Using words as stimming?

Sounds like it could be Tourette's syndrome? Which can be an extension of autism. 

Autistic children will appear to mature slower than their peers socially due to a language difference. But in reality, we simply learn and grow in different ways. However, because we're just not wired as well for Left-lobe social linguistics, there is a great deal of social nuance we miss. words can be utility rather than symbolic. If we see a peer using a word, we won't catch the seemingly invisible language with it, just the external action and reaction in that moment, so we won't have the full context for how and when it's used. To note, we might be much better with creative right-brain thinking. 

Anxiety can be biological for Autistics, as there been a great deal of study on how we develop with less inhibition neurologically. (GABA) This means the mechanism responsible for a sense of calm, or inhibiting out of control-excited thinking  is weakened  This same mechanism is responsible for gut balance, for filtering out sensory perception and all sorts. While I've found a nootropics supplement with Lion's Mane to help boost this, it has had to be part of my diet as a lifestyle. I've been taking these for nearly 15 years and they really help. On the occasion when something is really exciting and looping (I sometimes can't stop symphonic loops or immersion in everything needed for artistic projects), I will opt for medical grade anti-anxiety drug for an extra boost, help which friends who are epileptics might take daily.

JuniperFromGallifrey said:

Sounds like it could be Tourette's syndrome? Which can be an extension of autism. 

I meant something like in addition, except there are links between the two. This PDF calls Autism a disorder, which it's not. It's a different ordering of how ones biology is 'wired' and while one might have added disabilities and difficulty with cultural social linguistics we can also simply be disabled by society in ways which might not have been present in another timeline. Added disabilities, such as impaired control is similar to ADHD or epilepsy. But the few fundamental values responsible for Autistic development can be found ADHD and other "spectrum differences', one of which is Tourette's, such as what's happening at the neurological level of our Salience Network, Inhibitors and Signalling.  :)

To clarify: I am not saying genuine struggles don't exist. They do. 

But in a reverse situation, a society built for Autistics, we would have schools designed with an emphasis on learning how we do best, promoting what is typical for us and others would find themselves 'disabled'. We might not worry about essays, but find other ways to make sure we understand. We might allot more time for play as immersive learning. This is why I say it's a difference. Some would still have added disabilities, just like the Typical 'type' can also have added disabilities. 

Firstly in reply to 

Bunny said:

the DSM-5 (primarily American

The authors of the DSM specifically state it is a set of guidelines subject to flux. It is a tool for gauging but not doctrine. They're very clear about this. Second, American funded research is trailing behind other countries at this point due to how the system works. 

I'd start with this woman who's retired annsautism.blogspot.com/.../autism-some-vital-research-links.html and peels through autism research to see what's really being 'researched'. The ethics and the poor science.

Francesca Happé is the closest IMO to someone who isn't Autistic but is starting to notice how it is a difference rather than a disability. More recent videos are quite good, she's at Kings College.

While I don't have time right now to go into detail, I'd start with Grunya Sukhareva and ask why she was ignored pre-Kanner. She noticed some kids were simply different, while some had added disabilities. She was able to teach them in ways which were  more suitable to our learning style and integrate these children into society with great success. This model sits with Jung's personality differences, which also entail soft polarities in learning and understanding. Out of these he noticed a particular type, which is aligned with a fundamental communication difference in Autism Lacan also noticed. But these early theories support the Evolutionary Advantage to not catching social linguistics, being hyper sensory and so forth. This chap has a good blog about this autcollab.org/.../

You can start to explore what the basis of "normal" is as per Freud, and diverge from there. From Jung to Erich Fromm, onto Lacan and then the push back from the anti-psychiatry fields, where I would guess many were Divergent. 

And then into the present. Where many - especially females - are somehow overlooked. From the Bayesian Theory to Monotropism, before neuroscience was where it is today, many theories support a slightly different biology which, as mentioned, doesn't take to social-linguistic programming and happen to have executive function difficulty. But what are the up sides? We (me, included) can't have it all. The more heavy right brain (Iain McGilchrist) thinkers aren't 'time blind'. That side simply has a different perspective of time and now physics is asking if time even exists. All the latest research on Au's and ADHDs would back up the main difference in development (in utero): less inhibition. Thus, taking supplements for the building blocks for these is helpful. It doesn't change how anyone thinks ore relates, but rather, provides grounding and an ability to grow into their being. 

There are so many details that are not being connected in the 'science' because of this Typical obsession with behaviour and a blinding bias: which cherry picks Freud while pretending not to. Think of it like this: All living humans have a heart, brain, a working system. Then genetics plays a role in sub-groups of differences. And we can also have added disabilities and individual traits which make us unique. But what was different 50 years ago to where it appears as if Autism is on the 'rise'? Where were all of these disabled persons then? They were just considered different. 

Firstly in reply to 

Bunny said:

the DSM-5 (primarily American

The authors of the DSM specifically state it is a set of guidelines subject to flux. It is a tool for gauging but not doctrine. They're very clear about this. Second, American funded research is trailing behind other countries at this point due to how the system works. 

I'd start with this woman who's retired annsautism.blogspot.com/.../autism-some-vital-research-links.html and peels through autism research to see what's really being 'researched'. The ethics and the poor science.

Francesca Happé is the closest IMO to someone who isn't Autistic but is starting to notice how it is a difference rather than a disability. More recent videos are quite good, she's at Kings College.

While I don't have time right now to go into detail, I'd start with Grunya Sukhareva and ask why she was ignored pre-Kanner. She noticed some kids were simply different, while some had added disabilities. She was able to teach them in ways which were  more suitable to our learning style and integrate these children into society with great success. This model sits with Jung's personality differences, which also entail soft polarities in learning and understanding. Out of these he noticed a particular type, which is aligned with a fundamental communication difference in Autism Lacan also noticed. But these early theories support the Evolutionary Advantage to not catching social linguistics, being hyper sensory and so forth. This chap has a good blog about this autcollab.org/.../

You can start to explore what the basis of "normal" is as per Freud, and diverge from there. From Jung to Erich Fromm, onto Lacan and then the push back from the anti-psychiatry fields, where I would guess many were Divergent. 

And then into the present. Where many - especially females - are somehow overlooked. From the Bayesian Theory to Monotropism, before neuroscience was where it is today, many theories support a slightly different biology which, as mentioned, doesn't take to social-linguistic programming and happen to have executive function difficulty. But what are the up sides? We (me, included) can't have it all. The more heavy right brain (Iain McGilchrist) thinkers aren't 'time blind'. That side simply has a different perspective of time and now physics is asking if time even exists. All the latest research on Au's and ADHDs would back up the main difference in development (in utero): less inhibition. Thus, taking supplements for the building blocks for these is helpful. It doesn't change how anyone thinks ore relates, but rather, provides grounding and an ability to grow into their being. 

There are so many details that are not being connected in the 'science' because of this Typical obsession with behaviour and a blinding bias: which cherry picks Freud while pretending not to. Think of it like this: All living humans have a heart, brain, a working system. Then genetics plays a role in sub-groups of differences. And we can also have added disabilities and individual traits which make us unique. But what was different 50 years ago to where it appears as if Autism is on the 'rise'? Where were all of these disabled persons then? They were just considered different. 

To clarify: I am not saying genuine struggles don't exist. They do. 

But in a reverse situation, a society built for Autistics, we would have schools designed with an emphasis on learning how we do best, promoting what is typical for us and others would find themselves 'disabled'. We might not worry about essays, but find other ways to make sure we understand. We might allot more time for play as immersive learning. This is why I say it's a difference. Some would still have added disabilities, just like the Typical 'type' can also have added disabilities.