What are your thoughts on the Intense World Theory?

Post Reply New Topic

I read an article online recently. There is this idea that people on the autism spectrum have hyper-charged brains, meaning that our brains are hyper-sensitive to external stimuli, thus certain parts of our brains are more active than the NT population. Because our brains are so sensitive to the stimuli, neurologists claim we, as autistic people, from an early age, tend to go into social withdrawal. This means that we go into "our own little worlds" to feel "safe" from the stimuli, which causes us to fall behind from our NT peers when it comes to social skills. This is why it's called "The Intense World" theory; basically, our world is too intense sensory-wise for us to develop at the same rate as our peers. Interestingly, because of this, neurologists think autistic people may be HYPER-FUNCTIONAL. Our brains may have much more potential than some may think; in my opinion we MAY very well be completely capable of developing average to ABOVE average social skills. What makes it difficult is the fact that our sensory-integration issues get in the way, which could be why autistic people tend to avoid eye contact, display socially awkward body language (slouching, crossing arms, looking in other direction or having body turned other way when speaking), and in addition, this can explain the generally higher rates of anxiety in autistic individuals as opposed to NT individuals. It just takes a lot of more effort for us to use the appropriate body language because of our sensory-integration issues and/or social anxiety triggering our hyper-awareness of ourselves. I think this theory is at least partly true. What do you guys think?

Yes, it makes sense.

This is doing my head in a little bit to try to think about. Some of the thoughts:

"Social skills" are the skills required to get along socially with the majority of others, that is, you behave in ways that suit the social needs of the average (NT) person.

If the majority of people were like me, then I think my way of socialising would be the most "skilled" way, and it would be the "under-stimulated" people who would would have to learn "social skills" in order to fit in with us. What I mean is that I don't really have much of a problem with how I naturally want to interact with others, it's just that it doesn't work so well in this society. If we were all "over-stimulated" then I think interactions would be easier the way I naturally undertake them.

So, I don't see "developing average to above average social skills" as necessarily an all-round desirable achievement. It is using our hyper-functional brains to learn to do things in a way that fits in with the majority, but perhaps there's nothing innately wrong with the way do things already.

A comparison might be something like: Imagine someone who has amazing innate talent as an engineer, that's how their mind works. But the world as it stands has little need for engineers (yeah okay work with me here ) and so the smart thing to do to be successful in business is for this person to be a car salesperson instead. They manage to learn the skills to become a really good salesman and they appear to be getting on swimmingly in the vocational world. Sure, you could call this a great achievement, but they missed out on using their natural abilities just because those weren't useful in their society.

I'm not sure I'm expressing what I'm trying to say very well. I'm enjoying thinking about it though

It's been my default way of explaining how my brain works since I first learned of it. It just seems so intuitive.

I elaborated much further about it a few months ago, but I really don't have much to add beyond that at this time.

...2

It is by far the best explanation of autism I have ever read about. It also explains why, despite my being an emotional robot, my eyes leak uncontrollably during Disney movies I watch with my daughter.

i have always been taught that was true even 20 years ago.never knew it was a theory,always thought it was fact