Share Publicly

I don't fully agree with what you are saying. Many autistic people are hyper-vigilant towards societal norms, and are ultra-compliant. I think that there are very few people, autistic or allistic. who choose authenticity over 'fitting in', that is if they have the ability to modify their behaviour. Authenticity might be an aspiration, but it is not a reality for most.

Martin,

I’m not after an argument, I just want you to know I’m not the only one who’s proposed this theory.

link.springer.com/.../s11019-019-09909-3

If you propose a theory you have to be prepared to defend it, that is how science, including psychology, works. Though this is probably more philosophically based.

Humans live in societies, and if anyone wants to thrive in a society they have to adhere to societal norms, which are obviously created by those in the majority. While autonomy should be a goal for everyone, all people are forced by the pressures of society into behaving in non-authentic ways. If everyone behaved authentically, just like if everyone was entirely truthful, then society would break down into chaos.

It's sad you can't see how society is influencing your choices, it's Operant Conditioning, A > B > C.

Antecedent, Behaviour, Consequence

What makes you want to mask? You've confessed to meet societal standards and what you see as success (extrinsic motivators), the society's expectations make you mask which is the society influencing your choice to mask. All choices come from within, that doesn't mean you chose through intrinsic motivation. 

Why are you changing the subject?

You don't know Pavlov did Classical Conditioning. 

You don't know B. F. Skinner did Operant Conditioning. 

You don't seem to know there's synapses in the nervous system that is the body's main communicater, including communicating with the brain through the spinal chord.

This is not about dementia or alzheimer's disease and you still haven't defined the behaviours, achievement, and appearance of your normal human.

Just to correct you, a synapse is not a connection between neurons, the synapse is a small gap in between neurons, there's receptors on the dendrites of the next neuron and they will only receive some of the neurotransmitters released from the vesicles of the prior neuron. The neurotransmitters that are not received will be relay neurons and some neurotransmitters are inhibitory and others excitatory.

The brain is not in essence self, you're very deterministic and reductionist claiming we have no free will and say the opposite in the same response. You're clearly mixing things up as you didn't even know what a synapse is. The human is not so elementary as you're describing it.

Self is developmental, if the brain was in essence self you would never stop changing, you would be a different self day after day as cell's in the brain die and new cells generate. Personality is not genetic, we create our personality which is why we can change at our own choice, freedom of choice is involved with personality, freedom of choice is something science can't explain. You're doing scientism once again, science cannot explain personality as it is subjective, which is why the humanistic approach in psychology is not considered scientific.

You've made science fictional claims on every one of your responses, you have a great love for scientism, your science fictional claims, errors, and scientism don't refute anything. It's all your scientism that is not at all useful, for the note, you didn't even know what scientism is. 

Daniel said:

There is no difference between the authentic autistic self and authentic allistic self, it's to do with variation in neurocognitive functioning, I assume you know an autistic person's brain functions differently to a nonautistic brain. 

The self is shaped by genetic, psychological and cultural factors. But it is synapses, the connections between neurons in the brain, where our selves are stored. Damage to the brain, or dementia alters brain function and behaviour and alters the self. Anyone who has known a person with Alzheimer's realises that with brain impairment there is concomitant degradation of personality - in other words, 'self'.  

So in essence, brain = self. Therefore autistic and allistics selves are different and your hypothesis is not all that useful.

Daniel said:

You are against your own definition from the dictionary of willfully. If you were doing things self-willed the society and extrinsic motivators would have no influence on your choices.

No! The choice is is internal, I can choose to camouflage and be successful, or I can choose to be overtly autistic, and, sadly, be less successful. The choice is entirely mine, there is no extrinsic influence from society on my choice. In essence, it is a choice between short-term comfort, through being overtly autistic, and long term goals, only achievable through camouflaging. 

There is no difference between the authentic autistic self and authentic allistic self, it's to do with variation in neurocognitive functioning, I assume you know an autistic person's brain functions differently to a nonautistic brain. 

You are against your own definition from the dictionary of willfully. If you were doing things self-willed the society and extrinsic motivators would have no influence on your choices. Where you've brought up things like careers, you changing to that state is not self-willed as it is not determined by you, your behaviour is determined by society making your masking society-willed. Masking is also reductionism as it limits your behaviour, and self-willed people don't have their behaviour limited by social demands and pressure. 

