As an autist myself, I find these kind of comments quite offensive. It’s much like saying homosexuality is a disorder.
Neurotypical does not imply “normal” it only means prevalent - completely different.
Yes, autism sucks _in the contemporary environment_ - we are perhaps better suited for neanderthal / hunter gatherer environment.
However, implying that I should be “cured” for having no interest in NT dynamics and suffer by many of NT byproducts (e.g. noise) puts you up there with Mengle in my book.
I would advise against it. Hanging your entire personality onto a single nail like it's a hat. Bad practice in general, and it goes double for when the nail you're trying to hang it on is a mental disorder.
If you admit that "autism sucks in the contemporary environment", then, it's pretty clear that there would be people that have it and would want to be rid of it - if only they had that option. Currently, the options they have are "seethe" and "cope" - not a good place to be in. This alone would be enough of reason to look for a cure.
And then there are all the people who lose the "autism lottery" - and end up on assisted living for the rest of their lives. The short straw is really short - you could try an "autism is not a disorder" speech on them, but, not all of them are capable of communicating.
This, too, would be a reason in itself to look for a cure to autism. Unfortunately, what was discovered so far makes an easy solution extremely unlikely.
It seems you substantially discount neural plasticity: "...cannot be cured".
IMHO, our understanding of autism, specifically, and neural development of the brain, in general, is rudimentary at best. It's too soon to conclude it's incurable.
I do indeed. Because developmental windows exist. You can take the cat out of the vertical world, but you can't take the vertical world out of the cat. Trying to train them out of it only helps a little - too much damage is already done. The brain has developed a certain way, and you can't un-develop and re-develop it.
There is no consensus that autism is like this, but a lot of evidence points that way.
We'd need at least a generational leap in neuroscience to be able to pull off something like that. It's not a "laws of physics prevent you" level of impossible - we just don't have a clue of how would we even begin approaching something like that.
Hubel & Wiesel's work is fascinating, but may not map well to more complex systems (not dissing cats, they're plenty complicated!).
For example, humans clearly have a window for learning their native language. It just happens, and it's nearly magical. But humans can learn non-native languages after that window slams shut. We vary in our ability to do that, but if it matters, most can pick up useful conversational and reading skills.
I agree it's a matter of research. I think we've barely begun to scratch the surface of what's possible.
The biggest points against it being anywhere near as easy as "teaching an adult a language" are: the existence of masking, and the limited success of behavioral interventions - especially in adults.
If people find it easier to learn and apply the workarounds than to learn the thing itself, then, clearly, something prevents them from just learning the thing itself. Behavioral interventions being generally more successful the earlier you do them lines up with that too.
Maybe there are "low hanging fruits", simple interventions that work well that we are yet to discover. But it's not like no one went looking. And the fact that we are yet to find them weights against it.
Agree with you and your responses in the threads elsewhere.
There seems to be a point of contention amongst the terminology for anybody with autism. Someone with autism might not see themselves as having a disorder. But there are certainly very high needs autistic individuals. Apply a whole spectrum of people as being "developed wrong" and you can start to see ableist language.
I appreciated your metaphor about cars on a highway -- and that there's something wrong with the highway, not the car. I thought it was really simple and clear and I think I got the point you were trying to make. And even if it the highway isn't wrong (it was made for cars after all), we should at least extend it to support many types of transportation.
If you think that, then, it's clear that you won the autism lottery.
The ones who weren't so lucky, and got the short straw? They would die without a caretaker to take care of them.
Even among the less severely afflicted: I'm sure there are people who don't mind being autistic, and I'm also sure that there are people who "don't mind being autistic". The difference between the two being: if there somehow was an easy cure, the former wouldn't go for it, but the latter would jump at the possibility. Because their "don't mind" was never anything more than cope. Same as what happened to body positivity in the face of Ozempic.
This comment sparked curiosity about the distribution of support needs among autistic people. My hypothesis is those people with high support needs are in the minority and those without are the plurality.
After digging into it, the hypothesis holds. Most autistic people win this lottery you speak of.
Roughly 25–35% of diagnosed autistic people require substantial, ongoing support (e.g., daily assistance, supervised living, or full-time caregiving).
About 30–40% have co-occurring intellectual disability, which strongly correlates with higher support needs.
