Is the Idea of the Autism Spectrum Completely Wrong?

But susceptibility to breast cancer is genetic, I don't see people worried about that. You can be too paranoid.

Knowing what you have can hardly be a bad thing. Thinking you don't have ASC and being medicated for something else has not served people well.

The alternative is to just treat ASC as a mystery and leave people to a diagnosis and treatment lottery.  Atypical presentations will just be left to struggle or worse.

I think finding a genetic cause for autism could be an extremeely double edged sword, on the one hand you've got how it could be misused and on the other how good it would be to have an objective test. But as someone earlier said, being found negative for ASC means that someone could get more appropriate help, but would they really? Especially for women, would we end up being sent back to the gynaecologist? Because thats where women with problems seem to end up, it seems the first and last port of call. IN many ways medicine hasn't moved on from the days when our wombs were thought float around our bodies and up to our brains. Or would we just get a load more inapprororiate drugs to shut us up?

Would men who tested negative, be left to the criminal (in)justice system, because "baddness" would in some way be confirmed?

Would it be that a few years later ith new techniques and research someone would come along and say 'Oh, no we made a mistake and you are autistic afterall.

Where would it leave those with ADHD and other related conditions? 

SunshineDrive said:

so not sure who’s been put in charge of research there but it seems questionable 

You may not have access to the full New Scientist article but the research that it is referring to has been peer reviewed and it is widely accepted as credible. It isn’t saying there is conclusive evidence of four sub-types. Further research is ongoing. 

SunshineDrive said:

from what they describe it actually sounds more marginalising

That’s a valid point and a concern. As some have pointed out, if we were put into subtypes what would happen to us then? We aren’t getting the right amount and type of support as it is and many aren’t getting any support. 

Oh, I see, the threads double back on themselves…. 

On a side note - I don’t understand why (for me at least) my comment starting “yes, all true” appears above you’re comment starting “the problem is…” when at other times the comments appear in chronological order…. 

Yes, all true. 

I suppose I was thinking more about environmental and societal changes that improve quality of life for autistic people…. rather than tinkering with the intrapsychic psychology and coping mechanisms of the autistic person…. 

Yes, we can’t make accommodations or social shifts that will suit ALL autistics but we can start to think about heading the right directions? But maybe I am a bit of a dreamer. 

Cheese_and_Biscuits said:

researching how to directly improve quality of life of autistic people. 

The problem is everyone seems to have different issues and problems. Many also have trauma, childhood and relationship issues.

This is why people end up defining their own solutions. Counselling, information and talking is helpful, but it has to be tailored and done by informed people.

But the biggest issue is the person has to be receptive. It is not something that is done to you, it's something you've got a engage with.

I agree about the environmental elements being important (see my comment in reply to Martin’s comment).

If we could study the intersection of nature and nurture without risking eugenics (which we can’t given the amount of powerful people who aim to “cure” autism) , then it may have some benefits.

Eugenics isn’t just about tinkering scientifically with genes, it can also be putting children with particular genetic markers in camps, offering prenatal tests to screen for autism and advising abortion for the “wrong type” of autistic genetics etc. 

It’s a good point about waiting times for tests. I hadn’t thought of that. I remember a few years ago reading about a test they were developing based on stool samples - I have no idea where they are with this now. 

Ultimately we already know that autism is genetic and have identified quite a lot of genes that are likely contributory.  I believe that the limited money available would be better spent researching how to directly improve quality of life of autistic people. 

There are a few reasons:

1. You could have a non-subjective test, so diagnosis could be simpler and/or more reliable. It could also rule out ASD making other diagnoses easier. This would be an advantage as many women have been misdiagnosed in the past.
2. You could catch high masking people or diagnose earlier. Allowing more help.
3. A simpler diagnosis process would remove the backlogs.
4. It may be possible to determine what is genetic and what is nurture or circumstance.
5. It would be interesting to discover if they are people that have all the genetic markers but have no issues. This would show whether there is something more.

It isn't always the case that knowing there is a genetic component leads to something bad. I also expect that too many genes will be involved for there to be a realistic prospect of screening them out. I also think that your success or otherwise is linked to environment as much as genetics.

Moving into the commercial sector was a mistake for me. 

Great, succinct comment summarising the genetics of the situation. 

I think this may be a controversial comment I’m about to make….  I apologise for any offence it causes to anyone.

Martin, when you say “social implications” it makes me think of the attunement and caregiver attitudes that the two differing “genetic types” of autistic children receive.

I sometimes wonder if the “high risk families” raise children who are “less debilitated” by autism, in part because of the child’s genetics (as in your first paragraph) but also in part because families full of autistic people will intuitively know how to accept and parent autistic children. Maybe they are less likely to pathologise their autistic traits. Their traits might not match the society at large, but they do match the vibe of the family. So nature plus nurture or “autism plus environment” leads to (on average) less severe problems because the developmental environment is more favourable. 