You still avoid answering my question! Is there a difference between the 'autistic authentic self' and the 'allistic authentic self'?! If there is, your hypothesis is not useful,

Daniel said:

ou've just confessed I'm correct that you don't willfully mask, if you masked through intrinsic motivation it would not come at a cost nor involve anything external. Instrisic motivation is made out of autonomy, belonging, and competence. You're destroying autonomy by masking. 

You need to define your use of the word 'willfully', because it does not coincide with mine. Mine, which coincides with dictionary definitions, is: "Obstinately and often perversely self-willed".

You've just confessed I'm correct that you don't willfully mask, if you masked through intrinsic motivation it would not come at a cost nor involve anything external. Instrisic motivation is made out of autonomy, belonging, and competence. You're destroying autonomy by masking. 

Classical Conditioning and Operant Conditioning are not all about rewards and punishments. Operant Conditioning is to do with consequences in general, Classical Conditioning is about association. Just because two things have something in common doesn't mean there's no difference. I suggest you research the two and ABA.

You still haven't provided a single scientific answer to your belief in the "normal" human.

Concerning your "authentic autistic self". What makes an authentic autistic self any more unacceptable than an allistic authentic self when you can't even define a "normal" human?

Once again, it's all about your views and opinions, scientism. 

Daniel said:

You confessed you mask your autism due to extrinsic motivators, that demonstrates you don't mask willfully, if you did it willfully it would be through intrinsic motivation. 

Ivan Pavlov has nothing to do with ABA, Ole Ivar Lovaas based ABA on the work of B. F. Skinner, Operant Conditioning, not learning by association. ABA has never done stimulus generalisation. 

I do not understand your use of the word 'wilfully' here. Are you implying 'by choice'? I camouflage by choice, because camouflaging is an imperative strategy to get what I want. I put up with the downsides of camouflaging because they are bearable, and are not nearly as important as my goals and the advantages gained by appearing to be neurotypical - intrinsic motivation in your jargon. I am choosing as an act of free will to do this. I am under no external compulsion, my compulsion is intrinsic, originating in my desire to achieve.

Pavlov used the theory of 'reward and punishment' to condition dogs. ABA uses reward and punishment to make autistic children act in certain ways, otherwise known as conditioning. There is no fundamental difference between the two approaches.

I do not admit that anything is ultimately inexplicable by science. Even altruism has an evolutionary basis.

This is all largely irrelevant - what I would like you to do is answer my earlier question:

"What I do not understand about your hypothesis is whether you consider that the difference between allistic people and autistic people is solely that of a greater willingness/desire/compulsion to be their authentic selves in the latter, or that the nature of the 'authentic self' differs between the two groups?"

This cuts to the heart of what I find perplexing about your hypothesis.

My questions and the conclusions they suggest to me repeated in full, for your convenience:  

"What I do not understand about your hypothesis is whether you consider that the difference between allistic people and autistic people is solely that of a greater willingness/desire/compulsion to be their authentic selves in the latter, or that the nature of the 'authentic self' differs between the two groups? If the former, then the 'authentic allistic self' would be indistinguishable from that of the 'authentic autistic self'. To put it another way, are you suggesting that allistic people have a mental or neurological block preventing them from being autistic, that autistic people do not possess? This would imply that the natural condition of all humans is to be autistic. If this is not what you mean, then the difference between the 'authentic autistic self' and the 'authentic allistic self' must have an underlying cause, presumably neurological and presumably expressed in altered behaviour. If the latter is true, it would tend to negate your assertion that the major difference between autistic and allistic people is based on altered levels of willingness to be 'authentic'.

Scientism is where you're trying to provide scientific explanations to things beyond the lense and limitations of science. 

You're not the first one I've asked to define normal and successful, but guess what, you're definitions are subjective proving they are not scientific and you are claiming they are, scientism, not science. You even confessed in your response they're your views, as already said, points of views and opinions are not to be involved with science. 

You confessed you mask your autism due to extrinsic motivators, that demonstrates you don't mask willfully, if you did it willfully it would be through intrinsic motivation. 

Ivan Pavlov has nothing to do with ABA, Ole Ivar Lovaas based ABA on the work of B. F. Skinner, Operant Conditioning, not learning by association. ABA has never done stimulus generalisation. 