Roughly 60–75% do not have intellectual disability. Many in this group: Live independently or semi-independently. Work (often underemployed). Mask heavily and are diagnosed late—or never diagnosed.
Would you have guessed that "1/4 to 1/3 of diagnosed autists need ongoing support" off the top of your head?
Probably not. Because self-selection is doing its work. Out of 10 autistic people you know, ~0 are going to be in the "supervised living" category. They exist - you just don't see them.
Not that it's about me but my guess was 20%, 1/5, not far off from 1/4. I know and am close to many autistic people, those with and without high support needs. That estimate is of diagnosed people. Many autistic people are undiagnosed, therefore not in these numbers. There's increasing evidence autism affects all genders equally yet women have been under diagnosed.
Anyway, the core assertion holds. The framing and thinking of autism as a disorder of a brain that developed wrong is out-dated and incorrect. We could also frame the neurotypical brain as wrong for modern society because it evolved to ensure the survival of humans. For example, the typical brain evolved sophisticated fight or flight responses, and efficient pattern matching to quickly respond to physical threats. Both are "wrong" for modern society and civilization because they're rarely necessary for survival and they confound reason and thoughtful analysis.
It's also a fact human intelligence has evolved significantly faster than human physiology. Those people who win the autism lottery, are successful in life, and ultimately have children will contribute to an increase of the proportion of lottery winners in subsequent generations.
Given this new information, better to examine neurological differences rather than focusing on winners and losers, right and wrong.
OK well let us then not call it winning a lottery, let's call the negatively affected ones getting run down by a car. That's better! People who did not get run down by cars have it pretty good, no matter if they like to wear certain clothes or have hyperfocus on hobbies it's all pretty good stuff, but the ones who got run down by cars and then the car turned around and went over them a couple extra times, they don't have it that good.
It's not very helpful to say if someone has been run down by a car that they just have different highway experiences than people who were not run down by cars. Their difference is a significant problem, because they have been run down by a car and it hurts.
I agree with you and I’m struggling to see how my reply wasn’t helpful. I’m saying those people who get run over by a car in this analogy shouldn’t be run over by cars on the highway. I look at what’s wrong with the highway. I don’t believe the sole primary reason people get run over in this analogy is because their brain developed wrong.
More that their brain developed differently and our current highway system is incompatible with that difference.
The highway system can and should change just as we individuals can and should try to change our minds in areas where it makes sense to do so.
My preferred analogy is that all neurodivergent people are playing the game of life at least on hard mode. Some are playing on ultra hard mode. Some are playing on impossible mode.
As it relates to treatment, the goal is to help a person live as close to typical difficulty as possible. Same goal for accommodations extended to the person by society.
it's fine I guess. but the thing really is that there are two different problem levels, and it seems almost always that any discussion of autism only focuses on one or the other problem level.
So if people discuss the getting run down by car problem level the people who have an "I'm different" problem level feel as if they are being insulted, and if people discuss the "I'm different" problem level the people who care for the people who have been run down by cars feel like... well, insulted would probably be the least of it.
For my part I'm obviously at the "I'm different" level and I don't feel insulted discussing the whole spectrum. Hopefully that's true for more people over time.
Edit: In retrospect I suppose the “developed wrong” language is insulting to me and the boundary is just beyond the idea of “different”
I suppose then the request is for those people caring for autistic people who are so different life is impossible to live without care to view the concept of “different” as a spectrum too. Not wrong.
> Same as what happened to body positivity in the face of Ozempic.
I have definite feelings about this exchange on autism, which are being hashed out reasonably without my input. But the Ozempic reference is super interesting. I hope some smart person looks into that particular "correction" vs. "coping" dichotomy at some point in the future.
"Compensatory approaches" is what the behavioral interventions for autism are. No silver bullet, but it does help, and it's often well worth the effort.
A timely well executed intervention may make the difference between "needs a caretaker" and a mere "struggles in life". But it's not going to negate all of the damage.
Gene therapies I have little hope for. Maybe something there may help. But the impression I get is that it's less of a "fix biochemical deficits" issue, and more of an "unwire and rewire existing neural circuits" issue. We have no fucking clue on how to do that. And to sidestep that, you'd have to intervene early - maybe as early as "remove genetic predispositions in an embryo".