Whereas the children born to “low risk families”, who don’t intuitively understand much of what it’s like to be autistic and where the autistic child may be seen as “different” to the family, are perhaps more likely to receive the implicit message that they are “hard to parent” or a “burden”. The child may receive less attuned responses from parents who (through no fault of their own) just can’t imagine what it’s like for their child. So nature plus nurture combined on average leads to more “severe problems”.

To be clear, I’m not saying this is always the case. I’m sure there are “de novo children” born to wonderful non-autistic parents who go out of their way to help their children with a sense of belonging… and conversely “inherited gene children” whose parents are unable to nurture and accept their children’s autistic traits and sense of belonging in the world (even if they share or naturally understand some of those traits). 

I’m aware I write from a position of privilege. I feel I benefitted by being parented by other autistic people and having only autistic siblings. If I was odd at school at least I did not feel odd at home. Whereas, when I watch some non-autistic parents struggle with their autistic children I feel uncomfortable about implicit messages the child may be receiving about whether they belong and whether they are basically ok. 

Someone please tell me if this comment is somehow inappropriate for this forum, I’m still a bit unsure of what goes and what doesn’t here….

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41588-025-02224-z

For information ; I believe this is the study that the pop-psychology/science articles about the four genetic categories of autism are based on. 

I have a dilemma about the genetic research. Primarily I find it intellectually very interesting…. but beyond that I can’t see the point other than for eugenics - which is not at all my bag. 

The current evidence suggests that there are two main genetic causes of autism - inherited genetic variants of small-scale DNA changes (mostly single nucleotide polymorphisms) and de novo larger-scale changes in DNA (deletions, duplications and transpositions) which tend to produce more severe problems and are less common. Individuals can have a mixture of both, but this is relatively rare.

Can two causes produce the same condition? Or do two causes imply two conditions with overlapping features?

I think that this differing etiology also has profound social implications. De novo mutations affect 'low risk families' disproportionately highly, so families with no history of autism traits suddenly produce an autistic child, and one who is more  likely to have a very deleterious presentation. This is where most of the 'autism mom syndrome' originates. 

In contrast, if 'high risk families', with a history of people with autism or people with autistic traits, produce an autistic child the child is less likely to be very debilitated by their autism and the family are more likely to be able to cope with the child's needs and differences. Or at least cope without the parents taking on the mantle of 'burning martyr'.

Autism is a spectrum. This does not mean that everyone is a bit autistic.

It means that every autistic person experiences different combinations of autistic traits and each to different intensities. It is non-linear and our ability to cope with different things varies day to day.

infact re- reading that article is strange it sounds like they want to get rid of the spectrum because it puts us under one umbrella and suggests we should be treated as different categories of autism because we’re all different but from what they describe it actually sounds more marginalising and putting us into more category pigeon holes which the spectrum actually avoids, so not sure who’s been put in charge of research there but it seems questionable 

I like the idea of these spiky profiles for all the reasons mentioned and also because it helps me personally with imposter syndrome (I don’t have some issues that are portrayed as stereotypical etc… different story I suppose) but I still find it difficult to complete these profiles because as you say „in this situation I am fine with X but in the other situation I am not“ - averaging seems a bit inaccurate then

I’ve found the Princetown Study from last July.

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41588-025-02224-z#Ack1

And this gives more detail.

https://www.simonsfoundation.org/2025/07/09/new-study-reveals-subclasses-of-autism-by-linking-traits-to-genetics/

I've not read the NS yet, so I don't know what extra information is available, like you say though, I know what I need support with, I just can't get any as there is none to be had.

I am not sure what you do with the info.

I believe NT will have segments of similar sizes giving a more circular profile, whereas ND is more spiky, but that is not new information.

I suppose you can see visually how spiky you are. And maybe where you need help. But you probably know that already.

We had a thread here some time ago where people posted theirs. They were all different of course. 

But if you find two the same, so what, do you get married?

Maybe if you have thousands of them you can see the 4 main shapes mentioned in the New Scientist article.

But are the the segments chosen the best ones to measure?

I just had a look at the one Bunny posted and I'm still none the wiser about how to use it or what use it would be to me, there's no instructions or anything with it so what's it telling me that I don't already know? Is ten high or low for example? What if many of my symptoms aren't included?

Cinnabar_wing said:

I suppose it's very autistic, but wouldn't it be awesome to have a description of each level in each segment so to be sure you can grade yourself accurately

That would be terrific. I don’t recall seeing a source that has a really detailed description, but the information must be out there somewhere. 

ArchaeC said:

I tried to complete a personalised version yesterday which required me to score each trait between 1 - 10. It was like trying to give a pain score which is practically impossible for me. 

Is this what you are referring to?

I have seen the 0 - 10 ratings converted into the 3 levels of support needs, but that made it more difficult for me to complete as the levels didn’t agree with what I needed.

I like the wheel with the colour segments that intensify. I feel the intensity when looking at the colour and can plot my experiences.