There is no valid scientific basis behind the idea of a normal human or normal brain as no one fits the average and you failed to provide the systematic procedures to test whether a behaviour is to be defined as normal or abnormal, you provided subjective data again which is more scientism and you did not define the normal human. It is an undeniable fact that all humans are diverse in nearly all ways. Science does not support the claim that healthy development is defined in terms of self sufficiency as self sufficiency is based on points of view and opinions. The only reason people believe in developmental delay is because they've created a model with no tangible existence and they compare all humans to the nonexistent model made out of statistical artifacts when science is meant to be based on something with a tangible existence. 

If you would put thought into the idea of a normal human you would realise you are trying to prevent human evolution which is flawed. 

Daniel said:

Why are you doing scientism if you want a scientific debate?

I have not a clue what you mean by this. What is 'scientism', is it even a word? I am a scientist by profession, so I look at the world through a scientific lens. I notice that you referenced a paper, that was at least quasi scientific, to support your views. So to accuse me of being overly scientific - which is what I take your sentence to imply - seems like the application of double standards to me.

"No they won’t wilfully mask ,,,", you say. I do not agree at all. Speaking for myself, I have masked, or more correctly 'camouflaged', all my life. I did and do so for the reason that I want to 'fit in' and be successful in society. I remember being a little too open, truthful and 'authentic' in a job interview, one of two interviews, following two written tests and a written response to a hypothetical scenario, I did not get the job. I am sure that this was because I was too authentic.

My likening ABA to Pavlov's experiments on conditioning dogs - bell rings, dogs salivate - should be enough of a hint that I do not agree with it. Why bring it up again?

Normal? It is, of course easier to define 'not normal', in the case of what society expects. This is true for any society, from the Maasai to the Amish; that which is not normal is that which the majority deems to be not normal. My increasing anxiety and desire to lash out at people, or run away, when in crowded situations is not normal, as the majority of people in my society do not find being in crowds stressful. Rocking and hand flapping are also 'not normal' because the majority of people do not do these things, and many find seeing them disturbing to some degree. Of course I do not see such autistic behaviours as being harmful, and the world would be a better place if the majority would accept them. However, even acceptance would not make them 'normal behaviours'.

I think success in society is quite easy to outline. The vast majority of humans, not all admittedly, would like an adequate income, to have a comfortable and stable place to live, to have a significant romantic relationship, to have a family of some sort, and to have a beneficial effect, however small, on the lives of others. These embody success in society for most people, being a millionaire, rock/film star, major politician are, for obvious reasons, out of the remit of the 'vast majority'.

I asked pertinent questions in my last post, concerning the nature of your hypothesis, which you have not addressed in any way. Please do so if you wish to defend it.

No they won’t wilfully mask, that’s why the neurodiversity movement occurred, it is a political civil rights movement demanding to encompass more acceptance and variation in human biological differences in cognition, genes and other neurodivergent conditions, to reconsider the way we view “normal functioning”.

ABA is already restricted from altering and stopping autistic “traits” to let autistic people be autistic, the same in schools. Nonautistic people mask, why don’t they pay the same price of damaging mental health and is actually a healthy response for nonautistic people, while it is an unhealthy response for autistic people? What does that tell us?

Why are you doing scientism if you want a scientific debate?

What is your systematic formula to provide objective evidence of what “normal” is? Culture to culture behave differently, so which person of which culture is “normal”? Don’t you realise “normal” is based on opinions and points of view which are not to be included in science? Don’t you realise you’re doing politics? “Successful in society.” Define successful in society, you’ll give various answers to other people making it subjective which makes your answer unscientific.

Defining “normality” and “success” is beyond the limitations of science.

Daniel said:

Ok, I will defend it even though I said I were not after an argument.

Defending a theory from a critique is not an argument, it is a debate.

I was not talking about ABA, but about autistic people wanting to be functional in society as it is, not about Pavlovian conditioning. I think that every autistic person who is capable of masking or camouflaging in order to function in society, which is in many ways inimical to them, will do so. That this usually comes at a cost in exhaustion, anxiety and poor mental health is exceedingly unfortunate, but I think that autistic people will tend to pay the price if they are able to do so. 

While I agree that society, as it is, disables autistic people and that legislation and social engineering can and should help to change society, I do not think that a radical change to the prejudice that the majority of people feel towards behavioural transgressions from the norm is likely, as some negative reactions are evolutionarily hard-wired. If being authentically autistic means that you do not get the job, the promotion, or a romantic partner, autistic people will continue to camouflage and be inauthentic to the limits of their abilities. Do not misunderstand me, being able to be authentic would be a good thing from the point of view of the health and comfort of the individual, but it would be to their detriment if they wish to be successful in society.

