the Autistic person” – a “case of mutual incomprehension” (Milton).
“So it is true that Autistic people often lack insight about non-autistic perceptions and culture, yet it is equally the case that non-autistic people lack insight into the minds and culture of Autistic people, or that they may lack social insight in other social situations due to an easily repaired natural attitude, and the aligning tendencies of their peers.
One could say that many Autistic people have indeed gained a greater level of insight into non-autistic society, and more [so] than vice versa, perhaps due to the need to survive and potentially thrive in a non-autistic culture. Conversely, the non-autistic person has no pertinent personal requirement to understand the mind of the Autistic person unless closely related socially in some way” (Milton, 2012).
Damian Milton’s theory has since been supported with study evidence. For example, Crompton et al. (2020) showed that having a conversation partner of the same neurotype (i.e., Autistic and Autistic; non-autistic and non-autistic) means the communication does not break down. In their studies, the communication does break down when you have cross-neurotype conversations (Autistic and non-autistic).
Short, double-empathy explainer video by Kieran Rose (The Autistic Advocate) 👆🏻
4. Autistic pragmatic language hypothesis
Rachel Cullen’s theory helps explain the double empathy problem. It explains that perhaps non-autistic people are processing language polytropically (e.g., less detail focussed, able to split attention): seeing the bigger picture, not the detail; parsing (processing) sentences as a whole; where the context exists both in and outside of the words e.g., who is asking? where are we? what’s the tone of their voice? etc.
Autistic people, conversely, are processing language monotropically: seeing the finer detail; parsing (processing) at the word level; where the context, for many Autistic people, is in the words only.
And so, Autistic pragmatics versus neurotypical pragmatic languages:
- Autistic: context is in the words; processing each word in a sentence; literal; need for specificity of words and sentences:
- “How are you doing?” becomes a huge sentence to parse each word without specificity, as we might not process who is asking; where we are; etc. Autistic brains tend to try and process all the words and their possible meanings: “When do you mean? Doing what? Why are you asking me? etc.”
- Be specific: “Did your dentist appointment go OK this morning?”, and be prepared that questions may be asked to clarify what is being asked e.g., “What do you mean by OK?”.
- Neurotypical/non-autistic: context is in what is not said; processing at the sentence level as a chunk; figurative and subjective:
- “How are you doing?” – asked by your boss, in the office, you’re both wearing suits: “I’m great, got that report done you asked for”.
- “How are you doing?” – asked by your friend, at home, you’re both in pyjamas: “Awful, my boss wanted loads of work from me”.
5. Farahar & Foster three dimension Autistic space
The Farahar and Foster (2018/9) three-dimensional Autistic space framework places all Autistic people (discovered and undiscovered) in a humanising space away from the binary spectrum/continuum that has become so misrepresentative of what it was supposed to depict – the spiky profile of abilities of an Autistic individual that fluctuate across time.
The diagnostic manuals do not contain “high/low functioning” language; severity levels only relate to the degree of support needed – not how “severely Autistic” someone is; and there’s no such thing (scientifically) as “male” or “female autism” – only Autistic girls, women, boys, men, non-binary, and trans people who are impacted by different prejudices, and often minoritised Autistic people are blamed for “hiding their autism”.
The Farahar and Foster (2018/9) three-dimensional Autistic space framework is a means of depicting how our Autistic-ness – how observably Autistic we seem – fluctuates across time due to influences such as:
- Physical environment
- Family dynamics
- Physical and/or mental well-being (which can create a feedback loop, e.g. poor mental well-being affects Autistic presentation and experience, and Autistic presentation and experience affects mental well-being)
- Culture/society – social norms and pressures
- Adequate or inadequate support
- Gender (and social norms pertaining to such, not necessarily biological sex)
- Socio-economic-status (SES)
- Genetic factors (to a lesser extent than literature would maintain)
- Co-occurring experiences, both physical (e.g. ME; epilepsy; IBS; Ehlers-Danlos syndrome; etc.), and neurological (e.g. learning disabilities/differences; other neuro-developmental differences, e.g. dyslexia, dyspraxia, Polyennism ‘ADD/ADHD’; etc.)
Historically, non-autistic outsiders have been looking into the Autistic space, and only seeing the more apparent/observable satellites (Autistic people), the “classically Autistic” individuals, missing, misdiagnosing, and invalidating Autistic people with different experiences, different genders, and those who are not white.
Farahar and Foster wanted to depict the individual Autistic spiky profile in three-dimensional space, and aimed to:
- De-biologically sex the Autistic experience;
- More accurately represent the diversity of Autistic experience and our population;
- Represent the reality of Autistic development and growth across time (as a means of countering attempts to subtype Autistic humans)
Hypothetical lifetime of an Autistic individual in the three-dimensional Autistic space. E.g., at age 5 the person was observably Autistic (obvious stims; minimally speaking; meltdowns).
By age 15 they had unconsciously learnt to mask as a trauma response, and internalised many of their experiences (unnoticeable/minimal stims; shutdowns; mimicking how to act socially).
This masking only worked for so long – by age 35 they experienced numerous burnout periods; relationship breakdowns; and were more observably struggling.
By 55 they embraced their Autistic self and stimmed freely; communicated Autistically (See Cullen hypothesis); and set boundaries.
The Farahar and Foster three-dimensional Autistic space can also demonstrate different time-frames to help non-autistic people understand that we are always Autistic, and at times this is less observable if e.g., we are masking for safety, or if we are invisible to non-autistic people because of ethnicity or gender (i.e., racism and sexism in diagnostic practices and research blind non-autistic people to our Autistic-ness). For example, our space can demonstrate an individual’s observability in the space of a day – explaining to schools why they do not “see the autism” for students at school, but families are reporting meltdowns etc., when the student is safe with family at home and can no longer mask.
For more details about how the Autistic space works, see the video below:
And so, Aucademy recommends looking to actually Autistic researchers and theorists when it comes to understanding ourselves in a non-pathologising, non-deficit model way.
[For even more on the non-autistic theories about Autistic experience that exist, the video below includes a long discussion on the theories on this page, as well as other mainstream, damaging theories]
References
Milton, D. E. M. (2012). On the ontological status of autism: The “double empathy problem.” Disability & Society, 27(6), 883–887. doi:10.1080/09687599.2012.710008