What is Autism exactly?

And reason we all remain confused, is that nobody really knows exactly.

I'm certainly no expert, but as I understand it, there are numerous physical brain differences associated with the condition, yes - but again, not fully understood currently.

There are definitely characteristics which are regarded as impairments - 'brain damage' if you must - hence the definite notion of the condition as disabling, yet there are also clear positives emerging too.

One example of this is the higher average IQ in autistics than in the general population.

Perhaps there are few other conditions that so precisely embody the idea of 'disability as difference' - every individuals ability is only defined in the context of their specific environment.

That said, our entire understanding of autism is founded upon behavioural examination - it is diagnosed behaviourally for example - making it very difficult to obtain a clear picture, and hence the strong stigmatisation of the condition.

It is rare to see articles presenting anything other than a negative slant upon the condition, such as the 'too many synapses' article that you posted to... as opposed to the neutral version of 'more synapses'.

'Neurodiverse' I would describe as a term that emerged specifically to combat the idea of autism being a disease, which was prevalent for a substantial period.

It refers to autism being within the field of acceptable natural human diversity, and a condition with positives in addition to negatives - hence the idea that any autistic individual is as 'worthwhile' as any given human being, not inherently flawed, wrong or inferior.

My personal theory is that it is a deliberately genetically triggered mutation, essentially positive at its core, but with considerable associated developmental risks.

And reason we all remain confused, is that nobody really knows exactly.

I'm certainly no expert, but as I understand it, there are numerous physical brain differences associated with the condition, yes - but again, not fully understood currently.

There are definitely characteristics which are regarded as impairments - 'brain damage' if you must - hence the definite notion of the condition as disabling, yet there are also clear positives emerging too.

One example of this is the higher average IQ in autistics than in the general population.

Perhaps there are few other conditions that so precisely embody the idea of 'disability as difference' - every individuals ability is only defined in the context of their specific environment.

That said, our entire understanding of autism is founded upon behavioural examination - it is diagnosed behaviourally for example - making it very difficult to obtain a clear picture, and hence the strong stigmatisation of the condition.

It is rare to see articles presenting anything other than a negative slant upon the condition, such as the 'too many synapses' article that you posted to... as opposed to the neutral version of 'more synapses'.

'Neurodiverse' I would describe as a term that emerged specifically to combat the idea of autism being a disease, which was prevalent for a substantial period.

It refers to autism being within the field of acceptable natural human diversity, and a condition with positives in addition to negatives - hence the idea that any autistic individual is as 'worthwhile' as any given human being, not inherently flawed, wrong or inferior.

My personal theory is that it is a deliberately genetically triggered mutation, essentially positive at its core, but with considerable associated developmental risks.