What I do not understand about your hypothesis is whether you consider that the difference between allistic people and autistic people is solely that of a greater willingness/desire/compulsion to be their authentic selves in the latter, or that the nature of the 'authentic self' differs between the two groups? If the former, then the 'authentic allistic self' would be indistinguishable from that of the 'authentic autistic self'. To put it another way, are you suggesting that allistic people have a mental or neurological block preventing them from being autistic, that autistic people do not possess? This would imply that the natural condition of all humans is to be autistic. If this is not what you mean, then the difference between the 'authentic autistic self' and the 'authentic allistic self' must have an underlying cause, presumably neurological and presumably expressed in altered behaviour. If the latter is true, it would tend to negate your assertion that the major difference between autistic and allistic people is based on altered levels of willingness to be 'authentic'.

Ok, I will defend it even though I said I were not after an argument.

We have witnessed that when ABA forces autistic people to pretend to be someone they’re not stress, anxiety and depression increase.

When cognitive dissonance occurs autistic people head in the opposite direction to nonautistic people. 

Autism self advocacy groups, The Neurodiversity Movement lead by autistic people, autistic people themselves, are demanding the right to be authentically autistic. 

It’s been observed autistic people go by their own perspectives and are less likely to adopt another’s perspective.

It’s been observed in many studies autistic people are more reflective on the desirability of social norms, and whether they want to conform or not.

It’s been observed autistic people are not as prone to social influences compared to nonautistic people. 

Aren’t all these signs of authenticity, living by one’s own values, not internalising what one disagrees with.

To take things further, I’ll turn to the wishful “cures”. All these “cures” do seem to make differences perceived as autism being cured, we know autism is not curable so what is being cured? If these “symptoms” are actually part of autism shouldn’t they be with us every second as the autism is? Physiologists have said they have just associated things like sensory issues with autism, if they reduce or stop all they’ve associated with autism the autism will still be there, but the symptoms won’t, so how will autism be characterised? What will the autism be?

I am never pressured into behaving in unauthentic ways, obedience is not the same as conformity and if a person wants to be obedient obedience is authentic behaviour. If everyone in society followed the social norm the world would still be practicing slavery, fewer rights for women, LGBTQ+ traditionally classified diseases, gay marriage restricted, death sentences, children getting physically beaten up as punishment etc…

They were all societal norms, if everyone conformed to it, if no one opposed them we would still be living that way. Isn’t society catastrophic today, all the poverty, homeless, drug abuse, surrounded by pornography, no shared moral framework in society, just individualism. Since everything is determined by the norm, what does all the turmoil and strife in the world tell us about the societal norms?

Ok, I will defend it even though I said I were not after an argument.

We have witnessed that when ABA forces autistic people to pretend to be someone they’re not stress, anxiety and depression increase.

When cognitive dissonance occurs autistic people head in the opposite direction to nonautistic people. 

Autism self advocacy groups, The Neurodiversity Movement lead by autistic people, autistic people themselves, are demanding the right to be authentically autistic. 

It’s been observed autistic people go by their own perspectives and are less likely to adopt another’s perspective.

It’s been observed in many studies autistic people are more reflective on the desirability of social norms, and whether they want to conform or not.

It’s been observed autistic people are not as prone to social influences compared to nonautistic people. 

Aren’t all these signs of authenticity, living by one’s own values, not internalising what one disagrees with.

To take things further, I’ll turn to the wishful “cures”. All these “cures” do seem to make differences perceived as autism being cured, we know autism is not curable so what is being cured? If these “symptoms” are actually part of autism shouldn’t they be with us every second as the autism is? Physiologists have said they have just associated things like sensory issues with autism, if they reduce or stop all they’ve associated with autism the autism will still be there, but the symptoms won’t, so how will autism be characterised? What will the autism be?

I am never pressured into behaving in unauthentic ways, obedience is not the same as conformity and if a person wants to be obedient obedience is authentic behaviour. If everyone in society followed the social norm the world would still be practicing slavery, fewer rights for women, LGBTQ+ traditionally classified diseases, gay marriage restricted, death sentences, children getting physically beaten up as punishment etc…

They were all societal norms, if everyone conformed to it, if no one opposed them we would still be living that way. Isn’t society catastrophic today, all the poverty, homeless, drug abuse, surrounded by pornography, no shared moral framework in society, just individualism. Since everything is determined by the norm, what does all the turmoil and strife in the world tell us about the societal norms?

