the boy whose brain could unlock autism

I've had a look at the article on the Intense World theory.

Going through it it touches on sound areas but oversimplifies others. The subject is very complex, including very varied individual manifestations, hence the enormous literature seeking explanations.

But I also detect a a lack of attention to the reasons for discounting some factors and focussing on others. Science often tries to simplify problems, and separate factors which are constants or ignorable variables, so as to test only a few specific relationships. The decisions on what to ignore are critical.

In Environmental Sciences we find the world way too complex. So research proceeds by observation and extensive testing of phenomena. I think autism is a bit like environmental science in that respect.

This Intense World is a bit like physics thinking - treating autism as a simple phenomenon, with a formulae that can be derived by excluding some variables deemed not to have an impact, and by excluding things deemed constant or random. This doesn't work for autism.

It just makes value judgements about the role of social interaction or empathy. I'd agree a lot of theories such as theory of mind don't stand up to detailed examination of many individuals. What is often lacking in these researches is real understanding of everyday lives - the test subjects are usually people receiving clinical support for complications like depression.

My own view is that people on the spectrum absorb a lot of information and have difficulty processing it. I can see the argument that this is behind break down in social interaction or stress or empathy issues, rather than these being causal.

But one theory I've read about is Digby Tantam's ideas about bandwidth. That the ability to handle the amount of information coming in is a factor, and this causes sensory overload. If the information is specific and directly usable that works well, hence highly focussed activity. Whereas NT's are better and taking in and sifting and filtering, but not as deeply focussed or analytical.

There's a lot going on. I'm wary of nice neat solutions. I wish the scientists would do more to observe people on the autistic spectrum in their daily lives, rather than small numbers of individuals in a "lab" wired to a device, like rats.

I'm reminded about the old quip - great video - shame about the music.

Don't get overawd by the big scientific fanfares. The ideas are valid, but they are selecting what they consider and what they ignore, without backing up those decisions.

Too many autism theories that look good have ended up on the scrap heap (or being used to peddle pointless cures) because they don't have enough reality.

I've had a look at the article on the Intense World theory.

Going through it it touches on sound areas but oversimplifies others. The subject is very complex, including very varied individual manifestations, hence the enormous literature seeking explanations.

But I also detect a a lack of attention to the reasons for discounting some factors and focussing on others. Science often tries to simplify problems, and separate factors which are constants or ignorable variables, so as to test only a few specific relationships. The decisions on what to ignore are critical.

In Environmental Sciences we find the world way too complex. So research proceeds by observation and extensive testing of phenomena. I think autism is a bit like environmental science in that respect.

This Intense World is a bit like physics thinking - treating autism as a simple phenomenon, with a formulae that can be derived by excluding some variables deemed not to have an impact, and by excluding things deemed constant or random. This doesn't work for autism.

It just makes value judgements about the role of social interaction or empathy. I'd agree a lot of theories such as theory of mind don't stand up to detailed examination of many individuals. What is often lacking in these researches is real understanding of everyday lives - the test subjects are usually people receiving clinical support for complications like depression.

My own view is that people on the spectrum absorb a lot of information and have difficulty processing it. I can see the argument that this is behind break down in social interaction or stress or empathy issues, rather than these being causal.

But one theory I've read about is Digby Tantam's ideas about bandwidth. That the ability to handle the amount of information coming in is a factor, and this causes sensory overload. If the information is specific and directly usable that works well, hence highly focussed activity. Whereas NT's are better and taking in and sifting and filtering, but not as deeply focussed or analytical.

There's a lot going on. I'm wary of nice neat solutions. I wish the scientists would do more to observe people on the autistic spectrum in their daily lives, rather than small numbers of individuals in a "lab" wired to a device, like rats.

I'm reminded about the old quip - great video - shame about the music.

Don't get overawd by the big scientific fanfares. The ideas are valid, but they are selecting what they consider and what they ignore, without backing up those decisions.

Too many autism theories that look good have ended up on the scrap heap (or being used to peddle pointless cures) because they don't have enough reality.