It's sad you can't see how society is influencing your choices, it's Operant Conditioning, A > B > C.

Antecedent, Behaviour, Consequence

What makes you want to mask? You've confessed to meet societal standards and what you see as success (extrinsic motivators), the society's expectations make you mask which is the society influencing your choice to mask. All choices come from within, that doesn't mean you chose through intrinsic motivation. 

Why are you changing the subject?

You don't know Pavlov did Classical Conditioning. 

You don't know B. F. Skinner did Operant Conditioning. 

You don't seem to know there's synapses in the nervous system that is the body's main communicater, including communicating with the brain through the spinal chord.

This is not about dementia or alzheimer's disease and you still haven't defined the behaviours, achievement, and appearance of your normal human.

Just to correct you, a synapse is not a connection between neurons, the synapse is a small gap in between neurons, there's receptors on the dendrites of the next neuron and they will only receive some of the neurotransmitters released from the vesicles of the prior neuron. The neurotransmitters that are not received will be relay neurons and some neurotransmitters are inhibitory and others excitatory.

The brain is not in essence self, you're very deterministic and reductionist claiming we have no free will and say the opposite in the same response. You're clearly mixing things up as you didn't even know what a synapse is. The human is not so elementary as you're describing it.

Self is developmental, if the brain was in essence self you would never stop changing, you would be a different self day after day as cell's in the brain die and new cells generate. Personality is not genetic, we create our personality which is why we can change at our own choice, freedom of choice is involved with personality, freedom of choice is something science can't explain. You're doing scientism once again, science cannot explain personality as it is subjective, which is why the humanistic approach in psychology is not considered scientific.

You've made science fictional claims on every one of your responses, you have a great love for scientism, your science fictional claims, errors, and scientism don't refute anything. It's all your scientism that is not at all useful, for the note, you didn't even know what scientism is. 

Daniel said:

There is no difference between the authentic autistic self and authentic allistic self, it's to do with variation in neurocognitive functioning, I assume you know an autistic person's brain functions differently to a nonautistic brain. 

The self is shaped by genetic, psychological and cultural factors. But it is synapses, the connections between neurons in the brain, where our selves are stored. Damage to the brain, or dementia alters brain function and behaviour and alters the self. Anyone who has known a person with Alzheimer's realises that with brain impairment there is concomitant degradation of personality - in other words, 'self'.  

So in essence, brain = self. Therefore autistic and allistics selves are different and your hypothesis is not all that useful.

Daniel said:

You are against your own definition from the dictionary of willfully. If you were doing things self-willed the society and extrinsic motivators would have no influence on your choices.

No! The choice is is internal, I can choose to camouflage and be successful, or I can choose to be overtly autistic, and, sadly, be less successful. The choice is entirely mine, there is no extrinsic influence from society on my choice. In essence, it is a choice between short-term comfort, through being overtly autistic, and long term goals, only achievable through camouflaging. 

There is no difference between the authentic autistic self and authentic allistic self, it's to do with variation in neurocognitive functioning, I assume you know an autistic person's brain functions differently to a nonautistic brain. 

You are against your own definition from the dictionary of willfully. If you were doing things self-willed the society and extrinsic motivators would have no influence on your choices. Where you've brought up things like careers, you changing to that state is not self-willed as it is not determined by you, your behaviour is determined by society making your masking society-willed. Masking is also reductionism as it limits your behaviour, and self-willed people don't have their behaviour limited by social demands and pressure. 

You still avoid answering my question! Is there a difference between the 'autistic authentic self' and the 'allistic authentic self'?! If there is, your hypothesis is not useful,

Daniel said:

ou've just confessed I'm correct that you don't willfully mask, if you masked through intrinsic motivation it would not come at a cost nor involve anything external. Instrisic motivation is made out of autonomy, belonging, and competence. You're destroying autonomy by masking. 

You need to define your use of the word 'willfully', because it does not coincide with mine. Mine, which coincides with dictionary definitions, is: "Obstinately and often perversely self-willed".

You've just confessed I'm correct that you don't willfully mask, if you masked through intrinsic motivation it would not come at a cost nor involve anything external. Instrisic motivation is made out of autonomy, belonging, and competence. You're destroying autonomy by masking. 

Classical Conditioning and Operant Conditioning are not all about rewards and punishments. Operant Conditioning is to do with consequences in general, Classical Conditioning is about association. Just because two things have something in common doesn't mean there's no difference. I suggest you research the two and ABA.

You still haven't provided a single scientific answer to your belief in the "normal" human.

Concerning your "authentic autistic self". What makes an authentic autistic self any more unacceptable than an allistic authentic self when you can't even define a "normal" human?

Once again, it's all about your views and opinions, scientism. 

Daniel said:

You confessed you mask your autism due to extrinsic motivators, that demonstrates you don't mask willfully, if you did it willfully it would be through intrinsic motivation. 

Ivan Pavlov has nothing to do with ABA, Ole Ivar Lovaas based ABA on the work of B. F. Skinner, Operant Conditioning, not learning by association. ABA has never done stimulus generalisation. 

I do not understand your use of the word 'wilfully' here. Are you implying 'by choice'? I camouflage by choice, because camouflaging is an imperative strategy to get what I want. I put up with the downsides of camouflaging because they are bearable, and are not nearly as important as my goals and the advantages gained by appearing to be neurotypical - intrinsic motivation in your jargon. I am choosing as an act of free will to do this. I am under no external compulsion, my compulsion is intrinsic, originating in my desire to achieve.

Pavlov used the theory of 'reward and punishment' to condition dogs. ABA uses reward and punishment to make autistic children act in certain ways, otherwise known as conditioning. There is no fundamental difference between the two approaches.

I do not admit that anything is ultimately inexplicable by science. Even altruism has an evolutionary basis.

This is all largely irrelevant - what I would like you to do is answer my earlier question:

"What I do not understand about your hypothesis is whether you consider that the difference between allistic people and autistic people is solely that of a greater willingness/desire/compulsion to be their authentic selves in the latter, or that the nature of the 'authentic self' differs between the two groups?"

This cuts to the heart of what I find perplexing about your hypothesis.

My questions and the conclusions they suggest to me repeated in full, for your convenience:  

"What I do not understand about your hypothesis is whether you consider that the difference between allistic people and autistic people is solely that of a greater willingness/desire/compulsion to be their authentic selves in the latter, or that the nature of the 'authentic self' differs between the two groups? If the former, then the 'authentic allistic self' would be indistinguishable from that of the 'authentic autistic self'. To put it another way, are you suggesting that allistic people have a mental or neurological block preventing them from being autistic, that autistic people do not possess? This would imply that the natural condition of all humans is to be autistic. If this is not what you mean, then the difference between the 'authentic autistic self' and the 'authentic allistic self' must have an underlying cause, presumably neurological and presumably expressed in altered behaviour. If the latter is true, it would tend to negate your assertion that the major difference between autistic and allistic people is based on altered levels of willingness to be 'authentic'.

Scientism is where you're trying to provide scientific explanations to things beyond the lense and limitations of science. 

You're not the first one I've asked to define normal and successful, but guess what, you're definitions are subjective proving they are not scientific and you are claiming they are, scientism, not science. You even confessed in your response they're your views, as already said, points of views and opinions are not to be involved with science. 

You confessed you mask your autism due to extrinsic motivators, that demonstrates you don't mask willfully, if you did it willfully it would be through intrinsic motivation. 

Ivan Pavlov has nothing to do with ABA, Ole Ivar Lovaas based ABA on the work of B. F. Skinner, Operant Conditioning, not learning by association. ABA has never done stimulus generalisation. 

There is no valid scientific basis behind the idea of a normal human or normal brain as no one fits the average and you failed to provide the systematic procedures to test whether a behaviour is to be defined as normal or abnormal, you provided subjective data again which is more scientism and you did not define the normal human. It is an undeniable fact that all humans are diverse in nearly all ways. Science does not support the claim that healthy development is defined in terms of self sufficiency as self sufficiency is based on points of view and opinions. The only reason people believe in developmental delay is because they've created a model with no tangible existence and they compare all humans to the nonexistent model made out of statistical artifacts when science is meant to be based on something with a tangible existence. 

If you would put thought into the idea of a normal human you would realise you are trying to prevent human evolution which is flawed. 

Daniel said:

Why are you doing scientism if you want a scientific debate?

I have not a clue what you mean by this. What is 'scientism', is it even a word? I am a scientist by profession, so I look at the world through a scientific lens. I notice that you referenced a paper, that was at least quasi scientific, to support your views. So to accuse me of being overly scientific - which is what I take your sentence to imply - seems like the application of double standards to me.

"No they won’t wilfully mask ,,,", you say. I do not agree at all. Speaking for myself, I have masked, or more correctly 'camouflaged', all my life. I did and do so for the reason that I want to 'fit in' and be successful in society. I remember being a little too open, truthful and 'authentic' in a job interview, one of two interviews, following two written tests and a written response to a hypothetical scenario, I did not get the job. I am sure that this was because I was too authentic.

My likening ABA to Pavlov's experiments on conditioning dogs - bell rings, dogs salivate - should be enough of a hint that I do not agree with it. Why bring it up again?

Normal? It is, of course easier to define 'not normal', in the case of what society expects. This is true for any society, from the Maasai to the Amish; that which is not normal is that which the majority deems to be not normal. My increasing anxiety and desire to lash out at people, or run away, when in crowded situations is not normal, as the majority of people in my society do not find being in crowds stressful. Rocking and hand flapping are also 'not normal' because the majority of people do not do these things, and many find seeing them disturbing to some degree. Of course I do not see such autistic behaviours as being harmful, and the world would be a better place if the majority would accept them. However, even acceptance would not make them 'normal behaviours'.

I think success in society is quite easy to outline. The vast majority of humans, not all admittedly, would like an adequate income, to have a comfortable and stable place to live, to have a significant romantic relationship, to have a family of some sort, and to have a beneficial effect, however small, on the lives of others. These embody success in society for most people, being a millionaire, rock/film star, major politician are, for obvious reasons, out of the remit of the 'vast majority'.

I asked pertinent questions in my last post, concerning the nature of your hypothesis, which you have not addressed in any way. Please do so if you wish to defend it.

No they won’t wilfully mask, that’s why the neurodiversity movement occurred, it is a political civil rights movement demanding to encompass more acceptance and variation in human biological differences in cognition, genes and other neurodivergent conditions, to reconsider the way we view “normal functioning”.

ABA is already restricted from altering and stopping autistic “traits” to let autistic people be autistic, the same in schools. Nonautistic people mask, why don’t they pay the same price of damaging mental health and is actually a healthy response for nonautistic people, while it is an unhealthy response for autistic people? What does that tell us?

Why are you doing scientism if you want a scientific debate?

What is your systematic formula to provide objective evidence of what “normal” is? Culture to culture behave differently, so which person of which culture is “normal”? Don’t you realise “normal” is based on opinions and points of view which are not to be included in science? Don’t you realise you’re doing politics? “Successful in society.” Define successful in society, you’ll give various answers to other people making it subjective which makes your answer unscientific.

Defining “normality” and “success” is beyond the limitations of science.

Daniel said:

Ok, I will defend it even though I said I were not after an argument.

Defending a theory from a critique is not an argument, it is a debate.

I was not talking about ABA, but about autistic people wanting to be functional in society as it is, not about Pavlovian conditioning. I think that every autistic person who is capable of masking or camouflaging in order to function in society, which is in many ways inimical to them, will do so. That this usually comes at a cost in exhaustion, anxiety and poor mental health is exceedingly unfortunate, but I think that autistic people will tend to pay the price if they are able to do so. 

While I agree that society, as it is, disables autistic people and that legislation and social engineering can and should help to change society, I do not think that a radical change to the prejudice that the majority of people feel towards behavioural transgressions from the norm is likely, as some negative reactions are evolutionarily hard-wired. If being authentically autistic means that you do not get the job, the promotion, or a romantic partner, autistic people will continue to camouflage and be inauthentic to the limits of their abilities. Do not misunderstand me, being able to be authentic would be a good thing from the point of view of the health and comfort of the individual, but it would be to their detriment if they wish to be successful in society.

What I do not understand about your hypothesis is whether you consider that the difference between allistic people and autistic people is solely that of a greater willingness/desire/compulsion to be their authentic selves in the latter, or that the nature of the 'authentic self' differs between the two groups? If the former, then the 'authentic allistic self' would be indistinguishable from that of the 'authentic autistic self'. To put it another way, are you suggesting that allistic people have a mental or neurological block preventing them from being autistic, that autistic people do not possess? This would imply that the natural condition of all humans is to be autistic. If this is not what you mean, then the difference between the 'authentic autistic self' and the 'authentic allistic self' must have an underlying cause, presumably neurological and presumably expressed in altered behaviour. If the latter is true, it would tend to negate your assertion that the major difference between autistic and allistic people is based on altered levels of willingness to be 'authentic'.